Day 75: I Don't Get That Feeling Filling A Cavity!

BEST WORST MOVIE (2010)
Directed by Michael Stephenson

What would you say is the worst movie ever made?  Last week, I discovered my contender for that spot.  But is there any movie you've ever seen that, despite its myriad flaws, you can't help but love it?  For some, it's The Rocky Horror Picture Show, for others, Ed Wood Jr.'s Plan 9 From Outer Space (though I personally prefer Bride of the Monster.  I'm a sucker for Bela Lugosi).  For a good many people, that honor goes to Troll 2.


Made in 1989 by Italian director Claudio Fragasso and starring a group of Utah locals, Troll 2 has garnered the reputation of the "Worst Movie Ever Made," earning the "top" spot on IMDb's "Bottom 100" list at one point (as of today, it's still on the list at #76).  It was never released in theaters, but instead went straight to video and HBO.  Though the actors were all amateurs, there were a couple who entertained dreams of Hollywood super-stardom.  When they saw the finished film, however, their hopes were dashed.  Everyone agreed: this movie stinks.

However, the film was not a total loss.  Years later, fans of the film held midnight screenings and even full-blown parties built around it.  It's cult of fans are just as dedicated as any the Rocky Horror crowd could boast.  So when word of this reached Michael Stephenson - who played the young Joshua Waits in Troll 2 - he decided to make a documentary about the fans.

Along for the ride, he brought George Hardy, who played his father in the film.  George, an affable dentist now living in Alabama, is more than happy to join him.  They round up the rest of the cast and even the director, and tour the United States and Canada, making appearances at screenings.  And when word gets out that the cast and director will be there, the screenings sell out quickly.

This film touches on a lot of subjects, not the least of which is the effect that this new-found celebrity has on these yokels who appeared in a bad movie nearly 20 years earlier.  George seems to embrace it at first, but after a disastrous trip to England (apparently, it's not as big a hit over there), he is brought back down to earth, realizing his place is in the dentist's chair, not on the big screen (though he wouldn't rule out doing another film).  But George isn't the only eccentric in the cast.  Don Packard, who played the store owner in the film, was on leave from a mental institution when he auditioned.  Margo Prey, who played Diana Waits, has been caring for her ailing mother and hasn't acted in years (that whole scene looked like something out of a suburban Grey Gardens).  But all of them (save Margo) got together for the screenings, and everyone had a great time.

But the question that they really only touch on is this: what is it about these movies that make us love them so much?  On the surface, they're terrible, and yet they endear themselves to us.  Well, I can't speak for Troll 2, as I've never seen it.  But there are some turkeys that I love (including, but not limited to: Bride of the Monster, The Room, Hook, etc.).  I can really only say that the reason I love them is either because 1) I loved them as a child and never really let go of that love or 2) There is a kind of naive enthusiasm behind them, where the film-makers may not have been talented, but they were sincere and were having fun.  And if that fun and/or sincerity makes it to the screen, then they must have done something right.  Even if they did end up making what amounts to an unintentional comedy.

You would think that everyone involved would be glad that their crappy little film has garnered such a cult following, but director Claudio Fragasso comes across as more than a little bitter when he finds out about his movie's status "Worst Ever."  He argues that he made a good film, but the actors screwed it up.  Or he blamed the language barrier.  Or the crew.  Or pretty much everyone but himself.  Instead of saying, "I learned from my mistakes, and I can now watch Troll 2 and chuckle a little bit," he insists that his movie was a good one and all the critics are wrong.  It's a surprisingly bitter note in an otherwise upbeat and strangely heartwarming movie.

But as good as this doc was, it doesn't make me want to watch Troll 2.  Sorry.

Day 74: Let Them Hate Me, So Long As They Fear Me

CALIGULA (1979)
Directed by Tinto Brass (credited for "Principal Photography") and Bob Guccione ("Additional Scenes")
Starring: Malcolm McDowell, Helen Mirren, Peter O'Toole, John Gielgud, Teresa Ann Savoy

I hate the way my mind works sometimes.  I haven't made a post here in almost two whole months, as I've been moving cross-country and getting myself situated.  When I remembered this little project of mine, I felt I couldn't just come back with any old film.  No, I needed to make a splash.  I needed to come back with something big.

And now, I'm wishing I hadn't.

I knew going in that this movie was going to bet a tough one.  What else should I have expected from a film that Roger Ebert called "utterly worthless, shameful trash."?  Just how tough it was going to be came as a surprise.

To truly understand this disaster, we have to go back to its very inception.  See, back in the day, author and screenwriter Gore Vidal was working on a script for a film on the life of Caligula Caesar, based on an unmade TV mini-series by Roberto Rossellini.  Of course, you can't make a movie without money, so Vidal went to Penthouse magazine founder and publisher Bob Guccione.  And this was the film's most costly mistake.  Guccione, naturally, wanted to sex up the script a bit, but he also wanted to make it more like the sword-and-sandal epics of the 50's and 60's.  It was to be a spectacle of lavish proportions that would be a bit sexier than audiences of the time were used to.  Guccione hired Tinto Brass to direct and the production would be designed by Fellini's art director Danilo Donati.  Acting heavyweights Malcolm McDowell, Peter O'Toole and John Gielgud were hired.  The production was to be begin in 1976 and was slated for a 1977 release.  Sounds like any other production so far, right?  Just go and make the movie.

Not so fast.  Vidal rewrote the script five times, which delayed production; he was banned from the set for arguing with Brass.  Maria Schneider, who had been cast as Drusilla, balked at the amount of nudity and sex in the film and was replaced by Teresa Ann Savoy.  Brass' rough-and-tumble shooting style didn't allow Donati to finish his sets in time, which resulted in more script changes.  Brass and Guccione would argue over the sexual content of the film so, of course, more changes and more delays.  After principal photography was completed, Guccione took over post-production.  He went back and shot several minutes of hardcore orgy footage (something he had not discussed with Brass), and basically took over the editing process himself.  Vidal and Brass both disowned the film.  And it didn't debut until 1979.

But I'm willing to bet that the process of making this film, as unpleasant as it was, was nothing compared to actually sitting through it.  For the moment, I'm going to put the porno stuff aside and just focus on what a terribly sloppy movie this is.  A lot of the blame for that has to go to Guccione himself, who was inexperienced at film-making of any kind.  He chose shots that were out of focus.  He chose takes of the actors giving extremely over-the-top performances.  There is zero continuity.  Nothing makes any sense whatsoever.  The actors, for their part, give it their all, except for John Gielgud, who played Nerva.  It is painfully obvious that he was just there for the paycheck.  Though his death scene, where he had slashed his wrists in a bath, was very well-done.  Maybe that's because I envied him at that point.  Malcolm McDowell is simply recreating the role of Alex, from A Clockwork Orange, only in a toga instead of a codpiece.  Peter O'Toole, who played Caligula's syphilis-ridden uncle Tiberias, gives one of the strangest performance I think I've ever seen.  Rumors of him being drunk on the set are rampant, and I believe it.  If I had to work on this movie, I'd be drunk on set, too.

Now this movie would have been bad enough as it is, but then there's the orgy scenes.  There is nothing tasteful about them.  It's just straight-up porn.  And it's not even simulated, as more mainstream films usually do.  It's all there and it's all real.  And there's really no point to it.  It doesn't move the story along (assuming this movie has a story) and it's not even very well made.  It's...well, it's porn.  The only difference is that the pizza guy and the pool cleaner are wearing sandals.

This is the first movie I've done for this project that has absolutely no redeeming qualities.  And the thing is, it's not just bad - it's insulting.  There is no excuse for this movie; it's not a "historical drama," or a "classical epic."  It's not even a good porno!  And yet it was made and marketed in such a way as to make the audience think it was all these things and more.  "It wasn't just a movie, it was a cultural event!  It broke down barriers!  It was an act against censorship!"  No.  No, it wasn't.  It wasn't any of those things.  If anything, it was the single biggest case for censorship ever made.  And it's not a terrible movie because it's a porno.  It's a terrible movie for trying to tell the audience it was more than that; and for thinking that hiding behind respected actors and millions of dollars could make it anything more than it is.

But in the interest of saying something nice......the sets were good.

Day 73: It's Only A Movie, Only A Movie, Only A Movie....

THE LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT (1972)
Directed by Wes Craven
Starring: Sandra Cassell, Lucy Grantham, David Hess, Fred J. Lincoln, Marc Sheffler, Jeramie Rain, Gaylord St. James, Cynthia Carr, Marshall Anker, Martin Cove

By now, all of my readers (and I love all three of you) know how I feel about films that are hyped up beyond what they can possibly deliver.   And this is one of those cases.  Up until now, the only thing I knew about this film was the classic poster that claimed that this was no less than the most harrowing film you will ever sit through.  And it really isn't.  It is and exercise in extremely poor taste - and an effective one, at that - but as far as being scary?  Not so much.

The story centers around two high school girls; Mari (Cassell) and Phyllis (Grantham) who go into the city to see a rock concert.  While trying to score some grass, the come across Bob Dylan Junior (Sheffler), a junkie who just busted out of prison with his brother Krug (Hess), child molester and all-around sex fiend Weasel (Lincoln) and slutty gun moll Sadie (Rain).  The group drives the two girls out to the woods where they beat, rape and eventually kill them.  In the ultimate ironic twist, the group find shelter for the night in the house where one of the girls lived.  And once her parents find out what happened, they quickly and effectively plot revenge.

Now all of this sounds like typical horror/slasher/exploitation movie stuff, and it is.  And, handled the right way, it can be plenty scary.  But the way Craven directs this picture, you'd think it was a comedy.  The soundtrack is upbeat, there are a couple of bumbling cops (Kove, Edwards) who provide comic relief, and the banter between Mari and her parents is like something out of a sitcom.  About the only thing that's handled seriously are the most brutal scenes in the film.  And even in those scenes, the actors playing the baddies act like they're in a comedy.  And the effect is not so much scary as much as it is disturbing.

And this may have been what Wes Craven was going for, but there's not a lot of balance.  We switch from one scene in which the girls are put through some of the most humiliating scenarios imaginable to another scene with the two Keystone Cops who get clue after clue after clue about the whereabouts of the girls, but can't put two and two together.  We go from tragedy to comedy in a matter of seconds.  And I don't know about you, but when I see a girl brutalized on screen, the last thing I want you to cut to is a scene where two cops try to hitch a ride on the roof of a chicken truck.  Sorry, but I don't feel much like laughing after that.

About the only real tension we get in the movie is in the third act, when Mari's parents discover what happened to her.  They quickly devise a plot almost as elaborate as Macauly Culkin's burglar traps in Home Alone.  And they do it rather quickly, not taking any time to mourn their loss.  Of course, where Home Alone was cartoony in it's violence, here we have the exact opposite.  In this house, revenge is a dish best served with a chainsaw.

The Last House on the Left is an effective screamer, to be sure, but it is almost laughably uneven.  There's no emotional arc.  I guess that's hardly surprising for a film that was originally conceived as a hardcore porno version of Ingmar Bergman's The Virgin Spring (!?). And it did make enough of an impact to get Wes Craven noticed.  And as far as debut films go, I've seen worse.  But it's not the harrowing experience the poster told me it would be.  It was right about one thing, though: "It's only a movie."  No more, no less.

Day 72: It's Always the Same and It's Always Different

HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER (1986)
Directed by John McNaughton
Starring: Michael Rooker, Tom Towles, Tracy Arnold

Shot in less than a month in and around Chicago on grainy 16mm film on a budget of just over $100,000, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer follows the exploits of two friends - Henry (Rooker) and Otis (Towles) - who go on a killing spree around the Chicagoland area.  There really is no rhyme or reason to their crimes.  They kill a guy selling black-market TVs.  They massacre an entire family.  They'll shoot a guy on the side of they freeway just for kicks.  Henry has been at the senseless murder game for quite a while, but Otis is new to it, and the thrill begins to go to his head.  Blissfully unaware of all this is Otis' sister Becky (Arnold), who came to town to get away from her abusive husband.  This unlikely trio is happy enough at first, but things get out of control very quickly.

This is an independent horror film that reminded me, in many ways, of Tobe Hooper's The Texas Chain Saw Massacre.  Both were micro-budgeted films that focused on a group of isolated loners who love to kill people.  Both proved that you don't need a gigantic budget to scare the crap out of an audience.  And, probably most important, both are based on the exploits of real-life serials killers.  Chain Saw was inspired by Ed Gein.  Henry was inspired by Henry Lee Lucas, a killer from Texas who was convicted of eleven murders and suspected of dozens (maybe even hundreds) more.

One of the things I'm discovering is that horror films can be broken down into to two categories: the ones that are scary and the ones that are disturbing.  Henry certainly falls into the latter category.  No one ever jumps out at the camera or waits behind the corner in this film.  What we get is a series of scenarios in which Henry takes Otis under his demented wing.  We watch a monster create a monster, and the depths to which Otis sinks disgust even Henry.  But Henry is no prize himself.  He, too, is capable of the most depraved acts.  He's just not as brazen about it.  Most of what is disturbing about Henry goes on inside his own head.  In what is probably the most brilliant directorial decision in the film, we occasionally hear the screams of Henry's victims, usually when he's getting ready to do hi thing.  We don't flashback and actually see it, but there's really no need.  And this way, we get a glimpse of his past in much more unique fashion.  But despite what the title would have you believe, the film is not so much about Henry, nor is it truly a portrait of one man.  It really is an ensemble piece.  It doesn't even focus on Henry exclusively until the last few minutes of the film, and even then, it doesn't necessarily provide us with a "portrait."  It's really more of a "snapshot."

As influential as this film is, it almost never saw the light of day.  Director John McNaughton turned into his producers a two-and-a-half hour VHS copy of the film that had to be watched on a tiny monitor with barely audible sound.  This was because he couldn't, for whatever reason, bring in the negatives to be processed.  Needless to say, his producers were unimpressed, and the film was shelved for many years.  When it was finally brought to light, the MPAA (remember them?) gave the film an X-rating.  In fact, it was because of this film (and a few others) that the MPAA finally created the NC-17 rating for adults only films that were not of a pornographic nature.

And that last little bit of information should be enough to tell you whether or not this movie is for you.  Personally, I found it more disturbing than outright scary, but that's actually the kind of horror I like.  Anybody can make you scream, but it takes a certain kind of twisted mind to get under your skin.  And Henry does just that.

Day 71: Long Live The New Flesh

VIDEODROME (1983)
Directed by David Cronenberg
Starring: James Woods, Deborah Harry, Sonja Smits, Peter Dvorsky, Leslie Carlson, Jack Creley

Max Renn (Woods) owns and operates a seedy UHF station in Toronto called CIVIC-TV.  With a name like that, you'd expect it to be a sort of public television affiliate, but instead, Max fills the Canadian airwaves with softcore porn and graphic violence.  One fine day, his assistant Harlan (Dvorsky), by way of a pirate satellite dish, comes across an odd show called "Videodrome," in which a woman is beaten and tortured on a plain set - no plot, no context, no explanation.  Of course, Max is thrilled by this concept, believing it to be the next big thing, because Max is a scumbag and is okay with that fact. 

Max goes on television to defend his sleazeball antics, but is upstaged by the eccentric Professor Brian O'Blivion (Jack Creley), who appears via television...on television.  He does this to prove his point that, someday, television will replace life as we know it.  But Max couldn't care less, as he proceeds to bed the other panelist, pop-psychologist Nicki Brand (Harry).  At his apartment, Nicki pops in a tape of "Videodrome" and is mesmerized by what she sees.  Taking this as a sign, Max tries to find out as much about "Videodrome" as he can in a effort to make a deal with the producer.  But the more he finds out about "Videodrome,"the more his world begins to collapse.  He begins having wild hallucinations, not the least of which is a ten-inch vertical gash in his abdomen.  His focus now switches to finding out what's causing the hallucinations, but he finds that the secret behind "Videodrome" isn't too far behind, either.

There's more - a lot more - about a government plot to purge North America of the freaks and perverts who feed on sex and violence, and a video librarian who reprograms Max to "accept his new flesh," but to go into more detail would take all night.  It's an amazingly complex story that's been woven into 87 short minutes.

The whole concept centers around television and its control over us.  Even in the early 1980's, this wasn't too far-fetched.  But David Cronenberg takes things a step further: "Videodrome" is almost like a virus that invades the body of whoever watches it. The sickness becomes literal, and, in true Cronenberg fashion, it wreaks some rather gruesome havoc.  The special effects, done by Oscar winner Rick Baker, are pretty impressive and stomach turning at the same time.  They seem sort of dated by today's standards, but the practical effects also give off a sense of realism in a pretty unbelievable story.

Now, of course, there comes the debate as to whether or not this is a true "horror film."  Personally, I would categorize it under "Science Fiction," but there are certainly many horror elements in the film, not the least of which are the various mutations Max goes through.  Many have called David Cronenberg the master of "body horror," a sort of sub-genre that deals with disease and death.  If horror preys on our fears of what we can't control, then the concept of our bodies turning against us is about as scary as anything.  We may not be afraid of slashers, creepers or mythical monsters, but the minute our own bodies start acting funny, our fear of death surfaces.  Besides, who says sci-fi can't also have a bit of horror mixed in (Alien, anyone)?

Videodrome was way ahead of its time, both in terms of vision and scope.  It may not go for outright scares and screams, but it works on your mind rather than your nerves, which I've always found scarier. 

Down to the Wire...

Okay.

I've got just under three months to watch 30 films.  Right now, I'm working full-time (or very nearly).  I'm also planning a cross-country move.  I probably won't have access to a computer for a while, once I get where I'm going.  So my goal to watch 100 films in a year is in danger of not being reached.  But dangit, I'm gonna try.

And so we plunge ahead into October, which, as we all know, ends with Halloween.  That being the case, I'm going to watch nothing but horror films this month!  I'm not worried about being scarred for life, since I'm already pretty scarred as it is.

Day 70: For The Greater Good...

HOT FUZZ (2007)
Directed by Edgar Wright
Starring: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost, Timothy Dalton, Jim Broadbent, Olivia Coleman, Paddy Considine, Rafe Spall, Martin Freeman, Bill Nighy, Cate Blanchett (uncredited), Peter Jackson (ditto)

Police Constable Nicholas Angel (Pegg) is the bright shining star of the London Police Department.  In fact, he's so good, he's making the rest of the Metropolitan Police look bad.  So while he's promoted to Sergeant, he is also transferred to the sleepy little village of Sandford, where there hasn't been a recorded violent crime for decades.  The big-city cop has a hard time fitting in with the small-town force and it's laid back Chief Butterman (Broadbent) and action film loving son Danny (Frost).  But when several citizen meet a string of spectacularly violent ends, Sergeant Angel suspects murder.  However, the rest of force - as well as the rest of the town - just think it's a string of freak accidents.  Sergeant Angel's number one suspect is the sleazy supermarket owner (Dalton), but knowing it and proving it are two different things.

The same team that brought us Shaun of the Dead now tries their hand at the action-buddy-cop-film.  As with Shaun, it doesn't seek to make fun of the conventions of the genre, but rather plays them up for laughs in the way of a good-natured homage.  The filmmakers are obviously fans, and it shows.  There are references to nearly every cop movie out there, from the overt rip-offs of Point Break and Bad Boys II to more subtle references to Chinatown.  But the film is more than just a string of pop culture references.  It stands on its own two feet and puts its own spin on things.  It even has a third-act shootout that rivals anything Michael Bay has put out.

Pegg plays Sergeant Angel as a sort of British equivalent to Joe Friday - a no-nonsense cop who just wants to get to the bottom of things.  He plays everything by the book (literally - he carries it around in his patrol car with him) and has a hell of a time doing so with the lackadaisical force he's been partnered with.  Nick Frost plays Constable Butterman with the same lazy joie-de-vivre as his character "Ed" in Shaun.  However, in this film, PC Butterman looks up to Sergeant Angel as a mentor, who can teach him the finer things about police work, like how to jump through the air firing two guns at once.  But the standout performance is Timothy Dalton's turn as the sleazy Simon Skinner, who runs the local supermarket.  As soon as you see him, you know he's up to no good.  There's not a lot in the way of mystery about him.  But as I said before, part of the fun is trying to figure out how he's responsible.

And I'm going to leave it at that, as the end of this film has a pretty interesting twist that I don't want to give away.  Let's just say that Skinner wasn't acting alone.  At first, this big "twist" was a bit disappointing and more than a bit confusing, but what they do afterward makes up for it.  It's certainly an ending you won't forget.  But that's all I'm saying.  Watch it for yourself!

Day 69: Decadent, Immoral Western Filth!

THE ONION MOVIE (2008)

Directed by Tom Kuntz and Mike Maguire

Starring: Len Cariou; with Steven Segal, Gedde Watanabe, Michael Bolton, Ken Takamoto, Kate Fuglei, Ahmed Ahmed, others

If you own a computer that has access to the Internet, you know about The Onion.  What started as a satirical newspaper publication on the University of Wisconsin campus has grown into “America’s Most Trusted News Source.”  Strange, considering their banner headlines, regarding:

World Events: “German Jews Concerned About Hitler’s ‘Kill All Jews’ Proposal”

Politics: “New Medical Procedure Allows Dick Cheney to Feel Love”

Sports: “Soccer Officially Comes Out as Gay”

Religion: “Pope Condemns Three More Glands”

Local News: “Reganomics Finally Trickles Down to Area Man”

Sure, news parody has been done many times with Comedy Central’s The Daily Show and The Colbert Report, and before that, HBO’s Not Necessarily the News (remember that one?  No?)  But all of them owe a big debt of gratitude to The Onion (who also owes a huge debt to Mad and National Lampoon and Saturday Night Live, but that’s an argument for another time).

It was only a matter of time before this last bastion of print media finally made its way to the Big Screen.  Except, that time hasn’t come yet, since The Onion Movie was released direct-to-video.

Don’t expect much in the way of plot here.  Where The Oinion’s web site focuses on spoofing not only the day’s events, but also the media that report them, The Onion Movie uses the news parody format as a springboard for sketch comedy, in the vein of Kentucky Fried Movie or The Boob Tube.  What little plot there is centers on newscaster Norm Archer (Cariou) as he tries to deal with the corporate takeover of his newscast by Global Tetrahedron, who insists he shill for their new Steven Segal vehicle Cock Puncher.  And to answer your first two questions: Yes, that really is Steven Segal, and no, he doesn’t fight roosters.

The sketches are pretty hit or miss.  Among the highlights – an Armed Gunman who breaks into a bank and demands a job; A Goofus and Gallant-style training video for suicide bombers; The Bud Schwartz Celebrity Roast, where the roasters lack any kind of tact or subtlety; and, of course, the Cock Puncher trailer.  Menachem Golan would be proud of that one.

The lowlights – A “whodunit” party kit that features a rape instead of a murder; a basketball player who blames Jesus for a lousy game; a man who buys a computer that becomes obsolete before he even gets it home (computer jokes never get old, do they?); and the “outtake reel” that features stuff “too extreme” to be included in the movie.  So they wait till the very end to show a TV chef deep fry a kitten and a nun drinking…well, just think of the most disgusting thing you could ever imagine anyone drinking, and then multiply that by 100.  It’s worse than that.

George Carlin said, “It is the job of every comedian to find out where the line is drawn and deliberately cross it.”  The Onion, whether on the web or on film, certainly subscribes to that rule.  Call me a prude if you want, but I actually think they’re funnier when they exercise a bit of discretion.  If you’re genuinely good a being funny, then you don’t need to sink to the bottom of the barrel for laughs.  Too many comedians do that already, and just because one is better at being disgusting than someone else doesn’t make them any less disgusting. 

But this still doesn’t keep me from checking their website every day; first, for the news parodies, and second, to find out when Cock Puncher is coming out.  That movie’s gonna rule!

Day 68: Matt Damon!

TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE (2004)
Directed by Trey Parker
Starring the voices of: Trey Parker, Matt Stone, Kristen Miller, Masasa, Daran Norris, Maurice LaMarche, Phil Hendrie

Team America is an elite fighting force protecting the world from Terrorists.  But when one of their own is killed on their latest mission, the search is on for a replacement.  Enter Gary Johnston (Parker), cracker-jack Broadway actor who regularly tears the house down in the hit show "LEASE" (featuring that catchy tune, "Everyone Has AIDS").  Backstage, Gary is approached by Spottswoode (Norris), who believes Gary's acting talent can help Team America go undercover and infiltrate the Terrorist organization.  Little do they know that the Terrorists are being backed by North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il (also Parker), in an effort to rain chaos upon the world.

This is a film by the creators of South Park, so you know going in that it's not going to be for everyone.  Of course, it looks like a film for everyone, what with the Thunderbirds-style puppets that are used, but that's part of the game.  Be aware going in that you will be treated to an almost non-stop torrent of swearing, toilet humor, brutal violence and a puppet sex scene so graphic that, if it were done with real people, would probably be illegal.  Strange, considering puppets have no genitalia.

But the thing about all of this is, it's absolutely hilarious.  The fact that they're using puppets makes the over-the-top nature of the film that much funnier.  And Parker and company dont' shy away from the fact that they're using puppets.  During the first five minutes, I was actually amazed at the amount of detail they were able to achieve.  Of course, there are certain things that puppets can't do: namely, have a realistic fight scene.  However, it does make the "Bullet-Time" effect a helluva lot cheaper to shoot.

Now you would also expect this film to be a sort of jingoistic, ultra right-wing Fox News editorial piece - especially considering its epic theme song (NSFW) - but it's really not.  In fact, it's really hard to put a finger on the film's political leanings.  Yes, Team America are an arrogant bunch who cause a lot of collateral damage (like blowing up the Eiffel Tower and the Giza Pyramids, for starters) in their quest to spread freedom and democracy.  But their actions bring the scorn of Alec Baldwin (La Marche) and his Film Actors Guild (figure out their unfortunate acronym for yourself), a group of left-wing pacifists which include Tim Robbins, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn and Matt Damon (whose only line is "Matt Damon!").  Even Team America's hideout is suicide-bombed by Michael Moore.  And yet, after all this, there's still the task of stopping Kim Jong-Il from taking over the world.  And that may be the film's point: You may not like America - you may even hate America - but even though they seem like violent jerks, they still are the only ones willing to fight against the kinds of megalomaniacs you just can't reason with.

Or maybe the film's point was to blow stuff up, make fun of self-important celebrities and show graphic puppet sex.  You be the judge.

Day 67: We Must Not Confuse Dissent With Disloyalty

GOOD NIGHT, AND GOOD LUCK (2005)
Directed by George Clooney
Starring: David Strathairn, George Clooney, Jeff Daniels, Robert Downey, Jr., Patricia Clarkson, Alex Borstein, Frank Langella

It is the mid-1950's, and the host of CBS's See It Now, Edward R. Murrow (Strathairn), usually content to interview celebrities, is concerned about the growing threat that Senator Joseph McCarthy poses due to his Communist witch-hunt.  Murrow and his producer Fred Friendly (Clooney) decide to go against the Network's (and sponsors') wishes, and rush to the defense of Air Force Lieutenant Milo Radulovich, who had been discharged seemingly without reason.  The Air Force says it was because of his "Communist leanings," but there is no evidence to support the accusation.  Murrow and his team give Lt. Radulovich a platform to defend himself.  He also covers the Senate hearing of another suspected Communist, Annie Lee Moss, a small, aging black woman who happened to work at the Pentagon.  However, after coming to the defense of these people, Senator McCarthy and his lawyer Roy Cohn begin targeting Murrow and CBS.

Good Night, and Good Luck is very much a lesson on how to do a period piece right.  Everything about this film conveys the feeling of the mid-50's: it's shot in black-and white, everybody smokes, the soundtrack is all smooth, big-band jazz.  One of the best choices in the film was the decision to use archival footage of Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Milo Radulovich and others, rather than try to re-create the scenes with actors.  It works quite well not only as a period piece, but as a history lesson.  Anyone interested in the "Red Scare" of the 50's and of the McCarthy witch-hunts and the House Un-American Activities Committee can get a wealth of information from this film.

However, there is one part where it doesn't work so well.  Clooney is so interested in getting the look, the feel and the message right, he neglects to inject any kind of emotional anchor into the film.  Yes, it is (for the most part) historically accurate, but there's no real emotion.  We watch what Ed Murrow and his team do, but we don't really know why they do it.  We know they feel it's the "right thing to do," but they just do it, and don't explain why.  There's very little motive to what anyone does.  Everyone just sort of does what the script tells them to do, and the effect is pretty lifeless.

But if you just focus on the film as a time capsule, it works very well.  Also, the attention to detail is pretty amazing.  This is the sort of film that directors like to watch.  The public at large may not cotton onto all the politics and lengthy speeches, but the film works equally well if you're interested in either history or cinema.

And we're back.

Sorry for the lengthy delay, everyone, but a lot of interesting things have been happening lately.

First of all, the final film of my "3-hours-or-more" series (which was to be Malcolm X)  was supposed to be shipped by Netflix, but there was apparently a "short wait" for it.  So they sent me Munich which, at 2 hours and 49 minutes didn't quite meet my criteria.  But in the spirit of just getting something done, I tried to watch it anyway.  And the disc was too damaged to play properly.  Yeah.

So I sent it back, hoping that Malcolm X had finally come in, but it hadn't.  So they sent me Goodnight and Good Luck.  At this point, I had abandoned by hopes of actually finishing my previous set list, so I popped this very succinct film into my DVD player and watched it. 

Still no Malcolm X though.  In fact, unless I find a copy in the library (which has been a fruitless search, so far), I think I can give up on that one.

So there are more reviews coming up, because I just realized I have 34 more movies to watch in about a 12 week span.  It's do-able, but it won't be easy. 

So Up and At Them.

Day 66: I Like The Stink Of The Streets

ONCE UPON A TIME IN AMERICA (1984)
Directed by Sergio Leone
Starring: Robert De Niro, James Woods, Elizabeth McGovern, James Hayden, William Forsythe, Larry Rapp, Joe Pesci, Burt Young, Danny Aiello, Tuesday Weld

Back in the early 70's, Sergio Leone, director of the famed "Dollars Trilogy" (A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly), was on the short list of directors Paramount wanted to direct The Godfather.  For his own reasons, Leone turned them down.  So Paramount got B-movie director and Roger Corman protege Francis Ford Coppola, and the rest is history.

Turning down The Godfather had always been one of Leone's biggest regrets.  As such, as far back as he could remember, he always wanted to make a gangster film.  So when he came across the novel The Hoods by Harry Gray, he jumped at the chance to make it into a film.

Seeing as how this is a Sergio Leone film, I'm changing up my format just a bit for this review.  You can listen to this music while you read it.

THE GOOD
As expected, this is a movie by a master filmmaker.  Never mind the fact that it's four hours long; this is basically a clinic on how to make movies right.  Just by watching this one film (more than once, and taking extensive notes), you can learn everything there is to know about the art of filmmaking.  Everything here works.

THE BAD
"WHAT?  You thought there was something BAD about a Sergio Leone film!?  Blasphemy!"

Hold your horses, guys.  I already went on and on about how great Leone was.  But there was a lot about this film that just didn't sit right with me.

I said that watching this movie will teach you all you need to know about artful filmmaking, and it's true.  But to do that, you will have to sit through nearly four hours of horrible people doing despicable things.  The main character, Noodles (De Niro), is one of the most unlikeable protagonists I have ever seen in a movie.  He and his partner Max (Woods) have absolutely no redeeming qualities.  They are greedy, violent, sex-obsessed hoods, and even though their friendship and ultimate falling out are intriguing, it is nearly impossible to like them.

THE UGLY
Noodles is the worst of the two characters, and the movie focuses on him.  While he starts off as a tough little punk in a Jewish neighborhood in Brooklyn, he quickly turns into a monster.  Though he does a lot of horrible stuff, the worst is when he rapes his childhood sweetheart Deborah (McGovern), and seems to have no qualms about it.  And the problem is that Leone seems to linger on this scene (and others like it) for just a bit too long, making the animosity grow toward the character we're supposed to be the most interested in.

However, there may be a reason for all this focus on the depravity of these characters.  It's often been said that The Godfather was an extremely romantic take on Mafia families.  Yes, they were criminals, but they were also bound together by a strong family tie.  There's none of that here in Once Upon a Time in America.  These guys are the worst of the worst.  And Leone does do quite a good job at deconstructing the Mafia mythos, just as he had done with the Cowboy mythos many years earlier.

But at least the Man With No Name had a few redeeming qualities.  I just wanted someone to stab Noodles in the eye.

So yes, this is a masterful film by a masterful filmmaker.  But it's one of the toughest movies I've ever sat through.  And it's got an ending that may frustrate (even infuriate) many viewers, and it's the subject of the question that James Woods says he gets asked the most often: Did Max die at the end?  If you think you're up to it, watch it and try to figure it out for yourself.

Day 65: They Can Only Kill Me With A Golden Bullet

LAWRENCE OF ARABIA (1962)
Directed by David Lean
Starring: Peter O'Toole, Omar Sharif, Alec Guinness, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jack Hawkins, Jose Ferrer, Anthony Quayle, Arthur Kennedy

A few years back, when I was first becoming interested in the study of film, I had a list of films that many considered to be "required viewing."  All of the typical films were on there: Citizen Kane, The Godfather, Seven Samurai, The Good, The Bad and the Ugly and the like.  During this time, I came across Lawrence of Arabia.  I tried to sit through it, but the long, tedious shots of the desert and the snail-like pace at which the film moved were too much for me, and I gave up before the Arab Revolt had taken Aqaba.  Man, this movie is overrated, I thought. 

Flash forward to now.  I have just sat through the entire 3 hours and 47 minutes of Lawrence of Arabia, and I have just one question for the Me-of-the-Past: What were you thinking?

It would be tedious and rather pointless for me to sit here and reiterate what every film textbook ever written has said a hundred times over, but...this is a great film.  And it's one of those films that film enthusiasts drool over.  It's wonderfully and nearly flawlessly made.  It's got some of the best cinematography in history.  The shots of the desert are legendary.  Even the music is great, with a theme song that I'll be humming to myself the next time I'm in Arizona.  It really is the total package.

But for me, the thing that really made Lawrence of Arabia interesting was Peter O'Toole's performance.  It's one thing to make a character interesting, but O'Toole makes T.E. Lawrence almost hypnotic.  Everything he does has such purpose and weight behind it that you can't wait to see what he does next.  But the thing about T.E. Lawrence was that he was, by all accounts in real life, a riddle wrapped in an enigma.  And O'Toole plays this up to the hilt.  There are very few times in the film when one can tell whether or not Lawrence is being sincere, or more specifically, what his plans and intentions are.  Even real-life accounts of Lawrence's life were said to be greatly exaggerated by the man himself.  So is what we see really what we get?  Only Lawrence knew for sure.  And O'Toole plays up the mystery.

When a movie gets up to and past the 3-hour range, it is of the utmost importance to keep the audience interested.  I admit that a few years ago, my attention span was rather short, and that was to my own detriment.  Because of that, I missed out on some great films.  And I think the movie-going audience at large is missing out as well.  Movies are supposed to take us on journeys, and journeys are not about destinations.  They're about the experience we have getting to the destination.  We should all sit back, relax and enjoy the scenery once in a while.

Day 64: An Eye For An Eye Only Makes The Whole World Blind

GANDHI (1982)
Directed by Richard Attenborough
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Roshan Seth, Saeed Jaffery, Alyque Padamsee, Candace Bergen, John Gielgud, Martin Sheen, Trevor Howard
There are two ways I could talk about this film.  I could either A) talk about the technical aspects of the production, which would bore all but a select few of my readers; or, I could B) just talk about how this film made me feel, which makes more sense.  After all, this film wasn't made so a bunch of film techies could sit around on a Friday night talking about how great the camera work is.  Gandhi  was made to elicit an emotional reaction, which is exactly what it does.

In fact, my own reaction to the film is really one of awe.  Kingsley's portrayal of Gandhi was done with great reverence, and it's astounding how much he actually looked like Gandhi.  He really got lost in the role, which helped me get lost in the story.  Keeping the audience's interest is key in any film, but even more so when you've got something important to say.

Of course, there is a difference between Gandhi the man and Gandhi the character, and I think what we get here is more of a character.  But we don't get a characature, which would have defeated the whole purpose.  However, Attenborough doesn't shy away from the fact that he's making a narrative film and not a documentary.  And it is an epic film, at that.  But he borrows more from David Lean than Cecil B. DeMille, which is a good thing.  It's actually a bit of an oddity to have a movie that this big (30,000 extras were used for the funeral scene alone), but doesn't become cartoony.  That danger must have been on Attenborough's mind quite a bit.  I imagine it would be on the mind of anyone who would make a movie about such an important subject.

I realize I wrote more about the impact the movie had on me than the movie itself, but then again, it's that kind of a movie.  Yes, it's beautifully shot, wonderfully acted and lovingly made, but it really is more than the sum of its parts.  It's the story of a man who changed the direction of his country, but in the end, couldn't change human nature.  But the fact that he tried is what made him so noble and such a fascinating figure.

Epic Win

Taking a bit of a vacation right now, but I will be back next week!

My next group of films will test the strength of my bladder and the length of my attention span, as they are all films that are 3 hours long or longer.  On the block are:

Gandhi
Lawrence of Arabia
Malcolm X
Once Upon a Time in America

Day 63: You Ought To See My New Mind

FORBIDDEN PLANET (1956)
Directed by Fred M. Wilcox
Starring: Leslie Nielsen, Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis, Warren Stephens, Jack Kelly, Robbie the Robot

On the distant planet of Altair IV, a group of scientests mysteriously disappears.  Commander J.J. Adams (Neislen), captain of United Planets Cruiser C57-D (they couldn't come up with a catchier name?) and his interepid crew travel to this strange world in search of survivors.  Before landing, they are contacted by Dr. Edward Morbius (Pidgeon), who urges them to turn back, and that if they land, he will not be held responsible for any misfortune that may befall the crew.

Once on the planet, they are met by Robbie the Robot (played brilliantly by himself) who doesn't seem all that threatening.  Robbie takes them to meet Dr. Morbius and his daughter Altaira (Francis).  When asked where the rest of Morbius' team has disappeard to, he tells them they were all killed by a mysterious monster.  It all sounds logical, but there is an element of doubt about Morbius and his story, especially when the crew attempts to bring Morbius and Altaira back to Earth and they refuse. 

I won't go into much more detail about the story, as there are plenty of cool little twists and turns, and I don't want to spoil it for you. 

Now this is a film that I thought was going to reinforce the sci-fi stereotypes.  You know: cheesy effects, lousy acting, terrible, preachy writing.  I'm happy to report that most of these tropes are averted.  Given that the film was made in the mid 1950's, one can forgive a certain amount of lack of sophistication in the visual effects department.  They didn't have computers, after all.  But the good thing is, they didn't need them.  They had one of the best visual effects departments in the business at the time, headed by Joshua Meador, a Disney animator loaned out to MGM.  As such, the effects definitely look animated, but they don't look fake.  In fact, one of the better effects is shown when Dr. Morbius takes Neilsen and his crew below the surface of the planet to show them the work of the alien civilisation that once lived there (crap, I just gave too much away!).

As far as the acting goes, it's...okay.  It can get very over-the-top at times, especially with Walter Pidgeon as the tortured Dr. Morbius.  And I know fans of the Naked Gun series will probably balk as seeing Leslie Neilsen in a "straight role," but as a dramatic actor, he really does hold his own.  Anne Francis is also good-not-great, though one look at her skimpy wardrobe, and you know she wasn't necessarily hired for her acting talent.

Finally, as most sci-fi films of the time were wont to do, Forbidden Planet gets rather preachy toward the end.  However, instead of the usual left-wing spiel about togetherness or environmental threats or the evils of war - all valid points, by the way - we are given a speech by Neilsen, who tells us that we are all pretty much evil inside, which is why we have laws and religion; a rather right-wing point of view.  And whether he is right or wrong about it is for the scholars to debate.  All's I know is, it was really over-the-top and out of place.  And when you're getting attacked by an ivisible monster, save your lectures for after you're safe (crap, I keep spoiling!  Sorry!)

*     *     *

Well, that wraps it up for Sci-Fi Month!  For my next trick, I will perform an endurance test: a month of films that are at least three hours long.  Is bigger always better?  We'll find out, won't we!

Day 62: My Name Is A Killing Word

DUNE (1984)
Directed by David Lynch
Starring: Kyle MacLachlan, Viriginia Madsen, Francesca Annis, Jurgen Prochnow, Kenneth McMillan, Sting, José Ferrer, Brad Dourif, Freddie Jones, Patrick Stewart, Jack Nance, Everett McGill, Paul Smith

I love David Lynch.  His films are strange, off-putting, visually stunning, beautiful, disturbing, funny, scary, noisy and just plain weird.  And all of these elements are in every film he does.  He is probably the most original director working in movies today. 

But in the early 80's, Lynch was the hottest new director in town.  Coming hot off the heels of his genre-defying student film Eraserhead and the Oscar nominated The Elephant Man, Lynch was in high demand.  He was even on George Lucas' short list of directors he wanted for the conclusion of the Star Wars saga, Return of the Jedi.  Lynch turned it down, however, claiming that the film would be more Lucas' vision than his own. 

A few years earlier, an equally experimental director named Alejandro Jodorowsky (El Topo, Santa Sangre) was planning a big-screen version of Frank Herbert's epic sci-fi novel Dune.  The film was to be designed by H.R. Geiger, the music was to be by Pink Floyd, and the film would star Salvador Dali, Orson Welles, Gloria Swanson, David Carradine and Mick Jagger, among others.  The idea was scrapped in pre-production.  As years went by, other directors (such as Ridley Scott) were attached and detached from the project.  Producer Dino De Laurentiis sat on the project for a few years, until he heard that David Lynch was interested.

Now, for those of us from the Lord of the Rings generation, we've seen this formula work: Epic Novel + Hot Young Director + Built-In Fanbase = Box Office Gold.  And yet, Dune was one of the biggest flops of the 80's.  What went wrong? 

As a first-time viewer of Dune - and as one who has never read the novel - all I can do is offer my first impression of the film.  The story is long and complicated, and almost Shakespearean in scope.  There is so much to this story about spice mining, warring houses, a Messianic prophecy and political intrigue that it's almost impossible to fit it all into a two-hour film.  As such, the film opens with a lengthy back story, telling the viewer where we are and why this world is the way it is.  Lynch apparently is assuming that 90% of the people in the theater hadn't read the book, so he gives us the Cliffs Notes version up front.  Also, throughout the film, any questions as to what the characters are thinking are cleared up immediately, as we are treated to the inmost thoughts and reflections of nearly all of the "good guys." 

Our hero Paul Atreides (MacLachlan) comes from a long line of clairvoyants, and may be the most clairvoyant-y of them all.  This makes the Spacing Guild very nervous, as he may grow to threaten the production of "Spice," a sort of drug that allows the user to "fold time" and "travel without moving."  Already, most of the audience is confused.  Even I'm probably getting it wrong, and I just watched this thing today. 

Anyway, the Emperor of the Known Universe (Ferrer) is ordered to kill Paul, so he calls on the rival House of Harkonnen, where the Baron (McMillan) plans to ambush the House of Atreides on the spice mining planet of Arrakis, aka DUNE, a desert planet, and the only known place where spice can be found. Two assassins - Rabban (Smith) and Feyd-Rautha (Sting) - accompany him.  But once the House of Atreides falls, Paul and his mother fall in with a nomadic tribe called the Fremen, who share their prophecy about how their Messiah will come.  Together, they decide to take down both the House of Harkonnen and the Empire and the entire spice mining industry.

I probably left some stuff out.  But give me a break; that's a lot to keep up with.  Hamlet doesn't have this many story lines and plot twists.  But as obtuse and impenetrable as the story is, the film is a visual treat; I would expect nothing less from David Lynch.  He does a fantastic job visualizing this Universe, and the concepts that are too strange to actually explain, he shows us, using every cinematic trick in the book.  The effect of the spice on Paul's mind is a pretty trippy thing to watch.  And even though some of the visual effects look pretty dated by today's standards, they're still pretty amazing. 

And as if all this wasn't enough, it turns out that this is the only film on which David Lynch didn't get "final cut" (that is, the final authorization of the print that gets shipped to theaters).  As such, it's hard to tell what parts of this movie were Lynch's and which parts were the studio's.  But having been a fan of Lynch for some years, I think it's a safe bet that the "all knowing" voices we hear weren't his idea.  He really does subscribe to the "Show, don't tell" philosophy.  Besides, if you've ever seen Eraserhead or Mulholland Drive, you know that Lynch doesn't feel he has to explain anything. 

This movie is definitely a mixed bag.  It has some wonderful moments, but there is a ton of stuff to remember and some pretty hammy dialogue.  However, it does make me want to read the novel, so I guess the film isn't a total failure.  Dune purists insist the book is about a thousand times better than the film, but purists are always that way.  It's probably the most mainstream of any film Lynch has ever done, and as such, isn't a very good primer for what he's all about. 

NEXT WEEK: Forbidden Planet

Day 61: You Are False Data

DARK STAR (1974)
Directed by John Carpenter
Starring: Dan O'Bannon, Brian Narelle, Cal Kuniholm, Dre Pahich

On a decaying spaceship called Dark Star, four astronauts schlep around the galaxy destroying "unstable planets" so as to make way for Earth's colonization of the cosmos.  Of course, if you're stuck in space for that long, that means you have a lot of time to kill.  And the crew does so by telling stories that go nowhere and caring for a beachball-shaped alien that likes to play hide-and-seek.  But after the ship's faulty wiring tells one of the "smart bombs" to detonate itself, the crew must try to convince it not to do so.  As a result, the bomb develops a pretty serious "god-complex."

If all of this sounds like a good idea for a short student film, then you're right on the money.  At first, that's exactly what it was.  Director John Carpenter and writer/co-star Dan O'Bannon made a 45-minute version of this film at USC.  Then, over the next three years, they expanded it to 83 minutes (most of it footage of Sgt. Pinback - played by O'Bannon - chasing the beachball alien around the ship), with the help of producer Jack Harris.  The final completed feature-length version debuted in 1974 to little fanfare. 

So yeah, blah blah blah, history.  Is it any good?  Well, yes and no.

The major problem with developing a short into a feature is pacing.  It can be - and has been - done to great effect in such films as George Lucas' THX 1138 and David Lynch's Eraserhead (which was meant to be a feature all along).  But the problem with Dark Star is that...well, nothing interesting happens until about forty minutes into the film.  Until then, we just sort of "hang out" with the crew.  We even spend 20 excruciating minutes watching Sgt. Pinback chasing the beachball alien.  This sequence could have been it's own short.  In fact, O'Bannon recycled this theme into a little film you may have heard of called Alien a few years later.

Also, this film is purported to be a comedy.  Fine.  Sci-fi comedies are rare, but not unheard of.  But comedies are supposed to be funny.  And, because of the aforementioned pacing problems, there's not much to laugh at until the we near the film's climax.  One of the funniest scenes is when Lt. Doolittle (Narelle) consults the dead-yet-cryogenically-frozen Commander Powell on how to disarm the bomb that threatens to blow them all to bits.  But Powell has been frozen so long, his only question is, "How are the Dodgers doing?"

The DVD version I got has what essentially amounts to an apology written by O'Bannon himself and shown in the style of the open crawl from the Star Wars films.  He tells the story of the film and how it's supposed to be funny and all that.  He also says that you don't have to laugh if you don't want to, "Unless I'm in the room with you."  Well it's a good thing he wasn't, because I really didn't laugh all that much.

Now, as far as student films go, I've seen worse.  But it should have stayed a student film until a few re-writes were done, and they could have raised enough money to make it look halfway decent.  Even as a feature, it still has all the trappings that make people know it's a student film: bad lighting, bad acting and terrible sound design.  But this just goes to show you the power that exposure has in Hollywood.  As we all know, John Carpenter did alright for himself.  Dan O'Bannon went on to become one of the most sought-after screenwriters in town.  So even if your debut is as inauspicious as this one, don't beat yourself up too badly.  If the right people see it, you never know what could happen next.

NEXT WEEK: David Lynch's Dune

Day 60: Death To The Machines!

METROPOLIS (1927)
Directed by Fritz Lang
Starring: Alfred Abel, Brigitte Helm, Gustav Fröhlich, Rudolph Klein-Rogg, Erwin Biswanger, Theodore Loos, Fritz Rasp, Heinrich George

In the Not-Too-Distant Future, a city known simply as Metropolis stands as the pinnacle of man's achievements.  But beneath all the gleaming glass, metal and neon lies the city of the workers - a sub-race of people who take on the dangerous task of making this ultra-modern city run.  This modern-day Tower of Babel (a reference this film will not let you get away from) is the brainchild of Joh Fredersen (Abel).  He lives in the city's central tower with his son Freder (Fröhlich), a blonde-haired, blue-eyed young man who is the epitome of Aryan manhood (did I mention this is a German film?).

But one day, Freder's idyllic life screeches to a halt when Maria (Helm) - a young teacher in the world below - brings a group of grubby children to the surface as a part of her lesson on the Brotherhood of Man.  As this is a silent film, it's difficult to tell whether Freder is smitten by Maria or feels sorry for the children (maybe both?), but either way, he follows them down to the workers' city.  There, his heart goes out to his fellow men and women who slave away so he and his fellows can live the high life.  He goes to his father, who points out that everyone has their place in the world, and theirs is up above.  However, clues are being dropped about a worker uprising.  To make matters worse, Freder trades his cushy life above with an anonymous worker simply known as 11811 (Biswanger), who promptly goes above to drink and whore it up for a few weeks while Freder slaves away underground.

Meanwhile, Joh Fredersen seeks the counsel of Dr. Rotwang (Klein-Rogge), the inventor who made Fredersen's mad visions a reality.  Rotwang is working on a robot he calls his "Machine-Man" - a misleading name, as he plans to turn it into a woman.  Specifically, into the likeness of Joh Fredersen's late wife Hel, who he had a mad crush on.  But Fredersen has other plans: he wants to make the robot resemble Maria - whom the workers revere as a living saint, preaching tolerance and peace - and make it a villainous she-devil who will incite the workers to riot, thus giving Fredersen a reason to wipe out all the troublemakers.

This was a big movie.  Which is odd, considering that, during the silent era, it was Hollywood who was doing the "big movies."  In Europe, films were usually more expressionistic, introspective works about the duality of human nature and the horrors of war (the silent era happening during and directly after World War I). But the studio who made the film - Universum Film, AG (or UFA) - had just signed a major US distribution deal with American studios Paramount and Metro (not yet Metro Goldwyn-Mayer).  Though still modestly budgeted, Lang's vision grew larger and larger.  In the end, the film - originally budgeted at 1 million Reichsmarks ended up costing more than 5 million.  Adjusted for inflation, we're talking about $200 million in today's money, making Metropolis the most expensive silent film ever made.

So...does it hold up?  Oh, yes.

Silent films are all about the visuals - it's the only way they have to tell the story.  As such, the film is a visual feast, full of strange and wonderful architecture, amazing set pieces and some rather impressive visual effects for the time.  I'm usually intimidated by silent films, as I sometimes wonder whether they can keep my interest for two hours with no dialogue.  But the story of Metropolis has so many layers that I found it impossible to become bored. 

Of course, there are a few negative points as well.  The acting in silent films is, more often than not, very over-the-top, almost to the point of being hokey.  Gustav Fröhlich's acting is particularly tough to watch at times, as his wild gesticulations are unintentionally funny.  Brigitte Helm is much better at being low-key as the peace loving Maria.  But she also plays the robot version of herself, and does an equally good job being evil and seductive.  Everyone else's acting is pretty par for the course.

Also, the copy I got was incomplete.  Being as old as it is, there are bits and pieces of the film that were considered lost when this version was put together.  The parts that were missing were described in intertitles put there by the well-meaning folks at Kino Video.  But I hear they've actually found a good deal of the missing footage in Argentina and are in the process of putting together a more complete version of the film.  I certainly hope so, as those intertitles were describing some pretty key (and undoubtedly entertaining) scenes.

The only other negative point is a big one: the ending.  I always hate it when movies go on longer than they have to in order to tack on a happy ending, which is exactly what happens here.  I won't spoil it for you, but the film should have ended about five minutes earlier.  The point about the unity of mankind was already made, but Lang just decided to hammer it home one more time with a completely unnecessary final scene, followed by a title card that pretty much explained the moral of the story IN BIG BOLD LETTERS.  Apparently, it wasn't enough to mention it roughly twenty times in the previous two hours.  In modern terms, think of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man, and how many times you heard Uncle Ben say "With Great Power Comes Great Responsibility."  Then imagine it's on a title card IN BIG BOLD LETTERS right before the credits roll.  Then you'll get the idea.

So yes, Metropolis was awesome.  And it's one of the few silent films that still holds up after nearly 100 years. 

NEXT WEEK: John Carpenter's DARKSTAR

Moving on...

Bah, the one copy I could find of Scorsese's version of Cape Fear was so badly damaged, I couldn't get it to play.  I'll have to come back to that one.

In the meantime, it's Classic Sci-Fi!  Yes, for the next five weeks, I will be watching the genre I think I have most ignored, strange as it seems.  I'm one of those who feels there's nothing in the Sci-Fi world beyond Star Wars and Star Trek.  Let's see if I'm right or wrong, shall we?

Day 59: You Put The Law In My Hands...And I'm Gonna Break Your Heart With It!

CAPE FEAR (1962)
Directed by J. Lee Thompson
Starring: Gegory Peck, Robert Mitchum, Polly Bergen, Lori Martin, Martin Balsam, Telly Savalas, Barrie Chase

Eight years after being convicted of assault, Max Cady (Mitchum) saunters into Savannah, Georgia and confronts the man who testified against him: attorney Sam Bowden (Peck).  Cady makes no threats, but he certainly wants to make sure Bowden knows he's out.  Thinking little of it, Bowden goes home to his wife Peggy (Bergen) and 14-year old daughter Nancy (Martin).  Their happy little suburban life continues, but Sam starts noticing Cady turning up everywhere he and his family goes.  Sam goes to the police chief (Balsam), who...well, can't do much, seeing as how Cady hasn't done anything worthy of being arrested.  Sure, he (allegedly) poisons their dog, follows them around town and leers lustfully at Bowden's wife and daughter, but I guess there's was no law against that in the early 60's.  These days, you'd get 5 years for that sort of thing. 

Bowdens paranoia grows, and he hires a private detective named Kojak Charlie Sievers (Savalas), who tails Cady.  When they find one of his mistresses roughed up in a hotel room, they finally have something to bring him in on, but the young lady (Chase) refuses to testify.  Bowden finally confronts Cady in a bar and offers to pay him anything he wants.  All Cady wants is to make Bowden suffer by taking that which is most precious to him.  Bowden finally cracks and hires a gang of hoodlums to rough Cady up, but to no avail. 

Thus begins the most convoluted self-defense plot in history, which concludes with Peggy and Nancy on a houseboat and, while Cady thinks Bowden is in Atlanta, Bowden actually goes to Cape Fear (a real place, dontcha know) to be with his wife and daughter while Sievers meets them there with the hope that Cady is following him so Cady can set foot on their property and, thus, Bowden will be within his legal right to shoot him.  What could go wrong?

Cape Fear has a definite Hitchcockian feel to it.  It was released about two years after Psycho and scenes of the film were actually shot in "Mother's House" on the Universal backlot.  Director J. Lee Thompson had worked with Hitchcock on an earlier film back in England, and several members of the crew (Art Director Robert Boyle and editor George Tomasini) had worked with Hitch on North by Northwest.  Even the music was done by Hitchcock mainstay Bernard Hermann.  So basically what we have is a director emulating one of his heroes.  This is usually a problem (remember Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho?), but here, it's an homage done right.  Besides the preposterous ending, everything works.  Heck, even the climax is so chilling that it's pretty easy to forget the fact that Bowden's plan is full of holes. 

This is the second film in which I've seen Robert Mitchum play the villain, and between the Rev. Harry Powell and Max Cady, I'd definitely say that Cady is the stronger of the two.  There's no moral compass on this man, either real or imagined.  His is the worst of the worst - the very kind of person you hope never gets out of jail, and yet is walking the streets right now. 

Also, this is the second film in which I've seen Gregory Peck play a southern lawyer (we all know the other one).  But where Atticus Finch was strong and stoic in the face of evil, Sam Bowers lets his fear and paranoia get the better of him.  He tries to do everything he can within the confines of the "system," but with no success.  Even when he goes outside the law, he fails.  The only way he can deal with Cady is to take him down himself; a task even he doesn't think he's up to.

Now for the most obvious question: "What did you think of Scorsese's 1991 remake?"  Well...I'll have to let you know next time!

Ch-ch-ch-ch-changes

Short answer: working.  Yes, peak season at Universal Hollywood is nearly here and, as such, I've been extremely busy. 

I'm also thinking that, in order to finish this project, I'm going to have to devise a new strategy.  Namely, doing 100 movies in a year.  Yes, I do plan to finish this thing before the year is out.

Also, it has come to my attention that there hasn't been any real rhyme or reason to the films I've been watching.  I'll just come across something and say, "Hey, I've never seen that one," watch it and write about it.  That was all well and good at the beginning, but now I think it's time to step my game up a bit. 

Starting soon, I will have theme months (not weeks, since I can't do this daily anymore).  And I'm leaving the first theme month decision up to you, dear reader(s).  So go ahead.  What should my first theme be? 

Day 58: Is It True That If You Don't Use It, You Lose It?

THE 40 YEAR OLD VIRGIN  (2005)
Directed by Judd Apatow
Starring: Steve Carell, Catherine Keener, Paul Rudd, Romany Malco, Seth Rogan, Jane Lynch

I don't care much for sex comedies.  To me, they're nothing more than an excuse to show as much T&A as possible without having to resort to actually being funny.  Which is why I'm glad I came across this movie.

Carell plays Andy, a...well, it's in the title, folks.  Andy's horny, sex-obsessed co-workers (Rudd, Malco and Rogan) all do their best to help their friend in need.  But the thing is, Andy really doesn't want to have sex, which everyone around him treats as some kind of disease that is in desperate need of a cure.  All of this changes when he meets Trish (Keener), the woman who runs the eBay store across the street.  They hit it off.  Andy and Trish really care for each other.  Copulation seems inevitable.  But Trish doesn't want to complicate things by getting physical.  But Andy must tell her his secret, while his co-workers all learn a thing or two the virtues of a celibate and/or monogamous lifestyle.

I once remember a conversation I had with a film historian about filmmakers having a conservative message, but telling it in a liberal way (Well, okay, it was in film school, and the historian was my professor, and it wasn't so much a "conversation" as a "lecture," but, it makes me sound like I know what I'm talking about).  Anyway, this is a prime example of that theory.  There are boobs, butts and dirty talk galore.  But the overall message of the film is, "Hey, if you choose not to have sex, that's okay."  It seems like such a contradiction, but it works.  And it works because it does a great job of holding the mirror up to society. 

It also works because it's friggin' hilarious.  And again, its humor comes from observation of real life rather than contrived scenarios (with the possible exception of the chest-waxing scene).  Judd Apatow actually shows a lot of restraint as to what is actually committed to film - there's not as much skin as you might think.  But the dialogue alone could have gotten this film an NC-17 rating.  Then again, I hear pretty much the same stuff where I work every day, so it didn't really phase me much.  Also, that's probably also why I thought it was so funny.

Day 57: It's A Hard World For Little Things

THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (1955)
Directed by Charles Laughton
Starring: Robert Mitchum, Shelly Winters, Lillian Gish, Peter Graves, Billy Chapin, Sally Jane Bruce, Emmit Lynn

The Rev. Harry Powell (Mitchum) is an odd character.  He knows the Bible chapter-and-verse, travels from town to town in a beat up jalopy and has the words "LOVE" and "HATE" tattooed on his knuckles.  Oh, and he also takes up with widows, marries them and kills them, claiming to be doing the Lord's work.  But when he meets bank robber/murderer Ben Harper (Graves), he learns that there's a large stash of stolen money hidden somewhere, and only Harper's children, John (Chapin) and Pearl (Bruce), know where it's hidden.  Harper is executed for his crime, but Powell (who was booked on a lesser charge) goes free.  As soon as he's out, Powell finds Harper's widow, Willa (Winters), and sets out to marry her.  Young Pearl dotes on her new daddy, but John is suspicious.  Powell resumes his murderous ways, doing away with young Willa, but claiming to the townsfolk that she up and R-U-N-N-O-F-T.  Now all that's left is to get the young'uns to divulge the whereabouts of the cash.  But they get away and find themselves in the care of Rachel Cooper (Gish), who takes in wayward children.  Unlike the "Reverend," Rachel is a model Christian, who bestows love on even the most hardened children.  But of course, Powell finds them, which means he's only one step away from finding the loot.

There are a lot of people who say that this film was way ahead of its time, which may be true.  But as I watched it, I noticed that there was a definite nod towards the films of the silent era.  Several tricks of that time were used, such as using an iris in/out to make the audience focus on one particular thing.  Also, much of the scenes were shot in a way that was reminiscent of German Expressionism.  The honeymoon scene in particular calls to mind The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari.  Laughton even cast the biggest silent film star of her day in Lillian Gish, who, surprisingly, was the best actor in the film.

Yes, all of this makes the film visually stunning.  But the acting was way over the top, even by 1950's melodrama standards.  Mitchum is chilling as the crooked Reverend, but he (and just about everyone else) overplays it almost to the point of ludicrousness. 

Now, if the auteur theory is to be believed, then this film is a extension of Charles Laughton's hatred toward two things: organized religion and female sexuality.  The Reverend claims to be doing the Lord's work, and whether he believes it or not is up for debate.  But we know he's a monster.  And how many times have we seen in the news (especially these days) those who were supposedly men of God doing despicable things?  As for the latter, many of the women in the film go on and on about how sex is strictly for the production of children.  One woman even states that when she and her husband have relations, she's "thinking about her canning."  The one woman in the film who seems to genuinely want physical affection is Willa.  And the Reverend kills her for it.  Of course, talking in such a frank way about such matters in 1955 is probably what made this film so "ahead of its time."

So this is an interesting film to be sure, but whether or not it's a "classic" is really up to you and how you define what is and isn't "classic."  Personally, I was pretty underwhelmed with it, and even found points of it hokey and laughable.  But it's definitely worth a look.

Day 56: I Felt It. I Was Perfect.

BLACK SWAN (2010)
Directed by Darren Aronofsky
Starring: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel, Barbara Hershey, Winona Ryder

This movie freaked me out.  And coming from a guy who was unfazed by Eraserhead and El Topo, that's saying something.

The story concerns Nina (Portman), a young ballerina who dreams of dancing the White Swan in "Swan Lake."  However, when the director Thomas (Cassel) announces his new take on the piece, things get a bit complicated: The White Swan and the evil Black Swan will be played by the same dancer.  Nina's got the White Swan down, but she's not much in touch with her dark side.  Therefore, her Black Swan suffers.  But Thomas sees potential in her, so he casts her in the lead, much to the chagrin of retiring dancer Beth (Ryder).  Nina tries and tries, but she can't quite get the darkness and seduction Thomas is looking for.  So he tries to seduce her out of her shell.  Along the way, the new girl Lily (Kunis), a green but very passionate dancer, is cast as Nina's understudy. 

Sounds like a pretty common plot thread, right?  Well, while all this is going on, Nina slowly starts to lose her grip on reality.  Her dark side that has been suppressed for so long bubbles to the surface.  But it is filmed in such a way that the audience can't quite get a hold on what's really happening - whether it's part of the story, or if it's all just in Nina's head.  The more Nina lets loose, the more the Black Swan consumes her until she begins a very literal transformation.

Let me get this out of the way: I love Darren Aronofsky.  I think he's one of the most brilliant directors working today.  The first film of his I ever saw was Requiem for a Dream, a film about the depth junkies will sink to in order to get their fix.  It's visually stunning, and extremely graphic; it should be required viewing on day one for anyone going into rehab.  Black Swan is a very similar film.  Aronofsky pulls no punches in his portrayal of a woman losing her mind.  And, in a way, the audience feels they are losing their minds as well.  This is a very difficult trick to pull off, but it's not impossible.  The key is being completely and totally fearless, which Aronofsky has always been.  Heck, even his film The Fountain, while incomprehensible in places, is a fearless film, made by a director who knows exactly what he wants and goes for it full-throttle.  There aren't many directors today who can say that.

I was completely on edge by the time the end credits rolled.  I felt as if I had gone with Nina on this journey down the rabbit hole into the darkest depths of her soul.  And if that sort of feeling excites you, I recommend this film highly.  But I don't want to tell anyone to skip this movie.  Even if it scares the living daylights out of you, it's a great example of how a director can play an audience like a piano.

Day 55: You Have Part Of My Attention. You Have The Minimum Amount

THE SOCIAL NETWORK (2010)
Directed by David Fincher
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, Justin Timberlake, Erica Albright, Armie Hammer, Max Minghella

People keep telling me I don't watch modern films.  To tell the truth, the reason I started this project was so that I could catch up on the classics.  But in so doing, many of the films that have come out in the last year that everyone and their dog has seen have sort of fallen by the wayside.  So here I am, trying to catch up with the rest of the world.

On that note, here we have The Social Network.  I was very excited when this film came out, but alas, I was broke at the time, so I kept putting off actually seeing it.  Anytime you have this much behind-the-camera talent (director David Fincher, writer Aaron Sorkin and Music by Trent Reznor), the geek in me starts to surface.  Of course, if the movie sucks, I get understandably upset.

But The Social Network, the film that was touted as being no less than THE film of this generation, was...pretty good.  In fact, it was better than pretty good.  But there was only one thing about it that rubbed me the wrong way: the protagonist, Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) is here presented as one of the biggest jerks in history.  Yes, the writing is great, the music is creepy - everything I was expecting from this crack team of collaborators.  But I came away from this film feeling more than a bit down.  I can't root for a guy who sells out one of his best friends and is so emotionally distant and cocky almost to the point of being a sociopath.  Then again, the film didn't really set out to put Zuckerberg in a positive light, which is a good thing.  If that had been their aim, they would have failed miserably. 

All this is not to say that the film is bad.  Like I said, it's wonderfully and artfully directed, written and acted.  But the film's messages of how unfair life is, and how even your best friend can stab you in the back left me feeling more than a bit down.  Though the final shot is a thing of genius.  Zuckerberg sits alone in a room, perusing Facebook (of course), and comes across the page of his ex-girlfriend, who broke up with him in the first scene.  He sends a Friend request.  Captions flash across the screen about what happened to whom after the events of the film.  As Zuckerberg hits the "refresh" button over and over again, the final caption reads, "Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world."  And he's all alone, wondering if his ex-girlfriend still thinks about him.  Just like millions of other poor schmucks.

Day 54: If Your Life Had A Face, I Would Punch It

SCOTT PILGRIM VS. THE WORLD (2010)

Directed by Edgar Wright

Starring: Michael Cera, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Kieran Culkin, Ellen Wong, Jason Schwartzman, Brandon Routh, Alison Pill, Mark Webber, Johnny Simmons

Have you ever wondered what it might be like if your life were more like a video game?

No?  You say that was just me?

Actually, it wasn’t just me.  And since somebody made a movie (and comic book series) based on that exact premise, I actually feel justified.  I’m normal.  You’re the freaks. 

Anyway…

Scott Pilgrim (Cera) is a typical Canadian young adult.  He’s in a kick-ass garage band called Sex Bob-omb, he’s dating a high school girl (“We almost held hands once, but she got embarrassed”) and lives in what appears to be a basement with his gay roommate Wallace (Culkin).  Then, one magical day, he meets the girl of his dreams, Ramona.  Now I know what you’re thinking: he’s got to figure out a way to get with Ramona without breaking his current girlfriend’s heart, right?  Well…yeah, there’s that.  But he’s also got to defeat Ramona’s Seven Evil Exes (not necessarily “ex-boyfriends”) in video-game-inspired hand-to-hand combat, complete with score counter, power-ups and extra lives. 

This is the kind of movie that may not appeal to older audience members who didn’t grow up with video games and comic books.  But that’s okay.  It wasn’t exactly made for you, just like A Hard Day’s Night wasn’t made for your parents.  But as someone who grew up with both, I have to say, this movie really nailed it.  Like I said, I don’t think I’m the only one who ever daydreamed about what it would be like to take down the school bully Mortal Kombat-style.  And this movie was so much like my dreams, it was a bit scary. 

I know I usually talk about how good (or bad) the acting was, but in this case, it wasn’t so much about the acting, which is pretty good, considering the fact that it’s a special effects showcase.  Movies like this are really more about the casting than the actual performances; trying to get the best type rather than the best performer.  On that scale, it was pretty spot-on.  Everyone delivered a type of sarcastic, deadpan performance, which, if you listen to the young people around us today, is right on the money.  If I had to pick one performance that stands out, it would be Kieran Culkin as Wallace.  I for one am glad to see a gay character that isn’t the stereotypical limp-wristed, mincing nancy-boy that appears in 99% of movies that call for a gay character.  He was just a regular, everyday person, as are most gay people I know (though he is a bit of a man-whore).

Once again, I found myself watching a film based on a comic book series I had only skimmed through once when I was at Barnes & Nobel.  I suppose I should stop doing that and only review films based on books I’ve read, but that’s not really the purpose here.  I just tell you whether or not I liked the movie.  And I liked this one a lot. 

Day 53: I Like To Look For Things No One Else Catches

AMELIE (Les fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain) (2001)
Directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Starring: Audrey Tautou, Mathieu Kassovitz, Rufus, Serge Merlin, Michel Robin, Jamel Debbouze, Dominique Pinon, Clotilde Mollet

Amelie Poulain (Tautou) has always lived an isolated life.  Her parents were distant to the point of being cold - even harsh.  Now, she lives and works in Paris with a varied group of eccentrics who all have similarly complex problems.  However, one day - specifically, the day Lady Di passed away - she finds a small box hidden in her apartment that is full of old toys.  She sets out to find the man, but is much too shy to step outside of her circle of friends and co-workers.  With their help, she tracks down the man to whom these toys belonged as a boy.  Inspired by this one good dead, she sets herself on a quest to make the lives of those around her just a little brighter.  However, the one person she doesn't seem to be able to help is herself.

I went into this film thinking it was just another romantic comedy, and we all know how I feel about those (with few exceptions).  However, this film is so much more than that.  Sure, there's a bit of romance thrown in (it is French, after all), but that's not the film's focus.  It's more about doing what we can to make our world a better place; not the whole world, but just our sphere of influence.  Also, it's about stepping out of our comfort zone to follow our hearts. 

Yeah, I know, this all sounds a bit too much like an after-school special.  But the thing that saves it is the fact that it is extremely well-made in just about every respect.  I've only seen one other film by Jean-Pierre Jeunet - The City of Lost Children - and that was a grotesque and disturbing film I really remember little about, other than it starred Ron Perlman (who I didn't know could speak French).  The cinematic style of Amelie is similar, but it is used for a much sweeter result.  This is a film that never lets you forget you're watching a movie.  The viewer is privy to nearly every aspect of the characters' private lives through an ever-present narrator, a series of their likes and dislikes, a peek into their dreams and even x-ray vision.  Yes, Jeunet calls attention to the fact that you're watching a movie, but he does so in a fun way.  It's like he found a cinematic tool-box and, like a little kid, is having a blast using everything in it.  But like an adult, he exercises a bit of control.  Not very much, but just enough.

One of the things I love best about foreign films is the fact that I'm usually not familiar with the actors involved, so celebrity doesn't ruin my ability to see characters rather than stars.  Although this is the film that made Audrey Tautou an international star, bring her into films such as The DaVinci Code and Coco Before Chanel.  But here, I didn't see an actress.  I saw Amelie Poulain, the shy, sweet, wonderful young lady.  And I won't lie; I was kind of crushing on her big time.  But that's another story...

Day 52: Have You A Pistol Handy?

OUR HOSPITALITY (1923)
Directed by Buster Keaton and John G. Blystone
Starring: Buster Keaton, Natalie Talmadge, Joe Roberts, Ralph Bushman, Craig Ward

Yes folks, this is a silent film.  And I get the same complaint with silent films as I do with foreign films: "I don't want to have to read anything!"  Well, get over it.

Keaton stars as Willie McKay, who was brought up in New York quite ignorant of the fact that his father was killed in a feud with the rival Canfield family (sound familiar?).  When he finds he's inherited the McKay Estate (a dilapidated shack in the middle of nowhere), he takes the world's first passenger train (which, like the world's first anything, doesn't work too well) to Kentucky to claim it.  On the train, he meets a nice young lady named Virginia (Talmadge) and becomes smitten with her.  Once off the train, she invites him to dinner, which he accepts.  But as it turns out, she is the daughter of Joseph Canfield (Robers) the head of the Canfield Clan.  He and his two sons vow to kill McKay, but not while he's a guest in their house.  To do so, you see, would be to violate that time honored code of Southern Hospitality.  McKay gets wind of this and decides to become a permanent house guest, all the time trying to woo the lovely Virginia.  But the Canfield men decide to put a stop to that and Willie is soon on the run.

This is the first Buster Keaton comedy I have ever seen, and I must say it exceeded all my expectations.  Some have called it an "epic comedy," and I'd agree with that statement.  Everything in this movie is big, including the laughs.  But there Keaton had an eye for cinema unlike most of his contemporaries (including Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin).  Every shot is wonderfully composed.  But the most important thing in a comedy is, of course, the laughs, and rather than play the gags as big as possible, the comedy is much more observational; almost underplayed.  Everyone in the cast seems oblivious to the fact that they're in humorous situations, which works much better than when a cast seems to be aware of the fact that they have to make the audience laugh. 

Also of note are some of the spectacular stunts, all performed by Keaton himself.  His history as an acrobat in Vaudeville works to his advantage, and he uses a combination of elusive camera trickery and physical prowess to keep us on the edge of our seats.  Toward the end of the film, both Willie and Virginia are swept down river toward a waterfall, and Willie makes a daring rescue at the very last second.  All of this was done practically, that is, they had to actually build a waterfall and Keaton had to actually dangle from a rope to save the day.  And it is every bit as exciting to watch as anything they can do nowadays with CGI. 

Probably the most satisfying thing about the film for me was the fact that a jaded 21st Century audience enjoyed this film.  I watched with a group of people, and it made me feel a bit warm and fuzzy to hear an audience raised on Mel Brooks, Judd Apatow and Seth MacFarlane laugh uproariously at what many would call an outdated and antiquated film.  If that's you're attitude, I can understand it.  But it really says something when a movie that's nearly a hundred years old still holds up.