Becoming Jane (2007)

One day I'm going to write a supposedly autobiographical movie about an author solely based on her/his novels. Doesn't that seem like a good idea? That's what this is. Becoming Jane steals so much from her novels, Pride and Prejudice in particular, that it's a little absurd. The movie is a good lazy afternoon watch as long as you're not looking for a biopic and as long as you don't have a James McAvoy aversion.

Special Topics in Calamity Physics by Marisha Pessl (2006)

Apparently, I let this book sit around for about a year (nothing new) and then took about a year to read it (unusual for me)--but through no fault of the book really.

This one is Pessl's debut novel--yep, that's annoying but even more annoying is the fact that she was about my age now when it was published and two years younger when she finished writing it. The book is narrated by (and is about) a high school girl, Blue van Meer, who is uber smart and likes to reference random books to back up any and everything possible (more so in writing but she's not afraid to throw out a quote in conversation). Blue's father is a fairly brilliant professor who moves Blue around the country quite a bit. She's the perpetual new girl at school and often pays for it. But when they move for her Senior year, she's courted by Hannah, a teacher at her school, to join a group called the Bluebloods (yeah, it's a little Heathers but with a few boys tossed in the mix and remarkably fewer deaths).

The majority of the book is about Blue's integration into this group, which is a little odd given the fact that you know Hannah dies mysteriously from the beginning of the book. The actual climax of the novel happens fairly late and what was a fairly evenly paced narrative becomes frantic up to the major twist (which is never verified). After that twist, the narrative goes a little lethargic. Yes, these pace alterations mimic what's happening in the story and work in the sense that most of the book was read over a year's time but once the murder occurred, I picked up the pace. But, the denouement of the book seems overly rushed to me and the end a little clipped.

An interesting aspect of the book is that each chapter is titled after another famous piece of literature ("Sweet Bird of Youth" is the one I can remember offhand). From the books referenced that I've read, the chapter then picks up a bit on the referenced text's themes but I'm not sure how much or how effectively. And, cute but a tad cloying, the novel ends with an "exam," which gives you a few tidbits about what happened after the standard narration ends.

Overall, this is a good book worth reading but, if you want an excellent book about academia and murder, read The Secret History. Actually, just read The Secret History anyway. I might read it again.

Quantum of Solace (2008)

No, sir, I do not like it.

The Thin Man (1934)

I don't particularly care for the new trend I've developed of accumulating a list of items to blog about before I actually blog. That's no fun but it'll have to stand for a bit while my computer is in Geek Squad hospital being rehabilitated, or maybe put out of its (my) misery.

Regardless of my blogging habits, The Thin Man is a fun movie. Centred upon Nick (a private detective) and Nora (his wife) and their drinking, the two (mainly Nick) solve the mystery of a disappeared man in a Clue-like fashion. It wasn't Col Mustard in the study with a candlestick, but something similar really. And it's fun to watch Nick and Nora banter.

Ride the High Country (1962)

This one I wandered in on Joel watching. I've never seen a Sam Peckinpah western before now. Overall, I'm not a fan of westerns and this didn't change it. The film is about two aging gunslingers going on a trip for a bank (collecting gold). One is wholly honest while the other brings along a young gun in order to cheat the honest one. In the midst of things, they end up having to rescue and protect a girl from lecherous miners and having one last gun fight. It's fine but it's not my cup of tea. I just don't care about westerns. Not one bit.

Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium (2007)

I thought this movie looked cute in the previews but all of the critics hated it so I skipped it in favor of other films. But it's cute. As long as you can watch it for what it is, a cute magical fairy tale type story about a toy store, I think it's worth a watch. It's a coming-of-age story in a way. Natalie Portman's character is to inherit the toy store from Mr. Magorium but is uncertain of everything in her life. She's lost and has lost her belief that's she's worth something. So, inheriting the toy store is a test and affirmation for her because she is what must make the store magic. The story also include Jason Bateman as the accountant who must be taught to believe in magic at all and a little boy who needs to make friends in addition to Mr. Magorium (Dustin Hoffman) who is over 200 years old and is about to "depart." The store also figures in as a character as it responds to being bequeathed to Portman. It has it's inane moments but overall it's just a fun story turned into a colorful little movie.

Paths of Glory (1957)

Damn the list. This is my 222nd movie from the list. I think that almost doubles what I had to begin with--a good amount for a year, I think (especially when I've seen loads of other movies). The list comes up with some great movies but, my god, some of them are just boring. Boring. Boring. Boring. I get the higher ideals of this one--war is run by men who don't actually participate in war creating a dichotomy that sacrifices the men actually fighting--but it's not interesting and it creates a false moral dilemma. Yes, the men who run the war are corrupt and selfish and stupid in many senses but the men who fight the war are no more equipped to run the war. Robert Osborne proffered that if everyone saw this film, no one would ever wage war again. That's just nonsense. It's simply not that simple and the men who wage the wars wouldn't think themselves represented in the film. They would only see corrupt versions of themselves instead of accurate portrayals and, in some cases, they would be right. Anyway, don't bother with it unless you find yourself trying to complete some list.

Kill Bill, Vol. 1 (2003)

This is one that I like more the longer I'm away from it. Intellectually, I like this movie a lot. I like the references to a whole genre of films. I like the obvious music choices and the whole kitschy thing. But, while watching it, I was bored off my ass. Right, my ass, not Uma Thurman's ass--which I was very tired of seeing by the time the movie was over.

The Changeling (2008)

Normally, the longer I am away from a movie, the more I think it might have been ok if it was only so-so. Not so much with this one. The movie is about a mother whose son goes missing and is replaced with an impostor and the police who make the situation so much worse (and the one policeman who breaks the case). The film is gorgeous. I wish all of the clothes were in my closet. I am sorry for the mother. I dislike the policemen. I am sorry for all the other mothers and children. I bristle at the psych ward. But I don't really care. I love Jolie. I am a fan, in this film at least, of Malcovich. I like the Burn Notice guy who was the bad cop. I like Amy whosit from Gone Baby Gone. They all did a wonderful job of acting. But I don't care. Too much was thrown out with no real depth given to any of them. And I am so not a fan of Eastwood's faux-endings. I understand it's part of this story in a way but I feel he relies on them a tad too much and it just makes me tired of the whole thing by the time it ends. I'm sure it will be nominated for something. Might even win. But I don't care.

Amores Perros (2000)

Oh my. This one is heartbreaking. The basic idea is that a young guy needs money to save his brother's wife from her abusive marriage so he starts to dog fight his brother's rottweiler. Meanwhile, in a parallel plot, a young model is severely injured in a car accident which ultimately takes her leg just after her lover has left his wife for her. And, in the third plot, a semi-homeless hitman witnesses much of this and tries to reconnect with his daughter while struggling with his most recent hit assignment. The heartbreaking parts for me have nothing to do with the people but the dogs, of course. The fight scenes are horrifying. I'll never watch the film again. But the truly terrifying part is that the rottweiler, after being saved by the semi-homeless man and nursed back to health after a fight ended with a gun shot, does what he was taught to do and kills the semi-homeless man's pack of stray dogs. It's really really terrible. The poor dogs are dead but you can't be angry at the rottweiler because that's what the poor dog was taught to do. He was simply being loyal to the man who saved him. Ugh. It makes my heart hurt. The film is good. It's well done. It's important. But I can't recommend it because I can never watch it again.

Girl Meets Boy by Ali Smith (2007)

Another Canongate myth. This one is cute--not brilliant but not bad at all. It's a retelling of the myth of Iphis. I wasn't familiar with this one but it made me want to read Ovid (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iphis). Smith, I think, also manages the most literal update of the series (that I've read so far) and it works well. The classic characters have one-to-one counterparts but Smith twists it just a bit while maintaining the original story which is intriguing. The basic plot is left unchanged but characters are added which splits the original story's relationship into two. A cute quick read with a feminist political yay! individuality and owning your sexuality and fluidity of identities bent.

Helmet of Horror by Victor Pelevin (2007)

This is another of those Canongate myth books. That series is really hit and miss. Some are brilliant but others, like this one, just leaving me asking why people think this guy is such an awesome author. This one is a retelling of the Minotaur myth but in this case people are imprisoned in some sort of virtual world where they can communicate with other prisoners via an instant messenger sort of thing. The whole book is formatted as such (an im convo) but the end breaks down into nonsense. Skip it.

The Misfits (1961)

All I can say about this film is don't watch it. I'm not saying that because the film is horrible. Not because the performances are terrible. Not because the premise is absurd or the ending is a mile off track or the cinematography is vertigo-inducing. No. You can't watch this because of what can only be a few minutes of absolutely horrifying footage of lassoing a wild stallion. I don't even like horses. I never wanted a pony. I'm sort of scared of them now because they're so large. But, my god, that scene is the only thing about the movie that sticks out now. In stark black and white, in the middle of the desert, ugh. It's not something I'm likely to forget soon but I wish I could

Rushmore (1998)

I think this is one that I should have seen when it came out. It seems like Catcher in the Rye to me. If I had seen this as a freshman in college (when it came out) and read Catcher when I was 15, I'd adore both. As it stands, I read Catcher when I was in my early twenties and saw Rushmore at 29. I want to love it. I find little baby Jason Schwartzman incredibly endearing a nerdy lovable and I like the characters and the story but I can't quite get entirely on board for whatever reason. I think I'll have to settle with loving Nine Stories and Royal Tenenbaums.

Topaz (1969)

Back to Joel's Hitchcock list. This one is about Cuban missile crisis era politics as entangled with the Soviet and French governments. It's plot is a little too complicated to try to distill here but it's an ok movie. Not the best, not the worst, and entertaining enough. Of course, I guess it's not the best sign that I don't have anything else to say about it.

Zoology by Ben Dolnick (2007)

This book interested me because it was written by a child--ok so he was 24--and everyone praised it from here to Timbuktu. It's not genius. It reads as if it were written by a college kid who hasn't gotten out in the world yet, who can't figure out what he wants to do with his life, who hasn't had a serious relationship with a woman (maybe not even really gone out on a date with one), who hasn't held a job for longer than a summer during a college break . . . . Your typical college kid. If your idea of having a super fun time is having a conversation with a college freshman (yes, I know I'm docking Dolnick a few years but it's how it reads) about how he thinks the world works, then read this book. If you'd prefer reading a book about something a tad more sophisticated than a young-adult novel (AND one without anything fun like vampires, or wizards, or whatever), then give this one a skip.

The Counterfeiters (2007)

This one won the 2007 Best Foreign Film Oscar--from Austria. The award is well deserved. The movie is a brilliant look inside concentration camps of the Nazi era. We follow a counterfeiter, apparently the most brilliant counterfeiter ever, who is arrested and sent to a work camp. He is then "rescued" from certain death and transferred to another camp where an especially enterprising Nazi has a counterfeiting lab set up so that the Nazi's might fund their war with faux money. These prisoners are treated well comparatively. They have a different bunker with a little yard, a proper bathroom (complete with water showers), clean (albeit stolen from dead prisoners) clothes, a ping-pong table--relative freedom in comparison to the average concentration camp prisoner. There are, of course, problems surrounding their treatment. They get to live and live sort of well albeit imprisoned if they create the money to fund the Nazi war and perpetuate the cycle. The moral dilemma is brought to the forefront in a remarkable way--the viewer doesn't feel pinned by one side but feels the weight of the decision. It's amazing that film can simultaneously not take sides but not feel wishy-washy. It's a definite watch. Like right now.

Suspicion (1941)

Part of Joel's quest to see all of Hitchcock.

Cary Grant is a man of questionable background and motive who seduces and marries a wealthy Joan Fontaine. Thanks to circumstances surrounding her marriage and new life, she begins to suspect her husband of first having murdered a friend and then of trying to murder her. In typical Hitchcock fashion, we're never quite sure of anything (even at the end of this one really)--to the point that you really can't tell if he's murderous but charming enough to get away with it or if she's crazy and wildly suspicious.

It's well done. There is other Hitchcock I prefer but this one is worth watching if it happens to come on TV or something.

Gunga Din (1939)

I admit to only half-watching this one. It's not interesting. Not one bit really. The movie is based on the poem by Rudyard Kipling (Kipling is also sort-of a character but only in the vaguest sense because his family protested and had scenes cut). Basically three British soldiers (Cary Grant being one of them) in 19th Century India have to try to stop an Indian cult leader who is trying to revive an ancient murderous cult. Gunga Din is the Indian water bearer (played by Sam Jaffe who is not Indian of course) who helps the three. The movie is filled with archaic cultural stereotypes that end up being the most noticeable thing because not much else is interesting. Grant is charming, as usual, but not enough to carry the film.

The Apartment (1960)

Jack Lemmon is strangely charming. He's not all that attractive, goofy looking really, and his voice is sort of annoying but he's endearing somehow.

The Apartment is a comedy of errors in which Lemmon's character climbs the ladder at work by lending out his apartment to wayfaring men and their dates. Of course, this all goes wonky when Lemmon climbs to a rung higher than those men thanks to the big boss--the former apartment borrowers get a little snippy about being passed over and the bog boss, well his date is the elevator girl Lemmon is smitten with. And then things get interesting. It's cute and definitely worth a watch.

Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen (2006)

Ok, deep breath, and now to catch up . . .

Water for Elephants (which I want to call "Like Water for Elephants" . . .) is just a wonderful lovely book. Wikipedia calls it a "historical novel" but I have issues with Wikipedia's definition of a "historical novel"--apparently anything not set in the here and now is a historical novel. Not so much. Regardless, Water is set right in the middle of the Depression (the other one, not the current one) and revolves around a low-rent circus. Low-rent in terms of it being lesser than Barnum and low-rent in terms of things like tossing people off trains when they couldn't be paid their wages. Gruen somehow magically captures the spirit of the circus as seen through the eyes of a young almost-completely-college-educated newly-orphaned almost-veterinarian who is simultaneously awe-struck by the novelty and disgusted by the reality of the circus. But this vision is then translated through the wandering mind of that young man at an advanced age and in a nursing home.

The story is fairly simple: boy falls on hard times, finds questionable salvation, falls in love with a damsel in distress, runs into significant trouble trying to save the damsel, but conquers all. But the quirks of the story really make it wonderful. The elephant, of the title, is charming and the circus is just a fun place. The nursing home scenes, while sad, are wonderful. This man loved his wife so much that he says he's happy to live longer even if he is alone and forgetful and not completely healthy because he wouldn't want her to live through that part of life. And Gruen, on the sidelines, does capture the "historical novel" aspects in glimpses--we see the Depression and feel its effects. The end (of course I have something to say about the end) is actually satisfying. It's a little far fetched but it is a novel about a circus after all.

Oh dear, am I behind

So, to keep my head apprised of what I should write-up:

Water for Elephants by Sara Gruen (2006)
The Apartment (1960)
Gunga Din (1939)
Suspicion (1941)
The Counterfeiters (1941)
Zoology by Ben Dolnick (2007)
Topaz (1969)
Rushmore (1998)
The Misfits (1961)
Helmet of Horror by Victor Pelevin (2007)

The Science of Sleep (2006)

What?

Once you cut through some of the nonsense, it seems like it might be a sort of sweet love story in there somewhere maybe if you look really hard. But there's a lot of nonsense. A lot.

All the King's Men (1949)

Oh my. This one isn't so much fun to watch given the political climate for the past 8 years or given the current election's turn straight into theatre of the absurd. The basic idea is that the good guy from a small town who is self-educated wants to change his small town, does so to a small extent, but then gets hoodwinked into running for governor to split the vote. Once he learns of the double-cross he really runs for governor and all hell breaks loose. He goes bad, of course, running his political machine on corruption, intimidation, coercion, and murder and basically gets away with it all. A little too familiar for comfort at this particular moment so I can see why Sean Penn et al remade it a few years ago and I can understand why it didn't do so well. It lacks hope of any sort--the only hopeful character is killed during his assassination of the governor--and points to the fact that we can all be corrupted or follow along with corruption to make our individual lives easier. Ugh. I need an Obama poster about right now.

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

This one is part of J's "see all the Best Picture Oscar winners" project. It was super boring and historically questionable. Supposedly, it's the story of Thomas More who famously refused to publicly condone Henry VIII's marriage to Anne Boleyn. The film, however, seems to just skip over important information whenever it sees fit and it lacks the majesty one expects from a movie about royalty or those connected to royalty. Well, and to be honest, it doesn't help when The Tudors did it better and I saw that series before this film.

The Darjeeling Limited (2007)

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to think about this movie. I adore The Royal Tenenbaums so I really wanted to like it but Darjeeling just didn't do it for me. First, the opening Hotel Chevalier was just odd. It didn't add anything two seconds of dialogue couldn't clear up. Second, and most importantly, I didn't care about any of these characters until the scene in which the brothers try to save the children from the river--and that's a good ways into the film. After that point, I cared but I had no investment in the movie prior to that point. But, after that scene, I don't feel like my caring paid off. I intellectually got the absurdity and all of the film but if I have no investment in the characters and, thus, no investment in the film, the absurdity doesn't work either. And, on a minor note, for whatever reasons, I just couldn't buy Owen Wilson as an older brother. It didn't work for me. Throughout the movie, I was mentally making Adrian Brody the oldest. Something about the sibling dynamic just didn't read quite right for Wilson to be the oldest.

Bus Stop (1956)

Another one of my what's on tv on a Saturday morning movies. I like Marilyn Monroe just fine, even in all of her sexpot stereotyped questionable acting, but this one was a bit of a departure at least from the roles I'm used to seeing her in. She's still a sexpot. Hard to hide that. But here she's a down on her luck, dreamer of a "showgirl" in a tiny nowhere town who longs to go to Hollywood to really start her career--no one seems to have told her that she can't sing worth a damn. One week (or weekend?) a rodeo is in town--a big championship sort of rodeo--and a clueless cowboy, Bo, ventures off his ranch for the first time to compete. He's clueless about life in general, just taking whatever it is he wants in the loudest possible way, and even more clueless about women. He's looking for his "angel" whom he will presumably club over the head and drag back to his cave, er, ranch. Instead of finding a nice girl to be his "angel," he sets his sights on Cherie (which she pronounces as French as a Southern accent possibly can and which Bo pronounces "Cherry"). He immediately assumes she'll marry him regardless of her protestations to the contrary. Hilarity ensues, sort of. What's disturbing about this one [plot spoiler] is that as soon as Bo apologizes for his horrible treatment of her, Cherie agrees to marry him and give up all of her Hollywood dreams to go live on his ranch in the middle of nowhere.

I liked the movie well enough but the gender roles are disturbing and the implications questionable.

Burn after Reading (2008)

Ok, so I'm a Cohen Brothers fan now. Having somehow missed all of their movies prior to No Country (which I respect but admittedly didn't like very much) and only very recently seen O' Brother, Burn was a seal the deal sort of movie in terms of my liking those two. I detect another list of movies I'm going to be "required" to watch now. Sigh.

This one is a tad dark but hilarious which may say a lot about the content of my soul. Regardless, J.K. Simmons is perfect and Clooney and Pitt's faces are hilarious. As is Pitt's Flock of Seagulls gone wrong hair. Now I just want to to see it again.

The Implacable Order of Things by Jose Luis Peixoto (2007 English translation, 2000 original)

Peixoto is a Portuguese author who is apparently award winning and well-liked and etc. I picked this one up because the cover was interesting (an orange colored tree on a yellow field with a blue sky with clouds, but all upside down, with blue swirly things around it all) and within the text the devil appeared as a character and there were a pair of Siamese twins joined by one pinky finger. Interesting, right?

I can't quite describe this book. It's sort of typical in terms of magical realism: a small country town with characters who can age to be 150, strange things can happen, a giant lives there, a chest in a fancy house talks, the devil performs weddings, one of the Siamese weds and has a baby, and there is a maternal line of blind prostitutes, among other things.

The plot line is too twisty to describe. The narrator switches frequently, sometimes with each paragraph, and while there is a visual break the reader sometimes can't be certain of the narrator until well into the passage, if ever. I think the chest that talks may be a narrator sometimes and it certainly has philosophies that seep into other character's narrations. There are two books. The first describing the life of and lives of those surrounding Jose (all of these Jose's, including the author's name should have accents over the e as should the i of Luis in the author's name). Jose is a shepherd (literally, of sheep), is married and has a son. His wife is tormented and raped incessantly by the giant. The first book is Jose's downfall. The second half follows the life of Jose's son Jose and the lives of those who surround him and the second book is the downfall of Jose (Jr.).

The book is a tad odd. I'm not quite sure I like it. I'm certain that I don't like one thing [SPOILER ALERT] and that's the end. The final chapter is the end of the world. Literally. Everything disappears. The penultimate chapter ends with the impending climax of the three participants in a lover's triangle approaching each other. So, we get the rising action but no real climax and certainly no denouement. Argh! I also wish the devil had been more of a character and that the talking chest had more of an explanation/role in the story. I don't know that I'd recommend the book unless I had to specifically offer a Portuguese author, of which I know no others . . .

The Man Who Forgot How to Read: A Memoir by Howard Engel (2007)

I'm sure I've never said this about a book and I'll probably never say it again: I wish there were more science.

The memoir is about a voracious reader and detective fiction author who awakes one morning to find himself unable to read the newspaper. He thinks it looks like a foreign language. He's taken to the hospital and finds out he's had a stroke and it's affected the language center of the brain. He has alexia sine agraphia which more or less means he can't read but he can write. The memoir goes through his experience in the hospital, in the rehab center, and then back at home.

My problems with the book are numerous. First, I don't feel like the condition itself is explained at all. Why can he write but not read? Why can he read sometimes? How does the rehab work? How can he learn to read again? What's going on? How did the stroke cause it? Etc. The reader only gets to see the effects of the condition but never understands the beast itself. I understand that Engel himself may not have understood at the time but surely he's found some information. He visited and wrote to Oliver Sachs who I'm sure told him something. I would like that information.

Second, I understand that the memoir is written by a man whose memory is impaired and who has a condition that preempts his reading with any ease. But at points the author contradicts himself and on many many many many many many . . . occasions the author repeats himself. This gets annoying in such a small book (157pages). And then, in the afterword, Oliver Sachs repeats information already given and Sachs offers new information that seems to contradict the author's narration. While I understand why this may be the case, a couple of foot or end notes would be helpful in creating a more complete picture of the situation.

All in all, it's not a terribly compelling read which is unfortunate.

The Seven Year Itch (1955)

I thought I'd seen this movie but it quickly became apparent that I'd just seen the one iconic scene a bazillion times.

The premise is that a man who has been married for seven years is left alone in New York to work for the summer while his wife takes their son on vacation as is custom every year. This summer, however, Marilyn Monroe is renting the apartment upstairs and causes a little confusion. Sexually charged hijinks ensue in the midst of dream sequences while the married man bumbles about her in real life.

It's an interesting movie but I'm not quite sure what to think of it.

Lucky Number S7evin (2006)

I've been terrible at keeping up with this--I watched this one the other day. Another it was on tv so I watched it movie. This one is ok-ish. It tries a little too hard to be clever when it's not. And it tries a little too hard to have a surprise twist ending when I figured out the "surprise" at the outset of the movie. But it's fun. Josh Hartnett is hot enough and Lucy Liu is cute and quirky and then you have Bruce Willis, Morgan Freeman, and Ben Kinsley to add to the watchable-ness. Not a bad watch but not something to run out to buy.

The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2005)

I've often seen that this is playing on TV and not watched it for one reason or another. It's about a squemish topic: incest and child molestation. I might have missed the first few minutes. I started it once but couldn't quite pay enough attention to grasp Daniel Day-Lewis's accent. Regardless, it was on again the other day when I could pay attention, see the whole thing, and deal with the subject matter. I'm very happy I did.

The movie is billed as one in which a young girl, Camilla Belle, deals with her attraction to her father, Lewis. They live on an unpopulated island "off the east coast" in the remains of a commune from the 60s (the father had a hand in developing it). The girl's mother is gone and she rarely sees anyone but her father. No TV and rare outside influence. That sounds a tad reductive and simple. But the movie is actually a look into that life with the complication that the father is dying of a heart disease and he has to face the fact that he's leaving his daughter without a way in the world. He's isolated her so much that she has little hopes of surviving in the real world. The father brings in a woman he's been sleeping with (who lives on the mainland), Catherine Keener, and her two sons, an obsese possible gay older son and a rebellious younger son, Paul Dano. Meanwhile, Beau Bridges is a property developer encroaching on the isolated commune much to Lewis's dismay.

What the viewer gets is a look into a complicated relationship between father and daughter when the daughter is coming of age. It's really quite well done and a thoughtful movie.

Collateral (2004)

I only watched this because it's on the list. I thought it would be stupid from the first preview and I was right.

First, Cruise is just not a good actor. He's just not.

Second, Foxx isn't really so convincing either.

Third, the story is contrived. Really, how likely is it that a cab driver meets a woman in the justice department and really connects with her (first, that part is highly unlikely in LA) and then the assassin who hijacks his car and time is after her for the last hit of the night? Of course it has to be the last hit because that gives the cab driver enough time to stop being a pansy and become the hero. Of course. The story is perfectly circular and it's annoying. It's especially annoying because the cab driver only goes to save someone when it's the woman he supposedly connected with. The assassin has killed several people up to this point. What would be really heroic would be for the cab driver to save the second person to be killed regardless of whether he knew the person--to save a person just for the sake of saving him/her--instead of waiting around until it's someone he knows

Fourth, I'm not buying the assassin with something of a conscience.

Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008)

I am not a Woody Allen fan. I liked Sweet and Lowdown but I just could not appreciate Annie Hall or Purple Rose of Cairo or Broadway Danny Rose . . . and I have so many more to watch on the list. Ugh.

I didn't dislike VCB the way I dislike those listed above. This definitely isn't an Allen Allen film. He's not in it and it doesn't focus on his particular neuroses the whole film. That said, I still didn't like it. My dislike is more a product of the quality of acting. Scarlett Johansson (Christina) and Rebecca Hall (Vicky) fell superbly flat in my opinion. There is a conversation between the two in a restaurant before, during, and after Javier Bardeem (Juan Antonio) approaches them that was so stilted it was painful to watch. Women just don't talk in those cadences. The words may be the same but the performances were terrible. I also really bristled at the voiceover narration. It was condescending and obvious and really didn't add anything to the film. I understand the irony and postmodernism and blah blah blah of the narration and the fact that the narrator holds a great deal of disdain for all of the characters but, ugh, I was just annoyed.

Javier Bardeem is good but the only thing that redeems the movie in the least for me is Penelope Cruz. I don't hold a particular liking for her but in this film she is absolutely genius. Genius. The best work I've seen of her. I can't describe it well but when she's on screen, she somehow enlivens the other performances. The movie is worth seeing just for Cruz.

Pineapple Express (2008)

Apatow has definitely figured out how to make comedies that I love. Somehow he can have vomit scenes, unnecessary vaginal shots, and gross boy jokes and I still like all of his movies. I liked Pinapple Express but I'll have to admit, not as much as the other ones.

James Franco is definitely a highlight. He just went for full-on ugly. And it was genius. Seth Rogen is kind of hit and miss for me. I like him most of the time but sometimes he's just a little too much that guy who smokes too much pot and smells funny. It was a funny caper film but I think Franco may have saved it from being just another Cheech and Chong film.

It's worth a watch--but only after all of the other Apatow.

The Deer Hunter (1978)

I am not a fan of bloated, over long, indulgent movies. This one is the epitome of bloated, over long, indulgent movies.

The story was basically interesting: working class guys who like to deer hunt are sent to Vietnam, experience all of the horrors of that war, and most of them come home to a place they don't fit anymore. But, my god, what it took to get that basic story was sooooooo long. I didn't need that much of the wedding. I didn't need the virtually pornographic landscape ode to deer hunting. I didn't need to see so much of the Russian Roulette game (I understand this impact this was supposed to have but it really just made me almost immune to it's effects--I knew the outcome of the film the longer it lingered with that gun game). I didn't need any of the drawn out parts of the film. And I certainly didn't need the cast singing "God Bless America" at the end.

It seems the film took what was an interesting poignant storyline and proceeded to get too ambitious with the scope but instead of making the narrative too big they made the story too small for the movie. There wasn't enough character development or information to compete with the amount of screen time the deer got. And, while I was saddened by the events and appropriately horrified at the disaster Vietnam was, I was not sympathetic to any of the characters--I just didn't connect. And, I was a little confused by the few news reel shots included--the color schemes didn't flow with the film so they were kind of obvious.

I can sort of see why people like it and I understand watching it because of the way it shows Vietnam but I was not impressed.

Love in the Time of Cholera (2007)

What? I don't know whose bright idea it was to try to turn a Garcia Marquez novel into a movie but it wasn't a good idea and it didn't work. I mean it is a movie but it's not a good one. And, Netflix totally lied to me and said it was about an hour shorter than it is.

It's actually not as bad as it could have been (of course, the watching of this coincided with the reading of Windows on the World and I assume I only have so much vitriol to throw at "art"). The problem is that Garcia Marquez's work is so rich and layered and complicated that it will never translate to film. It has to be watered down and then it's not so great. Clearly the director was a little confused about what he wanted because the "cut scenes" portion of the dvd has the longest list of scenes I've ever seen on a dvd, by about twice.

This film, however, had more problems than the watering down of the script. Characters just disappear from the film, others simply appear with no introductions (here I'm thinking Liev Schrieber, John Leguizamo, and a character named "Ricardo"). The whole "cholera" thing is only at the beginning and the very end of the film. And most of the emotion is drained from the film. It's like the took Garcia Marquez's novel, put it in a sieve, let it sit there until it was absolutely anemic, beat it up a little, and then put it on the screen.

AND, the greatest offense in my mind is the scene in which the two main characters, Javier Bardem and and Italian actress I don't know, have a naked love scene in aged makeup!!!!! I don't need to see that.

Tropic Thunder (2008)

Yay! I love Robert Downey Jr. LOVE HIM!!

While this movie isn't the laughing every minute movie I thought it would be, it is actually a better movie than I thought it could be. It's humor spans from Jack Black running around in a black speedo to more subtle humor which served it well. It manages to tell a story, and a smart satiric story, while maintaining the funny.

And Tom Cruise dances which is amusing.

Windows on the World by Frederic Beigbeder (2005)

Oh. My. God. I read a lot of books that should be offensive to me. A lot of male authors who are not female reader friendly. A lot of postmodern authors who are simply not reader friendly. I watch a lot of movies that should offend me. I say things that offend other people. But I have never in my life been more offended by a book than I was by the 40 some off pages of this one I choked down in two sittings. I'm not so hurrah! America that I can't take the criticism of the country and I've read a LOT of 9/11 literature but I was really appalled that this author took the route he did in telling the story.

The book is told by two narrators, an American with two kids who are in the Windows on the World restaurant on the morning of 9/11 (they will die) and a French guy sitting in a mini-skyscraper in Paris musing that he's at the French equivalent of Ground Zero----uh, not so much considering that building is STILL STANDING! The author, who is French, tries so damned hard to prove he likes America in a "I have an American friend" sort of way. He uses an entire page to list his favorite film makers, authors, and musicians all of whom are American (and male, by the way). There is really atrocious dialogue. At one point he wonders who might have worked in the WotW restaurant and decides they must have employed "the blacks." Right.

I could go on and on and on about the few pages I read but it's just making me angry about it all over again and I might have to write an article about this atrocity so I need to remain calm and carry on.

Affectionately Yours (1941)

It was Rita Hayworth day on TCM so this came on after The Lady in Question. I like Hayworth so I watched. This one is about a journalist who is constantly travelling the world in pursuit of the story, telling a woman in every city, "if I weren't married . . . " While out on "assignment," his wife divorces him (goes to Reno--see The Women for a bigger exploration of this phenomenon) and doesn't really tell him. He finds out through the grapevine that his marriage is over and rushes back to New York to resolve the situation. His editor doesn't approve of his remaining a domestic reporter (in both senses of domestic) and his lover, Hayworth, is excited about his divorce--they plot together to keep him divorced and travelling. The reporter devises all sorts of schemes to keep his wife and those schemes subsequently backfire repeatedly. I'm not sure I'm convinced of the ending though . . .

The Lady in Question (1940)

The plot for this one is fairly simple and straightforward: a French family man is excited to finally be chosen for jury duty and the woman (Rita Hayworth) on trial is accused of having murdered her lover. The main guy (a la Twelve Angry Men) stonewalls the jury until they acquit the woman. The man then feels sorry for the woman because she's been outcast regardless of the verdict and he hires her to work in his bike shop, with her using a different name and him not telling his family who she really is. Mild hilarity about hiding her identity ensues but the interesting part of the film is the exploration of how we judge people. How we act around people who may be guilty of something when they start to encroach upon our personal space. Interesting to watch if it's on tv (which is why I watched it).

Kandahar (2001)

This film is described as a "partially fictionalized documentary." I'm not sure which parts are fictionalized but I'm betting it's the actual story as opposed to the facts therein. Anyway, the film is about an female Afghani (living in Canada) journalist who makes the dangerous journey into Kandahar, Afghanistan in order to save her sister. Her sister was wounded by a landmine and remained in Afghanistan. Because of the oppression inflicted upon women is only getting worse, the sister has written to the journalist that she will kill herself at the next eclipse. Because of the culture and the fact that the journalist has escaped the country once before, she has a hard time getting into the country secretly. She finally finds a way but constantly runs into difficulties, the least of which are wearing the burga and having to be accompanied by a man at all times.

The film does offer an interesting and heartbreaking look into the plight of Afghani women. But I think it ends too abruptly to do the narrative any service. It's definitely worth watching if only to see the burgas up close and the scenes with the doctor in his office. But it is not well acted on the whole and I don't think it does quite enough in terms of its message.

Lighthousekeeping by Jeanette Winterson (2004)

I remain absolutely smitten with Winterson's books. They are really just delightful, especially after reading so very many overwrought books. Hers seem effortless but certainly are not simple.

This one is about a girl named Silver because she was "born part precious metal part pirate" who has no father (or not a known one, anyway). She lives a secluded and a bit bizarre life with her mother until an accident and her mother dies. Silver is then orphaned and sent to live with the blind lighthousekeeper, Pew. Pew teaches Silver about seeing, storytelling, and living--giving her the history of the Scottish town they live in, the story of the Dark family who built the lighthouse, while teaching her that to tell stories is to live.

The plot is really minimal. Silver and Pew don't do much and the storyline of the past, while containing more action, is equally sedate. The charm really lies in the way the story of the book and the stories within the book, stories within stories, ad infinitum, are told.

My favorite lines may be: "Turn down the daily noise and at first there is the relief of silence. And then, very quietly, as quiet as light, meaning returns. Words are the part of silence that can be spoken." I'll definitely be picking up more of her books, if I ever finish (or begin, really) the tome that is Midnight's Children.

Ordinary People (1980)

The best picture from 81 left me a little cold. I was with it for most of the movie but then one crucial moment left me wishing the whole thing were different.

The basic idea is that Beth (Mary Tyler Moore) and Calvin (Donald Sutherland) had two sons, Buck and Conrad (Timothy Hutton), but Buck (the eldest) dies tragically in a boat accident (before the action of the movie), which Conrad survives. Beth loved Buck intensely but can't really stand Conrad. Conrad, being the youngest and full of guilt about the accident and surviving the accident and his mother's indifference toward him, tries to kill himself, fails, ends up in a hospital for a few months, but is now back in school and in therapy with Dr. Berger (Judd Hirsch).

The movie is well acted and Hutton is especially wonderful. But, and here's a spoiler, I wanted Beth to realize her arrogance and hurtful nature and change. At the critical moment where she goes into the bedroom to pack her bag to leave her husband and son when she has that moment where she might completely break down and let herself feel something, I was so hoping she would just have an Angelina Jolie in A Might Heart moment and just wail. But she doesn't. She leaves her family in favor of the pastel golfing vacation of Texas. I just felt like the whole movie was about these people (who are a little too privileged to be "ordinary") dealing with the death of a son/brother and the two more obviously vulnerable people, Calvin and Conrad, trying to help the one who was obviously the most hurt, Beth, and each one has an epiphany in his own way except Beth. She never deals with it but instead goes on in her stick up her ass manner.

Maybe I'll appreciate it more as I get away from it and I understand not having Beth break down--to save it from being unbearably sappy--but I do think there could have been an intelligent way to show us that she's dealing with it. Oh well. It's worth seeing but I do wish it were different.

And, random note, I think Liv Tyler stole her whole being from Elizabeth McGovern.

Weight by Jeanette Winterson (2005)

Another of the Canongate Myth series--seemingly published simultaneously with Atwood's. Regardless, I liked this one a great deal more than the Atwood. I've also never read anything by Winterson--the British getting in the way thus far--but I am enamoured with her style and language and manner of storytelling.

Weight is the re-telling, or "Cover Version" as Winterson wrote, of the Atlas and Heracles (the Greek version of the better known Roman counterpart, Hercules). The basic myth is that the gods punished Atlas, a Titan, and made him hold the earth, in essence making him the cosmos. One day Heracles visits Atlas (no one ever did) to ask his help. Hera (Hercule's stepmother) has cursed him and made him the slave of a worthless man who demands Heracles bring him the best items on earth, defeat the biggest monsters, etc. This time Heracles needs golden apples from Hera's tree which is planted inside the gates of Atlas's garden (on earth, from before he was punished) but Heracles cannot pick the apples himself. So, Atlas has Heracles hold the earth while he goes to pick the apples and then all manner of trickery, fate, and whatnot are evoked, just so I don't give anything away if the original myth isn't known.

Winterson's retelling focuses on retelling. The fact that we all want to tell the story again and again and again, which is especially clever because that's all these myths were and are, retellings whether the early oral versions or the various written versions or the versions we tell when trying to repeat the storyline. And, of course, it mimics the earth's revolution on an axis, and it's revolution around the sun both of which evoke Atlas. Tied in with the retelling of the older story, Winterson tells a contemporary version with humans and even brings Atlas into the twentieth century.

It's really a charming and compelling story (I read it in one sitting last night) that is tightly focused yet casts a wide enough net so that it can encompass the world whose story it tells. Really just lovely. I, of course, promptly sought out another Winterson so we'll see if my infatuation remains constant. And, of course, it gives me great hope for the rest of the Canongate series.

The Penelopiad by Margaret Atwood (2005)

This is one of Canongate's Myth series--the first one or two of the myths to be published (Armstrong's A Short History of Myth was first, I think, and I'm not sure where Winterson's Weight falls--they may have all come out simultaneously actually). Anyway, I've never read anything by Atwood so I can't place it in terms of her work but it is a decent retelling.

I'm not super excited about it but it wasn't at all bad. It retells the Odyssey from Penelope's point of view (from the underworld in the 21st century)--adding in her life pre-Odysseus--with a chorus of twelve maids (those who were hanged by Odysseus and Telemachus upon Odysseus's return to Ithaca).

At first I didn't quite believe the voice of Penelope but at the story progressed, I settled into the narration (although some of the choruses didn't completely work for me). Atwood does interesting things in terms of allowing Penelope her story while also allowing the maids their story and allowing the two to conflict with the Odyssey and with each other. And, at the very end, giving us a glimpse of Odysseus and his afterlife. And, of course, Atwood puts a feminist spin on Homer while acknowledging that she's doing so--a sort of meta feminism--and allowing an intertextuality without over-stressing it but making it fun while not undermining or trivializing it (Penelope chooses to tell her story from the beginning, for example, because there are only two ways--from the beginning or the middle--and she thinks the former the better choice when, of course, Homer chose in medias res).

All in all a quick short worthwhile read. I'd need to re-read Homer but it might be interesting to teach this with the "original" text and something like O, Brother.

Rope (1948)

This one marks another one off the list--although completely inadvertently. Per usual, it was on tv and seemed the only thing even remotely interesting so I watched it.

It's fine. I understand why it's on the list. For one, it's Hitchcock and, like Woody Allen, just about all of his films are on the list. But the most important feature of the film is that it was supposed to be shot in one continuous sequence (hello, Russian Ark) but instead Hitchcock shot it in ten minute sequences. So it's important in that sense.

Anyway, the basic plot is that Brandon and Phillip have killed David (as the movie opens we see David being strangled) and put into a chest in the living room of Brandon's apartment (that looks very similar in structure to the apartment in Roman Holiday). After the murder Phillip is waffling about the action while Brandon is reveling in the fact that he's killed someone for no real reason other than he can because he's of a higher station. And Brandon is giddy because they are having a party at the apartment in a matter of minutes and it's exhilarating to have a dead body right there with no one noticing. Well, the problem is that they've invited an old teacher, Rupert (James Stewart) to the party. Brandon thinks that Rupert holds the same opinions on murder--and he does, in theory but not in practice. So the whole movie is a party during which Phillip acts squirrelly, the guests are very worried about where David might be (because he was invited to the party too), and Brandon philosophizes about murder while serving food from the chest in which David lies instead of from the usual place of the dining room table. Rupert, of course, figures it all out and turns them in.

It's really only interesting in terms of the creation of the thing. I never really believed that Rupert would go along with the boys' plot nor did I think Rupert would approve of his theories being put into action nor did I think Rupert wouldn't discover the dead body. The only question was when the body would be discovered and the running time of the film sort of dictated that because once the body was found the game was up and so would be the trick of the film.

Lars and the Real Girl (2007)

I'll admit to thinking "what the hell?" when I first heard about this movie. But what else are you supposed to think when you hear it's about a guy who falls in love with a sex doll?

I was very pleasantly surprised and delighted with this movie. It's very sweet and touching and funny. Lars experiences a break of sorts. His sister in law is pregnant which dredges up his issues with his parents (mom died in childbirth and dad was too heartbroken to be such a great parent) and his brother (who left town as soon as he was old enough without consideration of Lars being left behind). And, yes, then Lars orders and has a relationship with a sex doll he named Bianca. What follows is a moving story of how a small town rallies behind Lars's relationship with a doll and how the doll actually ends up touching the hearts of the townspeople.

Not only is it a wonderfully sweet story but it's well acted. You totally believe that Ryan Gosling is in love with Bianca and you can see how heartbroken everyone is when anything goes wrong. Patricia Clarkson is wonderful as the doctor, Emily Mortimer is wonderful as the sister-in-law, Paul Schneider is fantastic as the brother, and Kelli Garner is adorable as Margo. It's lovely, it's just a really lovely movie.

Looking for Kitty (2004)

It was on tv. I'd confused Edward Burns for Edward Norton. It was terrible.

I like Ed Burns just fine (although I like Norton better) but I am not a fan of his "ode to New York" movies. She's the One is cute and quirky enough and he should have stopped there (and I really only like that one as much as I do because Tom Petty did the entire soundtrack)--of course that would have stopped him just two movies into his career but whatever. I'm all for New York. I liked it a lot when I visited it twice. I like the idea of it. I get that New Yorkers have a deep deep love for New York in the same way Texans love Texas and South Carolinians put that damned Palmetto tree on everything. I get it. I don't need a movie in which awkward lines about the architecture are inserted. I see that the little old guy didn't sell out and that the big glass mega structure had to be built around the historic one. I see that. I don't need the lecture in the middle of a supposed detective story.

Oh, right, so the basic idea is that Burns is a down on his luck private eye (maybe formerly of the NYPD but we don't know for certain) who is given the case of a very Mario Brother looking David Krumholtz who is looking for his wife (the titular Kitty) who left her husband six months ago after asking for a divorce and is now shacked up with a rock star named Ron Stewart (right, Ron, not Rod). Burns's wife is dead but we don't know for how long and he's lonely and Krumholtz is lonely and they make friends. So then Burns talks Krumholtz into the idea that the woman is just not good enough for him because she's not interested in his all-consuming baseball passion. And then Krumholtz leaves New York without his wife who Burns then meets and chastises without actually doing so.

It's just bland and not so very interesting and not even a great love letter to New York.

The Dark Knight (2008)

I've been in love with Batman forever:

And I've been in love with Christian Bale since about 1993. So, it just makes sense that I really really really loved this movie. It had a lot going against it: the almost 3 hour run time, the hype surrounding the film and Ledger's death seemed a little much, the expectations based on the hype and my life-long love . . . . But the movie really is just wonderful. (Spoilers to follow)

First, they managed to have the courage to kill off the "girlfriend." A superhero just can't have a girlfriend and especially not one who had the audacity to tell him that no she would not date him. Spiderman would have gone soooo much better without Mary Jane (well, and without the emo bangs, dance number . . . ). A superhero has to have some angst and a dead girlfriend just makes it that much deeper.

Second, it manages to give us one full-fledged villain while creating and killing off another in the course of the film (and, of course, giving us an all too brief glimpse at Cillian's pretty blue eyes). That's hard to pull off and even harder to do well. This is all not to mention, of course, Ledger being brilliant as the Joker. I don't know that he'll get an Oscar nod--really, who is going to get one for a Batman movie? Hollywood just doesn't take superhero movies that seriously yet (I think the tide is turning, though). Anyway, he's genius. And Aaron Eckhart does a magnificent job as a good guy gone bad, a bad guy who is just wacko, and not trying to compete with Ledger. There is a wonderful balance to the villains.

Third, we got to see Batman go through a crisis of conscience while maintaining the dignity of the film and the character (for a bad example of this, see Daniel Craig in Casino Royale--the script's treatment of James Bond, not the acting). And we also see Bruce Wayne go through a similar crisis and Bale manages to keep the characters separate while maintaining their intrinsic connection.

And, of course, there are all of the fun Batman gadgets, Alfred, and all of the other fantastic characters that make a Batman movie just lovely.

One tiny confusion does arise in the scene where Batman is leaving the police station after learning that Dent and Rachel are in danger. Gordon seems to ask Batman who Batman is going to save. Batman yells "Rachel" but then ends up at the location with Dent. The rest of the film then rests on the fact that Batman chose to save the "White Knight." The problem is whether Batman chose to save Dent or whether it was a trick of the Joker. Was Batman telling Gordon to go to Rachel (because Gordon says later that he was supposed to save her--albeit to Dent/Two Face in order to save his own son so it could have been a lie)? Was Batman tricked? Did Batman change his mind? None of this would be super important except the juxtaposition of White v. Dark Knight and the choices humanity makes are crucial to the second half of the film. But, regardless of that one thing, the movie is just wonderful, really very wonderful. Definitely a must see, definitely a must own.

Hellboy II: The Golden Army (2008)

I am amazed at how they manage to make the Hellboy movies so damned boring. The idea is super interesting. The characters seem likable and intriguing and complex. The basic plots are universal and somewhat complicated. And, yet, both Hellboy movies have just been boring. Not violently boring but boring nonetheless.

Another complaint is the lack of attention paid to DelToro's aesthetic. We see all of these wonderful creatures in the troll market, we see the fairies throughout the film, and we get glimpses of other creatures but the only ones who are actually given any substance, any back story, any interest are the tooth fairies. And then they leave the film. I don't see much of a point in showing us the cool guy with the houses on his head if we don't even get to know his name or what he is.

And, finally, the eco message is severely undercut by the eco warriors using mechanized things to carry out their goals. The golden army is not exactly eco-friendly.

Overall, it was fine but just fine.

Atmospheric Disturbances by Rivka Galchen (2008)

Ugh. I've been putting off updating the blog because I didn't want to write about this book. The basic idea is that Dr. Leo Liebenstein's wife, Rema, presumably goes missing one day and a simulacrum is sent to her home in her place. This ersatz wife is exactly like Rema, with the exception of barely perceptible differences--that are only barely perceptible to Leo because we supposedly never see the "real" Rema, only the simulacrum. Leo then proceeds to "hunt" for Rema, in the loosest sense of the word. He is also disturbed by what is first a "russet" dog but is later described as a miniature greyhound (none of which are russet I believe). Leo first looks around the city, mainly just going to the coffee shop where he first stalked, er, met, Rema. Then he goes to Rema's mother in Argentina, whom he's presumably never met. Then he goes to Patagonia on "work." Right. So Leo is supposedly a trained psychologist and that is his profession but then he begins to believe the delusion of a patient, that they are super-meteorologists of sorts who control the weather. Right. And he has to Patagonia to do this.

The main problem I have here is that the ersatz wife situation doesn't seem to be the case. It seems like Leo is delusional, from page one. Even with a suspension of disbelief that a simulacrum of one's wife could show up at one's apartment, the narrator (who is unfortunately Leo) has to convince us that this is actually the case. He doesn't do this though. He only convinces us that he is crazy. From the first page, we get the idea that this may actually be his wife. That Rema is in fact herself and it is Leo who is just bonkers. So then the reader has the unpleasant feeling the whole length of the book that the end will divulge that all of this has been in the imagination of the narrator. I might have been ok with that if the author actually divulged what was wrong with Leo . . . Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, delusions, etc. But we never learn anything. We don't know if it is the real Rema, we don't know if Leo has imagined the whole thing, we don't know what might be wrong with Leo, etc. All of this is compounded by the fact that Leo is not a likable character and is not only not a reliable narrator but is a violently annoying narrator. At every turn, he's pushing you out of the book. If it weren't for my curiosity about how bad the book would be, I would have stopped reading almost immediately.

Chinatown (1974)

I have to admit to being very tired when I watched this the other night. I did like it but it was a bit sleepy for me to really appreciate it, I think.

So we have private eye, JJ Gittes (Jack Nicholson) who is hoodwinked into investigating the faux affair of Hollis Mulwray by an actress posing as his wife. The real Mrs. Mulwray (Faye Dunaway) then shows up at Gittes office and everything starts to unravel. Mrs. Mulwray has a few secrets as does the water department and they all come to light for Gittes, before being swept under the rug in Chinatown.

I liked the movie well enough. I was tired and the movie is a little slow but I love Faye Dunaway and Nicholson is wonderful at his best. I also liked the whole look of the movie.

The Good Fairies of New York by Martin Millar (1992)

Millar is a Scottish writer (though he lives in London) who is praised (and introduced in this novel) by Neil Gaiman. I can't remember where I read anything about this book but I'm happy I did. It's a fun piece of fluff. Super easy to read, funny, and wonderful.

The basic plot is that two Scottish fairies have been run out of Scotland and end up in New York, the same happens to a few English and Irish fairies. The two Scottish fairies befriend a couple of humans after having a falling out between themselves (clan feuds amongst fairies) while the Irish and English stick to the animals in Central Park. What follows is a cute story about punk rock fairies, human suffering and love, modernization/industrialization of the fairy world, race concerns amongst fairies, and other concerns.

The plot is a tad complicated for easy synopsis and there are so many characters it would be hard to follow anyway. But it is a charming book that's worth a read.

Hancock (2008)

Hmmmmm. I love a good superhero movie. I really do. But only a good superhero movie. What I don't like is when one movie is comprised of two half-assed movies crammed together, is marketed as a comedy when only the first half is funny while pretending to have lofty morals in terms of a origin story that doesn't make a damned bit of sense. I wanted to see the funny, clumsy, drunk, belligerent superhero terrorize LA while sort-of saving it. I did not want to see some of that and them a stupid, ill-conceived creation of the earth myth with an equally unexplained second superhero. And I certainly don't like a movie that doesn't answer or at least acknowledge a lack of answer to its own questions. It's not horrible but it's not good either.

The 351 Books of Irma Arcuri by David Bajo (2008)

One might think a book with "just enough" blow jobs might be interesting. Not the case. Not the case at all. This entry is going to be a bit lewd. In an effort to see just how many bjs were "just enough," I kept a log. The trouble was that the book had so much more than the occasional bj. Well, so much more by way of sexual acts. Not so much more in terms of actual content.

So, the basic gist of the novel is that Irma Arcuri has disappeared herself and left her 351 books to her off/on (right now off) lover Philip. Supposedly, Philip is going to set out to find her wherever she's hidden herself. Also coming into the picture is a strange woman, Lucia, who resembles Irma and becomes Philip's lover, Philip's first wife Rebecca and her children Sam (still in high school) and Nicole (in college), Philip's second wife Beatrice, Philip's friend Isaac, and various other players--most of whom have slept with each other and all of whom have slept with Irma (yep, women and high school boys included).

More or less Bajo wanted to retell Don Quixote but doesn't do such a great job. He's got the bumbling guy trying his damnedest to find his "fair Dulcinea" but he doesn't so much capture anything else about the older text, certainly none of the subtlety or literary quality. The other HUGE problem is that while this is titled the 351 books of Irma Arcuri, we only get scant information about 26 of them. That seems wrong and flimsy. We get the most, of course, about Don Quixote which just makes the whole re-telling aspect of this book trite. AND, Irma Arcuri is never found (she MAY show up on the very last page but we don't know). I have many many many more complaints about the book but they are really just too stupid and annoying to rehash or list.

So, just because I made this list in order to count how many bjs are"just enough" (7 by the way, apparently 7 is just enough), I'm putting it here. Just skip it if you want. And definitely give the book a skip.

"zed" p1-2 female nudity (Irma)
"zed" p2 "twin volcanoes with late morning light flooding down their chutes" (really? did we need this?)
"zed" p4-5 female nudity, intimations of sex, hard on (Irma & Phillip)

ch1 p23 Phillip picks up Lucia in bar (who writes her phone number on a Chinese finger puzzle, wink wink. This finger puzzle returns as a book mark and idle toy repeatedly.)
ch1 p25 erection while riding behind Lucia on Vespa (Phillip)

ch2 p27 sex (in Irma's book between I&P doppelgangers)
ch2 p35 threesome (Irma, Phillip, & Beatrice)
ch2 p36 threesome redux
ch2 p37 revelation of lesbian affair (Beatrice & Irma to Phillip)

ch3 p39 continued revelation of lesbian affair
ch3 p40 girls make out (Irma & Beatrice)
ch3 p41-2 girls have sex (I&B)
ch3 p43 blow job (P&B)
ch3 p43 oral (P&B)
ch3 p44 intimations of sex (P&B)
ch3 p53 revelation of loss of virginity

ch4 p55-6 sex several times (I&P)
ch4 p57 female nudity (I)
ch4 p62 nudity (Lucia &P)
ch4 p62 erection (P)
ch4 p63 oral, erection (L&P)
ch4 p64 sex against hotel window which has no drapes (L&P)

ch5 p72-3 blow job#2 (L&P)
ch5 p73 sex (L&P)
ch5 p73 nudity (L)
ch5 p74 nudity (P)
ch5 p74 sex (I&P)
ch5 p76 ref to bj on p72
ch5 p 76 sex in Irma's book (I&P doppelgangers)
ch5 p78 sex--5 times (I&P's friend Isaac)

ch6 p86 "lake seduction" (I's novel)
ch6 p87 hand job (I's novel)
ch6 p87-8 Phillip's doppelganger loses his virginity in high school to a girl who also runs track--on the mat after a jump DURING a meet with their clothes on with detail given as to this works exactly and it lasted more than 10 seconds (I's novel)
ch6 p88 sex 3 more times with the above track girl who has a boyfriend (I's novel)
ch6 p92 female nudity (Lucia)
ch6 p92-3 sex (Lucia&Phillip)
ch6 p93 blow job#3 mid-sex (L&P)

ch7 p115 memories of sex with Irma (P)
ch7 p126 3way kiss in pool (P&I&Phillip's first wife Rebecca)
ch7 p126 Video-taped sex (P&R)

ch8 p130 female nudity (I)
ch8 p130 erection (P)
ch8 p133 sex in chair (P&R)
ch8 p134 sex (P&I)
ch8 p140 watching video of sex with Rebecca that Rebecca filmed and that her then ex but now reconciled husband and father to her children watched (P)
ch 8 p140 while watching video, notices splice of Irma's nude back indicating R's affair with Irma(P)
ch8 p143 reveal of affair with Rebecca's kids, Sam (in high school) and Nicole (freshman in college)

ch9 p149 kiss (R)
ch9 p150-1 sex (I&P)
ch9 p151 blow job (I&P)
ch9 p151 sex (I&P)

ch10 p178 blow job (P&I)
ch10 p184 female nudity (I)

ch11 p195 reference to sex (Sam and Irma's niece)
ch11 p202-3 wives' seduction, step kids, seduction, stories told to Irma's nieces and nephews (P about I)

ch12 p217 erection (Sam thanks to I)
ch12 p218 erection (conversation b/t I&S)
ch12 p210-20 invite to hotel and acceptance (S&I)
ch12 p223 blow job (B&P at windmills in Spain)
ch12 p223 oral (P on B)
ch12 p223-4 sex (B&P)

ch13 p251 make out (P&I)
ch13 p252 talk sex with Lucia posing as Irma
ch13 p252 sex (I&P)
ch13 p253 Lucia kisses Philip while pretending to be Irma
ch13 p254 kissing (L&P)
ch13 p255 female nudity (L)
ch13 p255-6 oral (P on L)
ch13 p256 hand job (L on P)
ch13 p256 sex (L&P)

ch14 p258 sex (I&P)
ch14 p261 blow job wake up call (L or maybe I on P)
ch14 p261 69 (L or maybe I with P)
ch14 p263-4 reference to sex on p261
ch14 p267 reference to sex (I)
ch14 p271 make out (L&P)
ch14 p272 sex (L&P)
ch14 p272 naked (I)
ch14 p283 kiss (maybe from Irma to Beatrice, maybe Philip to Beatrice, maybe Philip to Irma)

The Women (1939)

Oh, I am a bit behind on the blogging. I watched this movie while I was at my parents' house the other week. I am fairly certain one of my high school teachers told me to watch this or to read the play . . . I don't remember which. Anyway, The Women is certainly an interesting film.

The basic premise is that one woman's husband is cheating on her and her group of friends becomes involved to something of a detrimental effect. So, you've got the married woman with the cheating husband, a married friend who is certain her husband would never cheat (that doesn't so much work out for her) who is a terrible gossip and instigator and also the cousin of the married woman, a newlywed whose husband won't let her have a say in anything, and a "feminist" (gasp!) who is not married. Then you have the gold-digging perfume saleswoman who is the temptress in the affair. High jinks ensue and all works out in the end for the good girls (at least by the terms the movie sets).

What is interesting about this film is that there are no men in it. Not one. Yet almost the entire subject matter of the film revolves around men. What makes this trick sort-of bad is that a film that is ostensibly about women, ends up being all about the absent men. And, given that it was made in the late 30s, the hurrah! moment of the end doesn't feel as great for women as I'm sure it did then. What the film does well is capture the gossip and the speech patterns of women as well as the intricacies of our friendships.

The cast is spectacular: Norma Shearer, Joan Crawford, Rosalind Russell . . . and some I don't know the names of but who performed wonderfully.

It's a good movie with interesting things to say about how far women have come--especially since this was marked as a turning point for women--but it does feel a little long in parts. I am incredibly interested to see how the film is updated for the remake due out later this year (I think). I'm not sure it will work and still be the same premise but I'm interested to see what they try.

The Lazarus Project by Aleksandar Hemon (2008)

First, the website for the novel seems cool (I haven't looked at much of it, though): http://www.aleksandarhemon.com/

This book is supposed to be two intertwined narratives. The first is the story of Lazarus Averbuch, a Jewish immigrant who was shot by the Chief of Police upon entering the Chief's home with some sort of letter or document (we never find out what that paper is). The story, however, begins with the day of the shooting and focuses mainly on the aftermath through his sister, Olga. The second narrative is that of Vladimir Brik a Bosnian immigrant and a newspaper columnist who decides to research and write a book about Lazarus. The narratives take alternating chapters with some information about Lazarus showing up in Brik's chapters.

My first concern with the book was the tone and language. The narrator of the Lazarus sections takes what could be a tongue-in-check tone by calling Lazarus an anarchist every few sentences or so. But then this is dropped without any explanation or conclusion so I'm not sure if the tone was, in fact, tongue-in-check or if it was heavy handed moralizing. Some of the language of the book was a little contrived. At one point Brik wants waffles for lunch, can't have them, and then "waffles" over the burger he ordered for lunch. That's a little much. The author is not a native English speaker but he has published in English before and he won an MacArthur genius grant which should indicate he knows the language he's writing.

My second concern was the length of the chapters as they relate to each narrative. Brik takes up most of the page count but I wanted more information about the murder--which is the topic of his book-to-be.

Then there are a few concerns rolled up in one--and this is where some plot details will be divulged so stop here if you don't want spoilers. The murder is never resolved but, more importantly than that, the accusations of anarchy are never resolved, we're never offered even a hint of a resolution, we never know why Lazarus went to the Chief's house . . . . All we know is the ordeal Olga had with the police and that she grieved Lazarus but went on with her life. Brik's life is also never really resolved. He is having imaginary trouble with his wife--as in he often imagines her leaving but we're given nothing to indicate that she might leave--and then decides at the end of the book to stay in Bosnia (which he was visiting as his homeland and as research because it was Lazarus's homeland) instead of returning to her. These two unresolved narratives attempt to answer each other in a forced manner. Brik gets to return "home" in a way Lazarus never could (in body or spirit because of a botched burial). A life-long friend of Brik's (who travels with him to Bosnia) is shot seven times--the same number of shots that killed Lazarus. Both the friend and Lazarus are raised from the dead by stories and art--the former told wild tales about his life and took photos and the latter wanted to be a novelist and was the subject of a novel (presumably, we never know if Brik actually writes the book). There is a mother-figure woman in all three of their lives (Lazarus, Brik, and the friend--sister, wife, sister). And these are just the points I can remember right now.

All in all, the book was a disappointment. It was a clever idea but the attempts to connect the contemporary and past narratives proved too much for the basic structure to handle. The book starts off well and is interesting but then gets too interested in its own games and tricks to sustain itself or be profound the way it could have been.

The book is interspersed with photos that are sometimes connected and interesting and sometimes not so much.

I'm not sure why you'd read this. If you're particularly interested in Bosnian Americans, need to read every example of Emma Goldman showing up in literature, or are especially concerned with retellings of murders . . . . maybe. But know that while it's not completely terrible it's not the best book ever.

Wanted (2008)

This is a visually stunning movie. The special effects are wonderful, the cinematography is interesting, and Angelina Jolie is her usual hot self. That's about the extent of the positive.

I'll admit that I was entertained. I liked watching the film. But, you can't ask any questions about it because once you pull on one thread, the whole damned thing comes unraveled.

The premise is interesting. A young man is swept out of his boring job and into a life of an assassin. He's inherited a super-strength of sight and the ability to curve a bullet (the latter may be something that can be taught but it's not clear). He's brought in, supposedly, to avenge the death of his father but--stop reading here if you don't want any spoilers--surprise, surprise, that man was actually not his father. Instead, the head of the fraternity of assassins who have taken him in have sent him to kill not the man who killed his father but his father. This is not surprising. What is also not surprising is that the head of the fraternity (Morgan Freeman) is not a good guy. He manipulates the "loom of fate" (that's right, the loom of fate--I can't make that up) so that the people assassinated are those he needs out of the way for one reason or another--but we're never given any of those reasons. Soooooooo, Mr. new assassin decides to eliminate the head of the fraternity, getting revenge for his father's death, and bringing the fraternity back around to morality (as much as a frat of assassins can be moral). This backfires (sort-of) when the head of the frat tells Mr new guy and a group of the assassins (including Jolie and Common) that all of their names came up on the loom of fate. Mr new guy's explanation that the head has manipulated the loom does not stop Jolie from shooting a bullet around the circle, hitting all of the assassins including herself but leaving the new guy alive. That doesn't so much make sense because 1. Jolie doesn't know whether she's actually obeying or defying the loom, and thus fate, by killing all of them, 2. she doesn't kill the head which means he can train some new thugs, 3. she doesn't kill the new guy which means she hasn't carried out her last assignment of killing him and, thus, defies the loom and fate.

That's just the major problem with the end. The whole of the movie is riddled with holes. The morality of the movie is questionable--the morality it wants to have, not one I'm trying to impose. The philosophical aspects are skewed to the point of no return. The timeline seems questionable. One man at the beginning has some sort of superhuman jumping ability but we never get an explanation nor do we see that sort of ability--or any other save the sight--again in the film. And that's all if you can suspend belief that you can curve a bullet, that you can have super sight that allows you to slow down what you're looking at, that cars can actually do what they do in the film without some sort of apparatus, that there can exist a super elixir that heals broken bones and bullet holes and bruises etc, that James McAvoy could actually be as assassin much less achieve the physique he does in six months . . . . . .

See it because the special effects are cool, because you like Jolie or Morgan Freeman, just don't ask any questions of it and you'll be ok.

O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000)

I don't know how I missed this one. I like the people in it. I like the premise. I've owned the soundtrack since the movie came out. But somehow I didn't see it until now.

I liked it very much. I caught bits and pieces of the Odyssey narrative but would like to re-read (or at least review the plot) of the Homer and then re-watch the film.

But, even without the Odyssey template, the movie is fun if maybe a tad predictable (especially concerning the treasure). That predictability doesn't make it any less enjoyable--if anything you can enjoy the movie more because you're not constantly trying to figure out what's going on and what might happen next. And, regardless of any of that, the film is a clever retelling of the Odyssey.

Anyway, I liked it a lot and will re-watch it soon (maybe even teach it if I get the chance) and I'll dig up the soundtrack if I can figure out which box it's in at the moment.

Get Smart (2008)

I'm not sure why half of the critics thinks this movie is bad. It's absolutely not. Yes, it has a simple plot but, given the problems of movies with more complicated plots, it seems admirable that a simple plot can be entertaining and sustain the length. The acting is fun and well done. The film even acknowledges the absurdity of having Steve Carell and Anne Hathaway as age-mismatched love interests. It makes fun of itself while having fun.

The only small complaint I have is two instance of continuity screw-ups with Hathaway's shoes. But that's it. It's a wonderful movie.

The Greatest Show on Earth (1952)

The Greatest Show on Earth feels like four circuses piled up on each other, back to back performance of the most random acts (but not most interesting) ever. The film could have easily been about an hour long had they cut out the three times they show and tell us about how the actual physical components (tent, etc) are assembled and disassembled and transported, had they cut out the loooooooooooooong "parade" sequences (each of which contained at least one full song but normally more) in which all of the circus performers dress up in themed costumes as circle the inside of the circus tent, had they cut out the acts that we didn't need to see to further the plot or theme . . . . .

The basic plot is that Brad Braden (Charlton Heston) runs the Barnum & Bailey Circus and is in love with Holly (Betty Hutton) but, because he runs the circus like a business, is not so quick to woo her because she is a trapeze artist and, therefore, part of his business. Holly has finally earned the center ring and, of course, chalks this up to Brad's love as much as her talent. Meanwhile, he gets The Great Sebastian (Cornel Wilde) to play the show in order to save it from having to cut it's run short. The Great Sebastian, however, only plays the center ring. So, Holly gets mad at Brad, Sebastian uses this as a wooing point to try to get Holly, Brad dislikes Sebastian, and Holly uses it as a competition to earn the center ring back from Sebastian. Meanwhile, Angel and the Klaus, the elephant trainer, are in a perpetual back and forth about Klaus loving her and trying to own her while she likes Brad and has a history with Sebastian (as do, apparently, half of the women in the world). So when Holly goes for Sebastian, Angel moves in on Brad, and Klaus gets angry and hooks up with the crooks who have been trying to invade and take over the circus midway. Then Holly and Sebastian's competition results in Sebastian being stupid, taking a risk, and injuring his hand beyond repair (maybe). Holly feels guilty and pledges herself to Sebastian. The circus train crashes thanks to Klaus and the hoodlum trying to rob it, the circus materials are wrecked, some people are dead or hurt, and Brad is seriously injured, Sebastian is the only one with the same blood type. Holly takes over and organizes the circus where is crashed and gets the town to come to it--it's a success, she realizes her love for Brad and then Sebastian and Angel decide to get married. Oh right, and Jimmy Stewart is a clown, Buttons, on the lam from authorities after having killed his wife (in some never explained he was a surgeon, she was dying, you kill the one you love thing). He is outed when he has to save Brad and there is a cop on board looking for him--he has thus far avoided trouble by always wearing his clown make-up, even out of costume and while the other clowns are not in make-up. No one ever explains why this isn't questioned.

The plot isn't terrible. It's just fine, actually. What makes all of this so very tedious at over two and a half hours is all of the circus footage. It's just not needed and doesn't do anything for the plot. I wouldn't watch it again.

One funny moment: Bob Hope shows up in the crowd as a spectator.

Mongol (2007)

Not the best movie I've ever seen but this one is very good. It's supposedly the "untold story of Genghis Khan" (implying his military history) but I think it actually ends up being more of a love story between Khan and his wife, Borte.

The movie is gorgeous. It showcases the steppes of Russia and Kazakhstan, the movie does the whole Lord of the Rings sweeping shots of the landscape but for less time and to greater effect. The actors and costuming is beautiful as well.

The acting seemed well-done to me. Being in a foreign language and about a foreign culture, it's sometimes hard to tell but I believed what they were saying/I was reading.

The basic storyline is that Temudjin is off to choose his wife, at age nine, from a distant tribe from which his father stole his mother (she was already betrothed at least, if not married). To make amends, Temudjin has to chose his wife from that tribe. The child, however, is entranced by a girl of ten who belongs to another tribe . . . everything falls into motion from there. I can't tell too much because it would give away specific plot points that are important as well as the motion of the plot. The movie did a fantastic job of showing how one thing leads to another. His whole life is laid out in morally complicated and ambiguous causes and effects. My favorite moment comes toward the end of the movie: Borte's response (and then, even better, Khan's response to her)to Khan's saying to his son, about the importance of choosing a good wife, "Didn't I choose your mother well?" A very sweet moment that I think wraps up the movie in a wonderful way.

I don't know enough about Khan to know if much of this is accurate in terms of history but it made a compelling film. It is a tad slow in moments and it runs just over 2 hours but I think it was well worth it.

The Incredible Hulk (2008)

I'm not sure why this movie is getting such mixed reviews--right now it has a 65% on RottenTomatoes. That's just not true. The movie is much much MUCH better than 65%. It's actually up there with Iron Man in my opinion right now. It's just a different sort of movie. This one is an action monster movie--but that's hard to get around when the main character turns into a big green monster who tosses cars around when he gets angry. I think you just have to own the monster movie aspect if that's the character you have. And, apparently to the critics dismay, that's what this movie does. It has great CGI and big explosive action sequences.

But, the acting is also good and the characters interesting, again despite what the critics say. I'll admit to being a big Ed Norton fan (despite some of his choices in films) but I am not a huge Liv Tyler fan and have no real affinity for William Hurt or Tim Roth. But they're all superb and very well cast. I didn't see the Eric Bana Hulk but I think Norton a better choice for Banner. The whole point of the Hulk story is to have this quiet, smart, unassuming, calm man burst into a huge violent alter ego when the least bit angry. That only works if the actor playing Banner isn't built and doesn't look sort of cocky (I like Bana just fine but he's better suited for Troy). Tyler does a good job of being simultaneously weepy and strong and understanding. You really think these two love each other and got the seriously short end of the stick in terms of their relationship. And the bad guys are wonderful as are the few morally ambiguous smaller characters.

The only teeny tiny complaint I had about the whole movie involves the CGI. It seems like Hulk is different sizes at different points in the film--specifically noticeably when he's in the cave with Betty and then when he and Betty are on the roof in the final battle sequence. I would have liked some explanation in the story rather than having to assume that the CGI is sloppy . . . .

But, super exciting, won't it be fun to have Hulk and Iron Man in a movie together?!

And, I LOVE the preview for Tropic Thunder with Robert Downey Jr. as a faux black man and the preview for the newest Mummy movie.

Creature from the Black Lagoon (1954)

I'll admit to only halfway watching this one. I was a little weary of the old sci-fi movies--J, however, is on a roll watching all of these. So I sort of kind of watched while doing other things. This one isn't as bad--at least not when I'm half occupied doing other things which may have made all the difference.

Anyway, it's about a team of scientists who journey to the Amazon find a creature (yep, one from the black lagoon). Several people die at the hands of the creature whom they proceed to chase, capture, lose, shoot, and, in general, annoy. But this one, in contrast to the others I've seen this week, has an actual suspenseful plot that functions to keep the viewer interested.

It's fine. If you like monster movies or old sci-fi it's worth a watch.

The Mummy (1932)

Oh dear. It's been a bad movie week here. This one wasn't so very terrible but it's just absurd.

It's really just Frankenstein, Dracula, whatever else Boris Karloff has been in. Guy gets killed in ancient Egypt for trying to resurrect his dead girlfriend, years later guy is awakened from his mummified slumber by archaeological moron who reads incantation, newly awake mummy guy spends years looking for dead girl, finds her and has new archaeological morons dig her up, mummy guy tries to resurrect dead girl but her spirit has been reincarnated in a half English half Egyptian girl who archaeological moron #2 is in love with (after ten seconds of seeing her, of course), half E half E girl is entranced by mummy guy and almost killed, and almost rescued by archaeological moron #2 and advisor but girl saves herself by accessing her ancient priestess soul and has the goddess she served kill mummy guy, girl and moron #2 are in love. The end.

Add in some pretty dry acting and heavy make-up and there you have it. It's fine but not super.

Metroplis (1927)

I don't fall asleep during movies. I have a strange relationship with sleep. So much so that, even if absolutely exhausted, I can stay up if anything on TV has caught my attention even a little bit. I fell asleep after about a half hour of Metropolis.

I'm not a fan of silent movies. Not only are they silent and therefore lacking in important dialogue and attention captivating sound, they are normally overly drawn out. Supposedly for dramatic effect, I find the lingering shots of faces with too much contrasting make-up boring. They also seem to take a fairly simple story and draw it out to the point of absurdity. I don't need five minutes of a woman's face looking terrified because she is being slooooooooooooooooowly stalked by a guy who is going to turn her into a robot.

This one, not good.

What Time Is It There? (2001)

This one seemed sweet: the description said the movie was to be about a 20-something man who is a street vendor specializing in watches meets a 20-something girl who then goes away (from Taiwan) to Paris; he's heartbroken and starts setting all of the clocks in Taiwan to Parisian time. Not so much.

So the guy is disturbed because his father has just died and his mother is slowly slipping into insanity as a result of the death and the Buddhist practices which encourages communication with the spirits, etc. The guy barely meets this girl who insists on buying the watch off of the guy's wrist instead of the bazillion he is selling. Literally they are only in the same place for minutes and exchange no words other than the perfunctory ones needed to purchase something. Yet the guy starts changing the clocks and watching French movies. But he also refuses to leave his bedroom to go pee so we see him peeing in a plastic bag (once) and a plastic bottle (once and then we see him "watering" a plant with the contents so he can re-use it). There are also simultaneous odd sexual encounters, the mother having a romantic dinner with the supposed spirit of her dead husband and then masturbating with something that seems to be of cultural import although I'm not sure what it was, the guy having sex with a prostitute in his car (after having drunk a whole bottle of French wine) after which they both go to sleep and she steals all of his watches, and the girl in Paris has a strange maybe almost lesbian experience with a woman she has just met (while vomiting in the restroom of a coffee shop) but has nevertheless moves her belongings from her hotel to this woman's hotel.

Soooooo. The movie isn't all that great. It tries to hard to be enigmatic when there isn't anything to be enigmatic about. The mother is grieving. The son is grieving. The girl is lost in a foreign country. Not ground breaking. I do think the movie missed the real story within itself. The only part that actually got any sort of emotional response from me is the mother's attempts to keep her dead husband's spirit within the house by blocking out all of the light. Her descent into madness is interesting yet underplayed in the film.

I wouldn't watch it unless you're being silly and OCD about a movie list . . . .

Kaidan (1964)

This promised to be Japanese ghost stories (it was a very Asian weekend with Kung Fu Panda, J's akido test, As You Like It, and this). It's actually four stories, not really related except they are Japanese and include a "ghost": "Black Hair," "The Woman in the Snow," "Hoichi the Earless," and "In a Cup of Tea."

"Black Hair" was very predictable. A samurai divorces his first wife in Kyoto and leaves her in poverty to marry the daughter of a wealthy, socially prominent family which gains him a better appointment as a samurai. He is haunted by the memory of his wife, who is, by all accounts, better than the second. He sends the second back to her family and waits out his ten year appointment. He then returns to his wife and has a wonderful reunion night only to wake to find her a corpse whose hair is still lovely.

"The Woman in the Snow" is also predictable. Two woodcutters, one old and one young, get caught in a snowstorm. The older one is killed by the Snow Woman but she spares the younger because he is beautiful--but on the condition that he never tell anyone about that night or she'll kill him. Well, we all know what's going to happen there. She comes to him as a mortal and they get married and have three kids. She, meanwhile, doesn't seem to age and they have the perfect marriage until one night, in the right light, she looks like the Snow Women. Well the man then tells her all about it, forgetting (of course) that he was sworn to tell no one. She reminds him of this fact while revealing that she is the Snow Woman. She then abandons him--leaving him alive to care for the children but promising to kill him if they ever speak ill of him.

"Hoichi the Earless" was my favorite and probably could have just been the whole movie. The beginning of this part tells the story of the ancient battle between the Genji and the Heike clans in Japan. Then we fast forward to find Hoichi, who is blind, living in a temple which was built in an attempt to calm the restless spirits killed on the site during the battle. Hoichi is left alone in the temple one night and is visited by a man who requests that he come chant the story of the battle for his master--the child emperor. Hoichi goes and is sworn to tell no one. He tells no one even when directly questioned about it. He continues to go to play every night and begins looking like he is deathly ill. One night the priest of the temple sends two men to follow Hoichi to see where he is going. They find him chanting and playing in the middle of a cemetery. They drag him back and the priest explains that he has been visited by ghosts and they will rip him to shreds if he visits one more time. The priest and his assistant then cover Hoichi in religious texts from head to toe--this is very intricate and very pretty. They instruct him to sit outside and wait for the ghost but that, when the ghost comes, he is not to move or speak no matter what happened. The ghost comes and cannot see Hoichi because he is covered in the religious text but the assistant missed Hoichi's ears. The ghost sees only the ears and decides to take them back to his master to prove he tried to bring Hoichi. The ghost rips off Hoichi's ears but Hoichi does not speak. Hoichi recovers, sans ears, and becomes famous as the earless chanter. Nobles, maybe ghosts, visit from far and wide and he plays for them at the temple, making him a rich man.

The last one, "In a Cup of Tea," was less interesting than Hoichi but sort of intriguing. It starts out being about unfinished stories and speculating about why they may have been unfinished. It then says, here's a story that's unfinished and we know why. So, the story begins: a man sees a face in his cup of tea, repeatedly--even after tossing out the tea and refilling, and even after smashing the cup on the ground--finally he gets over it and drinks the tea. He then returns home where is he is a guard in a large house. The man he saw in the cup of tea appears out of nowhere. He fights and injures the ghost man and the ghost disappears. The man calls the other guards who search the house and find no one. The next night three men appear to tell the man that he has injured their master and the master has gone to a hot springs to recover but will return to avenge his injury the next month. The guard fights the three men and seems to go mad. The story ends there and we cut back to the frame where the published has come to visit the author (who was writing the ghost story). The writer seems to not be at home but the woman who lets the publisher in screams and runs away, then the publisher does the same, after looking in the barrel. We then see that the author is trapped in the water in the barrel. The writer's story had left off with a line about what might happen if you consume another man's soul.

These are interesting--maybe worth using the Hoichi or Tea one in teaching--but the whole thing is almost intolerably long at 2 hours 5 minutes. It's a little slow and the segmenting makes it seem longer to me. Maybe watching one at a time over the course of several days would be better. Who knows. But I did like the Hoichi one very much.