CultureFeast » Film

Movie Review — Shutter Island (2010), a Psychological Thriller Masterpiece

Gary Karbon — Tue, 06 Jul 2010 16:05:10 +0000

By Gary Karbon

July 6, 2010

A masterpiece by Martin Scorsese on the level of Taxi Driver and Goodfellas.

The year is 1954. U.S. Marshal Edward “Teddy” Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio in his usual pedal-to-the-metal best) heads for the psychiatric-jail on Shutter Island to investigate the case of a missing patient/criminal, Rachel Solando. Accompanying him is his junior partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo).

The mental hospital, which is actually a maximum-security jail protected by an army of smug and hard-core guards, is led by Dr. John Cawley, the head psychiatrist — acted with great control and restraint by Ben Kingsley.

Daniels has some baggage: he was one of the American servicemen who entered the Dachau extermination camp during the liberation of Germany. The things that he saw and did at Dachau left their indelible marks on him.

Then there’s the memory of his lovely wife Dolores Chanal (played by lovely Michelle Williams of Brokeback Mountain who never disappoints)… Memory of a fire that destroyed a family…

This is a film about the tenuous nature of personal identity and the amazing powers of the mind to create alternative realities, each as real as the other one. Or as Bill Clinton once said: it all depends on what the definition of “is” is.

What starts out as a straight-forward missing-person investigation by two G-suits slowly changes shape and turns into a man’s desperate struggle to maintain his own sanity, while trying to assess the sanity of all those around him. What a screenplay! Kudos for the writer Laeta Kalogridis who adopted Dennis Lehane’s novel of the same name.

Scorsese, who at this point in his career have of course mastered the visual language of motion pictures, opens up the first scene with a statement as bold as the first sequence of the Jaws, and the tension never lets up, partly thanks to the arresting musical score.

Jackie Earl Haley, one of those most-under-acknowledged but great actors like Barry Pepper (61*) and Marcia Gay Harden (Pollock), again treats us to a great psychological feast, bringing to life a demented patient.

While we are talking about supporting roles, I must also mention John Carroll Lynch. If you thought playing the softie honey-of-a-husband in Fargo was the best he could do, think again. See how he breathes menacing life into Deputy Warden McPherson. The man has a range, clearly.

The resolution of the film does not turn out to be what we secretly hope it’d be. There’s a certain sense of letdown at the concluding last scene, perhaps because the lead role belongs to a good-looking baby-face guy like DiCaprio who always plays the “hero.” So perhaps that’s a casting issue that we have to deal with as audience.

Yet, deep down below, we also know that that’s exactly how it’d turn out in real life. And that explains why the hair on our necks rise when the final shock is delivered without flinching. Scorsese does not pull any punches there.

A dark downer painted in bruising black, lightning blue and thunder gray. Not a movie to watch on a sunny Saturday surrounded by your kids, family, and fresh pop-corn. But if you like psychological thrillers, this is a new American Classic that will stand the test of time like Cape Fear. Recommended.

Similar Posts:

Movie Review — Intermission (2003), a “romantic thriller” that parodies itself

Gary Karbon — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:46:27 +0000

By Gary Karbon

June 29, 2010

Intermission, director John Crowley’s first film, is supposed to be a film about “life is what happens in between” two major events; that is, an intermission. But the ending proves the reverse – that, no matter what happens during the intermission, the RESUMPTION of the pre-intermission process towards the MEANINGFUL CULMINATION of one’s life scenario is what counts. That’s why this successful romantic-thriller (a rarity in itself) ends up becoming its own parody. A good film with the wrong log line.

The setting is Dublin, a city of misfits with heavy accents, egomaniac police detectives and supermarket bosses, spurned lovers, middle-aged cheaters with the gray-itch, small-time crooks, simple hearts yearning for undying love … in short, a city like many others around the world.

This is the story of John (Cillian Murphy) and his girlfriend Deirdre (Kelly Macdonald) who takes up with a middle-aged bank manager who leaves his wife for Deidre’s much younger offerings. Then there’s Lehiff (Colin Farrell), good for nothing bum who is chased and humiliated by the sadist gas-bag cop Jerry (Colm Meaney) whose main mission in life is to become a TV celebrity starring in his own cop reality show.

When John agrees to be part of a heist plot to win back Deirdre, the story engine shifts into high gear. After some obligatory twists and turns the story reaches its nerve-soothing climax that again revolves around our two main characters: John and Deirdre.

Colin Farrell and Colm Meaney are so good as villains one wonders if they are actually acting or not.

The bottom line is this: are you ready to affirm your love upfront and confirm the responsibility of that decision, or will you continue to dance around waiting to be “discovered” as a lover? That’s the main question asked in Intermission, a question that’s answered well, in nuanced strokes.

There’s one late scene between the two lovers, talking straight from the heart for the first time with zero BS, that almost brought tears to my eyes. That’s the kind of “thriller” this is. It’s a man’s action thriller that crosses the finish line as a chick-flick. That’s a hard balance to toe. Recommended.

Similar Posts:

I Could Care Less about the New Twilight Movie: New Moon

Daniel Dessinger — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 14:11:45 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

November 25, 2009

I’ve been reading a lot of chatter on Twitter over the past month about the 2nd Twilight movie: New Moon. Here’s where I get real. Confession: I went to see the first Twilight movie with my wife at the theater. Having admitted that, I am compelled to also inform you that I was less than thrilled.

It’s not really fair, I think. We’ve become inundated with vampiric content over the past two years. The CB has a vampire show. HBO or Showtime has a popular vampire show. And Twilight is selling books like Harry Potter (well, almost). So part of my disdain for the arrival of New Moon stems from my irritation with all the other vampire content out there.

Truthfully, I’m not into vampires anymore. I loved the Anne Rice novels in the ’90s. I loved them too much. There is a fantasy and a romanticism temptation that comes along with these stories. Immortality, walking the night, murder for food, romancing the living: all these are intriguing concepts that lure people in.

But these stories don’t bring life. The real danger here is how they might affect the minds and thoughts of our teenagers. Speaking from experience, I was lost in a sea of fantasy as a teenager that I allowed to keep me from living in, understanding, and maturing in the real world. That is not Anne Rice’s fault – at least, not the majority. But the lure and hook are what hold us in complacency and self-pleasuring imagination.

Having said that, I may or may not see New Moon. I can’t really say yet. It’s not a priority, to be sure. The quality of acting and cinematography was good enough that I can respect the talent that went into production of the first film. But it should take more than talent to draw me to the theater. Content and message are more important.

Will you go see New Moon? Why or why not?

Similar Posts:

Comic Book Fans Unite! The Watchmen Movie Coming Soon!

Lisa Pawlowski — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 21:04:33 +0000

By Lisa Pawlowski

February 25, 2009

I knew what I was getting into before I married my husband. The piled up boxes of comic books in his room in college were my first clue.

Right now there are about nine cardboard comic book crates in a closet in our house. And the thing that has him down right giddy is the fact that “the best comic book of all time” is finally being turned into a movie. On March 6th, The Watchmen comes to the theater.

When we were dating, he told me about the book and said that, while it was dark and full of anti-superheroes, the story telling and art were great. He kept stressing to me that, even though I wasn’t a comic book fan, I would enjoy the story. We got married and over the years, he’d bring up the Watchmen occasionally, wondering why I hadn’t read it yet. Finally, we went on vacation one year and had to spend many hours in a car. He brought The Watchmen with him so he could read it once again. Since I hadn’t thought to bring any reading material with me, I gave it a shot.

I couldn’t get through it. There is a part where a female superhero gets raped and that’s where I stopped. Call me funny, but I just don’t find that sort of thing entertaining. He told me that he thought that part would bother me, but that if I just kept reading, the story would get better. I don’t like reading stuff that’s so unpleasant. These people aren’t likeable. I don’t want to spend time with them. To me, a hero doesn’t have to be flawless, it’s better if he isn’t. But I don’t want the protagonist to be an asshole, either.

My husband will most likely go to the theatre by himself to see it. He did go with me to see Sex In The City but that was because I’ve been dragged to all the X-Men movies (I can still recall the excitement emanating from him when we saw the first X-Men movie and he finally got a look at Hugh Jackman as Wolverine-his favorite character).

There was another comic book my husband suggested I read- the Bone Comic books. But after his recommendation of The Watchmen, I was wary of what he considered good. It was my kids, who really enjoy the books, who urged me to read them. And you know what? They’re really good and I’m about to read the last one of the series.

Similar Posts:

New Batman Villains Hit the Wire: Open Thread

Daniel Dessinger — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 13:25:04 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

September 12, 2008

The rumors are circulating about the next Batman movie. Who will be the villain? Which actor/actress will play the role? These are just speculations and rumors at this point. No new Batman villains have been officially announced. Here is the original story from Newsday.com.

Both of these rumored actors are excellent picks. I actually suggested Johnny Depp in my previous Batman post, but did not think he would actually go for it. If you think back on the bizarre roles he chooses, he is a compelling pick… I don’t think it’s the roles themselves, but rather how he plays them and puts his own unique spin to them…Jack Sparrow, Edward Scissor Hands, Willie Wonka – the list goes on. He would make an excellent Riddler.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman as the Penguin? I am not so sure about that. I mean, I do like the guy. I think. He always plays that character that just makes me anxious. I really can’t describe it. I would have preferred more of a Ray Liotta type, but Hoffman could be more interesting.

I am excited at the possibilities. Who will be the next Batman villain?

What do you think?

Similar Posts:

Irony, Existentialism, and Extraterrestrials, Oh My!

Daniel Dessinger — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:59:03 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

August 13, 2008

Irony is defined in my trusty Webster’s New World Dictionary as an event or result that is the opposite of what is expected. It follows, logically, that ironic is opposite to what is or might be expected. So, by definition, it’s incredibly ironic that my movie viewing has decreased since I got this whole movie review blog gig.

There might be extenuating circumstances, i.e. going through an existential crisis that makes one question the last 2, possibly 3, years of one’s life, but that’s a different blog for a different website. Even if there is some sort of existential crisis, one would think that I would use movies to escape, and, therefore, have ample fodder from which to blog. On the contrary, I can’t seem to motivate myself to devote the 2 to 2.5 hours required for a movie. It’s much easier to turn on the equally trusty DVR and lose myself in a pointless, thoughtless hour long drama in which nothing of consequence really happens.

Most of what I’ve seen recently is too forgettable to deserve a blog. I finally saw Lemony Snicket’s A Series of Unfortunate Events. I’m pretty sure it got horrible reviews because it didn’t live up to the epic proportions of the Harry Potter adaptations, but I enjoyed the semi-tragic tale of the 3 children who were orphaned when their house mysteriously exploded with their parents inside.

Jim Carrey as the evil, money-grubbing “uncle” was more than a little annoying, but I love Liam Aiken, who portrayed Klaus, the middle child. Some of you may remember him as Susan Sarandon’s precious, magic-loving son in Stepmom. I thought the subtitles for Sunny’s (the little sister) mumblings and baby talk were extremely original, and Jude Law made for a great narrator. Meryl Streep’s performance was surprising and entertaining, and even though I’d recommend the film, it doesn’t really lend itself to a full length blog.

Neither does Dreamcatcher. Other than The Shawshank Redemption, I’m pretty sure it’s the only Stephen King adaptation I’ve seen. My desire to watch it was driven by my opinions of the starring actors. I’ve liked Damien Lewis ever since I saw him in Band of Brothers, and Timothy Olyphant was mesmerizing in the short-lived Deadwood series on HBO. Their performances in Dreamcatcher aren’t quite as stellar, but I don’t think the material was either.

I had hoped for something a little more original from the plot than aliens coming to take over the world. The Ojibwa Native American culture believes that dreamcatchers filter bad dreams from good ones. The bad ones get stuck in the net of woven sinew, and the good ones fly freely into the dreamer’s unconscious mind.

One would think with a plot device this diverse and unusual that the film would be truly original. Alas, there is only one reference to the dreamcatcher hanging from the ceiling of the cabin in which the four friends are staying. Speaking of the four friends, Jonesy, Beaver, Pete and Henry changed their lives forever the day they stumbled upon young Duddits being bullied. They gained a friend that day, and as the friendship grew, they also gained some interesting abilities. Is it possible that this retarded boy is more than he seems? Could he have given them all special powers that will one day save the world?

In addition to the regular routine of life that’s kept me too busy to see any of the latest box office hits, I had a good friend tell me tonight, somewhat tongue in cheek, that I haven’t seen enough movies to really excel in the movie review realm. My pride was a bit wounded. I like to think of myself as quite the movie connoisseur, and I’ve impressed many friends and acquaintances with my random movie trivia and knowledge. However, I’ve often said that there’s always someone who’s better at something than you are, and I guess my friend is more of an avid movie fan than I am. He also has a few extra years on me, but we won’t go into that.

So in the interest of becoming more qualified for this “gig,” I will do my best to devote more time to watching movies. After all, it is August in Dallas, which means it’ll be over 100 degrees for several days in a row. What better way to beat the heat than to sit in my comfortable home or in a frigid movie theater and lose myself for a few hours. I’m FINALLY going to see The Dark Knight this weekend, so even though I’m sure most of you have already seen it, check back next week for my review, unqualified though it may be.

Similar Posts:

Comic Book Movie Cameos I Want to See

Nicholas Johnson — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:44:51 +0000

By Nicholas Johnson

July 2, 2008

Seeing how I am a self-professed comic geek, I am generally my friends’ go-to source for any and everything comic book related. Currently, the most often asked question that I am getting is: “Why did they make another Incredible Hulk movie? Didn’t they just make one a couple of years ago?”

To answer that question, Marvel (comics) is taking a new direction with their movies. They will not be auctioning off licensing to the highest bidder as was done with Spider-Man, The Fantastic Four, and Hulk. In doing so, we were subjected Spider-Man with organic webbing, The FF looking like a 2 hour commercial for toys, and the Hulk trying to be cerebral and romantic – Ang Lee style. Also with different studios owning the movies, the fans were never going to see crossover cameos like Tony Stark made in the Incredible Hulk.

The exchange between Gen. Ross and Tony Stark alone is worth the price of the tickets. It is tongue-in-cheek and foreshadowing banter at its finest. Marvel being in charge of how the movies are made is going to mean more fan friendly movies and hopefully more cameos and crossovers.

This got me to thinking and made me think of all of the different crossovers that I, as a self-professed comic geek, would like to see. For the sake of keeping remaining within the realm of “I’d like to see it” and not in the realm of “things that are going to happen”, I’ll avoid the obvious Captain America/Iron Man/Avengers crossovers. For those that don’t know, the Captain America and Iron Man 2 movies are already set for 2010. There’s also a Thor (I say thee hell yeah!) and Avengers movie on the horizon. I’ll stick with what I would like to see and not cross into things that are in the works.

Batman and Superman
For those that read the current comic series, or have read DC comics for a while, then you know how awesome this would be. Just their differences in approach and philosophies could fill 2+ hours of screen time. Also, it would give way for all sorts of cameos from the rest of the DC Universe. Personally, I’d like to see a love triangle form with Wonder Woman, if only for the hours of entertainment that I would get from reading the pissed off fan blogs.

Spider-Man and Daredevil
I can see it now….Spider-Man and The Human Torch (Johnny Storm) are out racing across Manhattan (like all superheroes do on a boring Tuesday night). Spidey aborts when his “spider sense” tingles due to a crime being committed in Hell’s Kitchen. Enter Daredevil….and scene. The Daredevil movie really focused on the fact that DD spends his nights patrolling the streets of Hell’s Kitchen and causing all sorts of havoc within the organized crime world. That is his genre. What is often forgotten is that is also where Spider-Man started. The most recent issues of Amazing Spider-Man have really returned to that. The Spidey vs. Kingpin fight in ASM #542 is one for the ages and could easily have been in Daredevil. So a movie crossover of these two would be nothing short of perfect. This would also be a great way to introduce Luke Cage (Power Man) and Danny Rand (Iron Fist) to the movie-going audience.

The Human Torch (Johnny Storm) and Iceman
I know this has a bit of a Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends feel, but think about it. A fire and ice combo. Think of all of the special effects that could go into something like that. Sure it would all have to be CGI, but it would still make for a cool movie going experience. Maybe they could go as far as to make it something of a Mr. & Mrs. Smith type movie of back and forth exchanges. I really think I might be onto something here. There would be all sorts of potential for X-Men and Fantastic Four cameos. Maybe we can get some of Michael Chiklis’ witty Thing/Ben Grimm dialogue via a cell phone or something.

Storm and Catwoman
I know that this one is just way out there, but just think about all of the money a Hollywood studio could save by casting Halle Berry for both roles. You know what? I couldn’t even begin to try to shine up this turd of an idea. This movie would suck so hard that it would probably cause any theater showing it to cave in on itself. On the brightside, the producers could always get the costume designers from Batman & Robin (the turd starring George Clooney) to make some super tight, latex, nippled-out monstrosities to show off Halle’s hot body.

Hulk and Thing
All throughout the history of Marvel Comics, the Hulk and the Thing have mixed it up. Their meetings have always been amongst my favorites. All they do is fight. They are like Tom & Jerry, only if Jerry were the same size as Tom and had similar strength. A few years back a great 4 (or 5) issue mini-series came out. Basically, the Thing and the Hulk fought each other across a barren stretch of the West. At times they would stop at local diners to eat together before getting back to fighting. The movie could center on Bruce Banner calling upon Reed Richards to see if he can assist him in finding a way to rid himself of the Hulk. Of course, something would trigger Bruce into changing to the Hulk. This would mean that the Thing would have to subdue the Hulk until he calmed down.

Of course I don’t see any of these movies ever happening, but a boy can dream…right? I have to have something to get me through until the Dark Knight opens in a little over 2 weeks. After that, it’s going to be a long dry spell until the next good comic book movies premiere. You can thank last year’s writers strike for that. If Tom Hanks and George Clooney don’t pull it together and the actors strike, then it could be even longer. If you’re looking for a silver lining….Marvel and DC only make you wait a month for new issues and they spread them out so that you can read all sorts of comics every week. Oh and Iron Man will be on DVD before you know it.

Similar Posts:

Musical Cues in Film Aren’t Necessary

Daniel Dessinger — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 19:09:27 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

June 28, 2008

Music is a very important and evident aspect of film.

Musical cues in films help the audience to feel a certain way, whether it is happy or sad with sappy violins or pianos, alerts of upcoming danger with sharp and eerie notes, or signals the end of a film by playing upbeat Top 40 songs.

I just finished watching Jurassic Park, and the musical cues in this film are very evident. The main theme for the film plays throughout the film and becomes very familiar and very comforting. The composer for the film created wonderful scores; most that made me feel for the characters, but more importantly, the dinosaurs. The music within the film is definitely one of a kind and still to this day, is easily recognized, much among the ranks of the music from Jaws.

However, here is a question for everyone reading, have you ever seen a film that had absolutely no soundtrack or musical cues?

I had never really thought about musical cues before because I had become so accustomed to them, and they literally just melted into and became part of the films I watched.

Two years ago, I watched the film, Caché (Hidden) staring Juliette Binoche, a story about a family who receives strange videotapes of someone filming the outside of their house, and later, receive clues to the husband’s mysterious past and childhood.

To be quite honest, the film was so intense, and I was so engrossed with the plot and the characters, that I didn’t even notice that there was no soundtrack or any musical cues. Not a single note, even for the opening or closing credits.

When I watched the film again, I took note of the missing music, and it became much more eerie and haunting. It was far more terrifying than a film that includes music to tell its viewers how to think or react.

Soundtracks and musical cues have become a staple in blockbuster films; there is no doubt about that. Trusty and reliable pop culture songs and artists litter the film almost to the point of distraction, and after watching Caché, there is definitely something that about the lack of music that adds so much more to a film. I can honestly say that I have never been so attentive, and terrified at the same time while watching any film, horror movie, thriller or other wise.

For all those reading, I would highly recommend renting Caché. It is a great film with some great twists and is composed of an extremely mysterious plot. And to think that all of this is heightened with the absence of music.

Similar Posts:

The Pros and Cons of Chick Flicks

Daniel Dessinger — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 15:09:54 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

June 16, 2008

After spending most of my weekend watching “chick flicks’, I began to think about the pros and cons of the genre as a whole. Now I love a good girly movie, as they usually involve good looking men, some of my favorite female actresses and a fairy tale ending so what’s not to love. However as a single woman, it is possible that the common romantic comedy is indeed the bane of my existence.

On one hand the story presented on screen in such a way that women might have a “maybe this could happen to me” moment, so one might argue romantic comedies are hopeful and inspirational to singles everywhere. You might find yourself trying the personals or online dating sites because it worked in “You’ve Got Mail” and “Must love dogs” or maybe you start planning a vacation, because women in the movies always meet the love of their life on vacation, right?

The devil’s advocate in me, while being a fan of “chick flicks” also thinks they are only made to point out how alone and desperate single women can be. Sure, we all want it to happen just like in the movies; to have some handsome, rich guy to come in and sweep us off our feet and make everything better because apparently we are incapable of making ourselves happy. Sorry that was a little bitter, but when we are inundated with movies showing women who aren’t truly happy until they find “the one”, it is basically telling all single women that they need to get married or forever become the lonely cat lady down the block.

Most guys hate romantic comedies, well hate is a strong word, more like they do not enjoy most chick flicks and I see their point. Women often want men to act the way they do in the movies, and guys have not seen enough of them to know what that even means. I found myself agreeing with Vince Vaughn’s character in “The Break-Up” during the scene where he and his girlfriend (Jennifer Aniston) got into a fight because she wanted him to want to do the dishes and he had no idea what she was talking about.

As women, I will fully admit, we sometimes have our expectations set to high when it comes to dating and relationships. We want a guy to bring us flowers for no reason, to be able to read our mind and finish our sentences, and I blame the romantic comedy. Men and women are programmed differently, that is blatantly obvious, but no man is going to know you want poetry, flowers, or even the occasional load of laundry washed if you don’t tell him. After all men have not spent their entire lives waiting on white knights to rescue them from castle towers, they are too busy blowing things up and saving the day to worry about romance.

I love romantic comedies, I really do, but too many in one weekend can make a single girl jaded. Will I quit watching? Of course not, despite the fact I am a self professed tomboy, I am still a female and the romantic comedy gene is embedded in our DNA. It’s unavoidable; I will continue to watch “chick flicks” and I will continue to cry at both the sad parts and the really sweet ones as well. Maybe romantic comedies are not the bane of my existence after all; I’ll save that title for most Sylvester Stallone movies.

Similar Posts:

You’re Killing Me, Smalls!

Daniel Dessinger — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 19:40:38 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

June 11, 2008

If you are like me, then you recognize the title of this article from The Sandlot and if not, you just think I’m an idiot. A friend pointed out that I use quite a bit of “movie speak” in everyday conversations, mostly because she had no idea why I felt the need to say “Alright, alright, alright” when apparently, to her, one “Alright” would have sufficed. Anyone who has ever seen Mr. McConaughey in his pink pants knows what I’m talking about. After some deliberation I realized how often I use movie quotes, and I am hoping I’m not alone. So this is part blog/part poll to see who shares my apparent love of “movie speak”. I give you my Top 5 most often quoted movies:

Not only can I quote the entire movie, but I have been known to throw out “You gotta keep livin’ man, L-I-V-I-N” just because I can. I also find that “It's what everybody in this car needs is some good ol' worthwhile visceral experience” comes in handy as a road trip begins. Dazed is a cult classic, and for good reason, so please tell me I’m not the only one adores this cinematic gem.

4. The Princess Bride (1987)
I do like to answer requests with “As you wish” just for my own personal entertainment. I can’t begin to tell you how many times my roommate and I go through the rhyming scene between Fezzik and Inigo:
Inigo: That Vizzini, he can *fuss*.
Fezzik: Fuss, fuss… I think he like to scream at *us*.
Inigo: Probably he means no *harm*.
Fezzik: He's really very short on *charm*.
Though the best part is, naturally, the end of the scene
            Vizzini: No more rhyming now, I mean it.
            Fezzik: Anybody want a peanut?

3. Dream for an Insomniac (1996)
This movie is a little known romantic comedy starring Ione Skye and Jennifer Aniston with an array of quotable little ditties which are the things Hallmark cards are made of. For example “Anything less than mad, passionate, extraordinary love is a waste of your time” is great for giving a friend advice and “There are too many mediocre things in life to deal with and love shouldn't be one of them” is good for a break-up.

2. Pretty in Pink (1986)
Jon Cryer may play in as many television shows or movies as he likes, but he will forever be Duckie to me. With such classic quotes like “I'm off like a dirty shirt” and “Drinking and driving don't mix, that's why I ride a bike” what’s not to love about the Duck Man. Now with every teen movie, you must have the sappy one-liner such as “If somebody doesn't believe in me, I can't believe in them.”

1. Empire Records (1995)
I have no qualms about admitting that Empire Records is probably my most quoted movie. Rory Cochran, as Lucas, can say just about anything in this movie and be funny, “Always play with their minds”, “Who knows where thoughts come from? They just appear” and “What's with today, today?” are my personal favorites. However” I don't feel that I need to explain my art to you, Warren” and “Shock me shock me shock me with that deviant behavior” are quite popular but the most often used line would have to be the classic line “Damn the man. Save the Empire.”

While I continue to hold The Boondock Saints and The Karate Kid in the highest regard, as they share the top spot on my All-time favorite movies list; I don’t quote them as often as the movies I’ve noted today. I should say, for the record, that Anchorman, Super Troopers, and Dirty Dancing were all honorable mentions, but didn’t quite make the cut. So scan your DVD collection, ask your friends and let me know what your most often quoted movies are.

Similar Posts:

Movie Review: Made of Honor

Daniel Dessinger — Wed, 21 May 2008 12:40:20 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

May 21, 2008

Writing these blogs has made me realize that almost every movie I see is in some way a chick flick. Sure there are the outliers like There Will Be Blood or Michael Clayton that I really enjoy, but by and large, it’s a pretty safe bet that I’m going to blog about something girly. And this one’s no different.

I did actually plan to NOT see Made of Honor. I do enjoy Patrick Dempsey’s role as Dr. Derek Shepherd, the sexy neurosurgeon who more than lives up to his McDreamy moniker on Grey’s Anatomy, but something about the little trailers that I saw for Made of Honor on my MySpace homepage just rubbed me the wrong way. Then one day I went to Yahoo, and I saw a blurb that said that Made of Honor had more going for it than TV’s sexiest doctor, and I got sucked in. I just couldn’t help it. I had resisted fate as long as I could.

Unlike Definitely, Maybe, this is one I see myself buying. As always, I got far too wrapped up in the storyline, and despite the similarities to My Best Friend’s Wedding, this one’s actually pretty original. Patrick Dempsey plays Tom, the bed-hopping playboy, who accidentally hops into Hannah’s (Michelle Monaghan) bed on Halloween night in 1998. She chastises him about his promiscuity, and he proves her right by trying to sleep with her.

Fast forward 10 years. Tom’s still sleeping around, and Hannah’s still chastising him. Just not as sharply, considering they’re best friends. No matter whom Tom’s spent the night with on Saturday night, he always spends Sundays with Hannah, until Hannah goes to Scotland for six weeks for work.

To compensate for Hannah’s absence, Tom takes some of his playmates with him to his and Hannah’s favorite spots on the next few Sundays. He soon discovers that none of these women have what Hannah has, and he desperately misses the connection that he and Hannah have. He even admits that there may be more to life than sleeping around.

So Tom decides he’ll tell Hannah how he feels about her when she gets back from Scotland. What he hadn’t bargained on was Hannah coming back from Scotland with a fiancé, who just happens to be royalty. And to top it all off, because she and Tom are best friends, she asks Tom to be her maid of honor, hence the name of the film. Tom agrees and spends his time as maid of honor trying to show Hannah what a big mistake she’s making.

The wedding takes place in Scotland, and the scenes of the Scottish country side are absolutely picturesque. The film is blessed with some pretty great scenes. One of the more memorable ones for me was between Tom and Hannah in the castle. They're separated by the door to her boudoir, and they're both leaning their foreheads against the door, and it’s almost as if a million miles separates them, not just a wooden door. But at the same time, in some ways it’s as if they’re leaning against each other’s foreheads. So close, yet so far away.

The supporting cast is full of unknowns. I did recognize Kadeem Hardison from Renaissance Man, when he was MUCH younger, as one of Tom’s friends, and Hannah’s jealous cousin looked familiar, but I couldn’t really place her. So Sydney Pollack’s turn as Tom’s philandering father was very refreshing. I especially enjoyed the part about the prenuptial agreement, and there’s one scene between him and Tom in which we find that the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree.

This is definitely one I recommend for a girl’s night or a lazy Sunday morning or afternoon. It might even spur you to plan a Scottish getaway of your own.

Similar Posts:

Just Call Me John Hughes

Daniel Dessinger — Wed, 14 May 2008 16:23:54 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

May 14, 2008

I want to make a movie. Better yet I want to make an 1980's movie. Why? Mostly because the majority of today's movies are bad remakes of classic 80's cheese. Now I'm sure most 80's movies were probably remakes of other inherently bad movies, but I didn't see those so they don't count. Now making an 80's movie has a recipe to follow, as there is an exact science to hitting cult status.

Creating a piece of cinema that people will quote for the next 30 years requires intense research. Personally my VHS collection alone is enough to make most people roll their eyes at things I actually spent money obtaining while others simply shake their heads and tell me they haven't even heard of most of them; which either way is fine by me. When I watch some of my favorite 80's movies, occasionally I giggle at the bad acting, mock the horrible special effects, or spend 30 minutes trying to explain to someone who has
never seen the movie that it was in fact, at one time, a very good movie. Once the research is done, you can move on to the basics for making a classic 80's film.

In order to sustain ridiculous cheese, first you have to start with a soundtrack filled with classics that as soon as it starts would have people saying " Oh man, I love this song". Frankly a movie can become a hit simply based on a great soundtrack, i.e. Purple Rain. How many really bad movies had insanely good soundtracks? Did you see Purple Rain? Probably not, but you owned the soundtrack on cassette. The hardest part would be deciding which artists, many of which continue to tour and make money off their lone hits of the 80's, to put on my fantasy soundtrack. Maybe I'll make it a 2 disc set so I don't have to leave anyone out.

First we started with music and now we move on to wardrobe, I mean the 80's were a decade of fashion so bad that it was good. We proudly wore jelly shoes, tight rolled jeans, Hypercolor shirts, with 90 plastic bracelets on each arm and 5 inch bangs. Cinema has some fashion crimes we should never commit again i.e. Lea Thompson's crimped hair in Howard the Duck or Jon Cryer's entire wadrobe in Pretty in Pink. In order to keep our movie classic though, we are going to have to dust off the taffeta, zip up the Members Only jackets and find a can of mousse.

So with a soundtrack and wardrobe ready to go, as well as years of research; now all we need to do is cast our movie. Ideally I'd throw my favorite actors that populated many movies of the 80's back in the mix, however while Judd Nelson at age 26 effectively played a high school student in The Breakfast Club, at almost 50 I don't think it would work anymore. We would have to pick 20-someething actors because casting people who are actually the age they are playing is just ludicrous. Don't get me wrong, I'm still casting Molly Ringwald as a teacher, John Cusack as a dad, Jeremy Piven as the gym teacher, Michael J. Fox as principal, Phoebe Cates as a waitress, Ali Sheedy as a mom, Mary Stuart Masterson as a hip store owner, and Eric Stoltz as the quirky science teacher just because I can.

Now after an open audition, we've casted our film which fits with our perfect muscial backdrop and classic fashions; once we hit your standard teen movie settings like the mall, high school dance, and the beach we are well on our way to 80's movie success. I'm hiring Cameron Crowe to help me write the script, John Hughes to co-direct and I'm sitting on a gold mine. Instead of trying to make a new, hip teen movie as an homage to the 1980's, I'm going back to the basics and making a genuine 80's teen movie. No new cars, new clothes or new music here; yet somehow I think I've stumbled on to something totally original.

Similar Posts:

Movie Review: King of California (2007)

Daniel Dessinger — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:33:15 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

April 27, 2008

A California comedy with a heart.

Michael Douglas is “Charlie,” a jazz base player, a dreamer, and a loser who spends a few years in a mental institution for a tune-up from the neck-up.

His sixteen year old daughter Miranda ( Evan Rachel Wood) has lost half of her heart when her mom left the house years ago but she managed to learn how to take care of herself.

In a sense, father and daughter switched Emotional IQs over the intervening years – he became the child while she grew into what he should've been; the responsible one.

However, being responsible sometimes means burying one's dreams. That's an option Charlie has never entertained.

So it goes… no sooner than Charlie is released from the psychiatric ward he shares his life's ambition with Miranda: to find the long-lost treasure of a 17th century Spanish captain. He is dead serious about it and uses both his metal detector and ancient books about the era to convince Miranda.

(WARNING: plot points revealed.)

After her initial resistance, Miranda agrees to play along. This childish man is after all the only parent and possibly also the only friend she's got left in life.

But STOP! They have an obstacle in the shape of a giant Costco warehouse. The secret Spanish treasure is buried under that chunk of concrete, according to Charlie's best calculations.

Joined by his former band member Pepper (Willis Burks II), they hatch a plan.

After breaking into the Costco warehouse at night and digging at the “Mark of X,” the story takes a really bizarre turn.

At the bottom of the hole dug on the warehouse floor, Charlie and Miranda find a pool of water. Miranda is pretty sure it's the sewer. Charlie thinks it's a pool of sulfur hiding the sunken treasure ship.

By taking full advantage of Costco's shameless product placement, Charlie finds a diving suit and oxygen tank and dives right in.

At the end, Charlie finds the sunken treasure he was looking for. Miranda finds her treasure too, which is not minted in the 17th century: her new-found love for a man that showed her the correct way to live in life.

A sweet little feel-good flick with no ambitious agenda. Nothing here to set the House of Drama on fire. It delivers the 93 minutes of pleasant distraction that it promises at the outset.

Michael Douglas proves that his prodigious range as an actor covers sensitive mindful comedy as well. Written and directed by Mike Cahill.

Similar Posts:

Movie Review: 3:10 to Yuma (2007)

Daniel Dessinger — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 11:53:55 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

April 25, 2008

3:10 to Yuma tries to break the traditional Western-movie mold like Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven (1992) did. But at the end, 3:10 fails to solve one of the equations that it sets for itself in Act 1.

Basically this is another "delivering the criminal to justice" story with a "morality play" at its core.

Protagonist Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is a crippled Civil War veteran and loser of a farmer who cannot even command his own son’s respect.

He emerges as an unlikely hero turning down all incentives to betray himself. He resists the easy way out and sticks with a higher principle until the bitter end.

(WARNING: plot points revealed)

Time and place: Post-Civil War Arizona.

Dan Evans is a farmer with a wife, two boys, and a bad leg who struggles not to lose his ranch to men and nature. Rain is scarce and crops are bad. Plus, a local developer to whom Evans owes money is trying to push him off the land to resell it at a profit to the railroad company.

Into this picture, enters the cocky highway bandit Ben Wade (Russell "Gladiator" Crowe).

Wade is a cocky rotten apple with a Robin Hood complex. He believes killing, pillaging, and holding up stage coaches is nothing more than a “wealth re-distribution” project.

Our antagonist is caught after a bloody hold up. Evans signs up for $200 as one of the guards to take the toxic Wade to the train station in the faraway town of Contention.

The goal is to eventually put him on the “3:10 to Yuma,” the train that will take Wade to justice and probably to the gallows. That’s when things start to get interesting.

Wade’s psychotic posse tracks down the group in order to set Wade free. During the perilous trip to the train station, Wade and Evans, the prisoner and the guard, find themselves on the same side while fending off against the Indians and other unwelcomed parties. That’s when the line between the lawmen and the law-breaker gets blurred up.

Much of Act 2 and 3 is filled with The Chase. Guns are fired. Dynamites explode. Horses are ridden to exhaustion. Bodies start falling here, there and everywhere.

At the end the main plot (taking Ben Wade to justice) and the sub-plot (Evans trying to redeem himself in the eyes of his son) dovetail nicely. That’s the first equation and it’s solved to our satisfaction.

What does not work is what Wade does in the last scene. That’s the second equation that addresses Wade’s inner world and his psychology. What Wade does in the end is totally inexplicable given his career as a hardened criminal. That really comes across as a major let down, as a “neat solution” forced upon the story line for the sake of casting a heroic halo over the main antagonist.

We are living in a confusing world, don’t we? No wonder even the Westerns are confused these days.

Similar Posts:

4 DVD Rental Options Compared

Daniel Dessinger — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 11:30:00 +0000

By Daniel Dessinger

April 23, 2008

I’ve been renting DVDs online for quite a long while. Here is my take on how the top 4 rental options compare.

1) NETFLIX

Two words: “Forget it!”

I know how hyped up an operation Netflix is. I forgot the number of times I had to close a Netflix under-pop ad when I visit a web site. It’s been advertised and marketed like crazy. But I really think it sucks for a reason that IMHO borders on “consumer abuse” and “misrepresentation.”

Netflix promises “unlimited rentals” for the subscription category you sign up for, right? Well, think again…

If you rent just 2 movies a month, it’s fine. Netflix works just like promised.

But if you watch 15 movies a month like me, then Netflix becomes a nightmare.

The first month everything’s cool. Your DVDs arrive regularly, without pain.

But once the Netflix computer realizes that you are a high-volume customer, the shipments mysteriously slooow down to a CRAWL… for no good reason whatsoever. So much for "unlimited" rentals.

And I'm not the first one who discovered this either. I wish I could claim credit for that. The Internet is full of sites devoted to Netflix’s poor customer service and maddening “auto slow down” policy. Here are two:

http://netflixunderground.blogspot.com/2005/03/netflix-tactics.html

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/entertainment/netflix_quality.html

Rule of thumb is this: if your cost to Netflix as a customer falls below $2 per rental, then the Central Netflix Uber-Matrix starts to punish you by sitting on your DVDs.

It’s just bad business. I’m surprised Netflix is still allowed to operate in this country despite numerous complaints by countless customers. I strongly advise you against it if you are a movie fan (nut?) like me.

2) BLOCK BUSTER http://www.blockbuster.com/

This is my preferred service and I recommend it to anyone, eyes closed.

For one thing, BB never ever slows down your deliveries, no matter how many DVDs you rent a month. This is how it works:

Day 1: You mail in your returned DVD.

Day 2: BB acknowledges receipt and mails you the next DVD in queue.

Day 3: You receive your new DVD. Period.

BB mails DVDs even on a Saturday, which I really appreciate.

Second: BB’s selection is as good as Netflix’s, if not better. I do not remember a single DVD that I found in Netflix but was not available in Block Buster.

Third: thanks to BB’s brick-and-mortar stores, when you return your DVD to a BB store near you, you get a FREE replacement. How cool is that? So, if you watch 10 DVDs a month, you can also get 10 free replacements from BB if you visit the store.

Fourth: For certain subscription categories, BB also gives coupon for an ADDITIONAL free DVD per month.

One thing you must watch for is BB's ever-changing pricing policy.

When I first signed up with BB years ago, I used to pay $47 for 8-at-a-time unlimited rentals.

Then they chopped it down first to 5-at-a-time; then to 4.

Now, BB allows you to rent only 3 DVDs at-a-time, which might again change in the future.

I’m currently signed up for 3-at-a-time delivery (no in-store free exchange) option which costs me something like $15 a month. Not bad at all.

3) RED BOX
http://www.redbox.com/

This is a new and acquired taste for me and I’m very pleased with it.

I’m not sure if you have this service available where you live, but where I do, you can’t miss these big red boxes standing in a corner at McDonald’s restaurants and selected supermarkets.

Red Box is a fully automated self-vending system. You make your selection on screen, swipe your credit card, get your DVD and go home happy.

Cost? Just $1 a day. No subscription is required. It’s great.

This is how use Red Box: there are quite a few new release DVDs that are not immediately available from BB. Guess what? Red Box usually has those new titles.

So, while waiting for my next BB envelope to arrive, I rent a new release from Red Box.

Since the McDonald’s or the supermarket I rent it from are the places I visit frequently, it doesn't require a special trip either. It’s a convenient and efficient way to rent DVDs.

Last week one of the Red Box DVDs turned out to be unwatchable. It kept freezing up on me.

I called the company’s 800 number late at night and a very polite woman told me how to return the DVD the next day. She also sent me by e-mail special rental codes for TWO free rentals. I’m a happy puppy.

Red Box complements my main Block Buster option nicely. It does not have any of my favorite titles (old film noirs, French thrillers, Italian classics, Polish and Iranian dramas, John Ford westerns, etc.). But then that’s why I keep my BB subscription anyways.

The BB+RB arrangement works well for me. Both services cost me a total of $20-$25 a month and allow me to enjoy an average of 15 titles, about 4 of which are brand new releases.

4) CINEQUEST ONLINE http://www.cinequestonline.org/index.php

This is a classy online rental operation with headquarters in San Francisco.

Its collection is truly a cinema lover’s delight. I strongly urge you to go check some of their titles.

It is especially strong in animation, Indy, and Japanese/Asian titles. They even have a 3 Free Rental offer for newcomers.

I used to be a Cinequest member but I’m not anymore for a very simple reason: I live on the East Coast and CQ is in SF. It takes a whole week for me to send a DVD and get a replacement.

It just is not feasible or economical for me to wait that long for a single title.

But if you live in CA or close to SF, you might definitely want to give CQ a shot. It's an operation run not by a faceless corporate bureaucracy (like Netflix) but real people like you who are in love with the art of moving images.

Similar Posts: