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.