Day 16: At The Ballet

A CHORUS LINE (1985)

Directed by Richard Attenborough

Starring: Michael Douglas, Alyson Reed, Terrence Mann

A group of dancers auditioning for a Broadway show are required by the choreographer Zach (Douglas) to bear their souls if they want any chance of getting cast.  Most of them are desparate enough, so, though a series of songs and wonderful dances, they reveal the most intimate parts of their lives. 

A life in the arts is the dream for a lot of people.  Many just want to do it for the fame and the money, but there are others who act or write or sing or direct because they love what they do.  And they just want to make a living doing it.  That is what is at the heart of A Chorus Line.  Every hopeful on the stage is required to do something they’ve probably never done before; they must explain why it is they want to dance.  What did they give up?  What did they leave behind?  What makes what you do so important to who you are? 

It would be nice if all of these questions were answered, but they’re not.  Many are just touched upon.  But the songs that accompany the monologues are all wonderful, capturing the emotion of the moments and memories of a very diverse group of people.

Richard Attenborough may seem an odd choice to direct this film.  Known for more epic material such at A Bridge Too Far and the Oscar-winning Ghandi, he was a director much more in the vein of David Lean.  But he does a very nice job making the audience intimate with the cast.  Each musical number is done in a unique way that calls to mind the MGM musicals of old.  A lot of the older cinematic tricks are pulled out here, making the numbers remeniscent of everyone from Busby Berkley to Bob Fosse. 

The biggest flaw in the film is the love story that was tacked on between Zach and his old flame/star dancer Cassie (Reed).  Through a series of flashbacks, we are shown very little of how they came to meet and/or fall in love.  With so little information, it’s hard to have a love story that resonates, and this one doesn’t.  But the focus remains on the extremely talented and diverse cast of characters hoping for their big break, which is where it needs to be.

Now I’m sure there are purists who are such big fans of the original show that they’ll take issue with a good deal of this movie – many original reviews I’ve read were pretty harsh.  But if I want their opinions, I’ll read their blog.  This is my blog, and I say this film is great.  I come from a theater background myself.  I know a thing or two about expectation, rejection, anticipation and nervousness.  And I also know many diverse and colorful people, and I saw a lot myself and them in the characters.  So if it doesn’t resonate with people from another backgroud, that’s okay.

Day 15: I Got Rhythm

AN AMERICAN IN PARIS (1951)
Directed by Vincinte Minnelli
Starring: Gene Kelly, Leslie Caron, Oscar Levant, Nina Foch

When you watch a movie that won the Oscar for Best Picture, is on top-ten lists all over the world and is beloved by millions, you have certain expectations.  I know I did for An American in Paris.  I was fully prepared to be bowled over.  And I wasn't.

Don't get me wrong, it's good.  It's really good.  But when people hype the ever-lovin' crap out of a film, calling it a "game changer" or a "tour de force" or what have you, it tends to make me expect something earth-shattering.  And what I found here was a colorful, funny, enjoyable film - nothing more, nothing less.

Now the film has many strengths, not the least of which being Gene Kelly, who plays Jerry Mulligan, an ex-G.I. turned painter living in Paris.  Kelly is a dancing beast, who can belt out a tune and kick up a storm better than just about anybody.  And the thing I love most about watching Kelly is the athleticism with which he dances.  He's one of the few who can make dancing look manly.  He's not as elegant as Fred Astaire, but that's okay.  Kelly was more the "everyman" than the snooty Astaire was, and it works even better here, as Mulligan pursues the sprightly (but engaged) Lise (Caron) while being pursued himself by a slick but lusty art dealer (Foch). 

Most of this movie is pretty standard song and dance fare with two major exceptions.  First, we have Jerry's friend Adam (Levant), who is a concert pianist who lives in Jerry's building.  Frustrated that he can't musically express what is in his heart of hearts, he lies down on the bed and fantasizes that he's performing Gershwin's "Piano Concerto in F Major" (thanks, IMDb!) in a crowded concert hall.  Not too odd, until we see that he's imagining himself playing every single instrument in the orchestra.  Oh, and he's the conductor, too.  And the audience.  So...no major ego problems there, eh?

The second is at the end - a 17-minute ballet sequence that takes place in Jerry's head after he finds out he can't have the girl of his dreams.  He and Lise dance all over Paris and through paintings by the likes of Van Gogh and Toulouse-Letrec.  The music and the dance and the swirling of color are all quite a sight to behold, and we see what could have been with Jerry and Lise.  But alas, it was not to be.  In the final scene, Jerry finds the red rose he gave Lise laying on the ground, and he picks it up and regards it mournfully as the music fades.  The End.

OH NO, WAIT.  Lise's now-ex fiancee comes drives back to the party and drops her off, because...I don't really know.  We never hear the conversation, between them, so we have to assume that he just wants Lise to be happy.  Or maybe he thought, "Wow, your emotions turn on a dime.  I can't spend the rest of my life with you."  Or maybe he said something a lot more unsavory.  We don't know.  But it just can't be a 1950's musical if the guy doesn't get the girl.  Well this time, it is the detrement of the picture. See, if we had just faded out, we could have had a great artistic ending and the audience could have left the theater knowing that it was better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.  But no, it's the Fifties and we just can't do that.  Slap that happy ending on there!  Ship it out!  Now, just sit back and rake in the cash.

I don't know, maybe I'm just too jaded, but that last minute of film almost completely ruined the picture for me.  It was fine up until this guy drops off his ex-fiancee to be with another man.  And he's got a smile on his face, for Pete's sake!  It's totally unrealistic.  Some would argue that that's what going to the movies is all about, they have a point.  But for me, it just didn't play.

But I'd definitely watch it again.  I'd just push the Stop button one minute before the end.

Day 14: This Book Is All That I Need...

HOW TO SUCCEED IN BUSINESS WITHOUT REALLY TRYING (1967)
Directed by David Swift
Starring: Robert Morse, Michele Lee, Rudy Vallee, Anthony Teague

J. Pierpont Finch (that's F-I-N-C-H) is a rising star at the World Wide Wicket Company!  In a matter of days, he goes from window washer to Vice President in charge of Advertising.  How does he do it?  What's his secret?  Well, it's nothing you can't do, too!  Just pick up the new book How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying, and you can climb that corporate ladder in record time!  Learn how to make it look like you worked all weekend!  Learn how to fake your way through board meetings!  Learn how to break out of the mail room and pick the right secretary!  It's all here in How To Succeed in Business Without Really Trying!  Now in paperback!*

*DISCLAIMER: Author and publisher are not responsible for consequences that may stem from using the suggestions outlined in this book which may include, but are not limited to: finding, then losing the girl of your dreams; being outsmarted by your secretary; having the entire board of directors looking for a way to get rid of you; embarrassment of your company on national television; loss of job and benefits.

Now, as you can probably tell, I enjoyed this one for the most part.  It's a very effective farce that takes on the corporate world, and not much has changed from the 60's to the...whatever this decade is called.  Are we back in the teens?

Anyway, this is the movie adaptation of the Broadway hit.  In fact, it was a HUGE hit, winning seven Tonys a freakin' Pulitzer Prize in Drama.  Not many musicals have gotten that honor.  So I really wanted to see this movie.  And it was....okay. 

Oh, it was funny, alright.  And the actors, reprising their Broadway roles, were pretty good, too.  But here's the thing.  There's really nothing new from a film-making standpoint.  The problem with bringing stage shows to the screen that there in a tendency to make them too true to the stage by making the film, essentially, a filmed play.  The song "I Believe In You" was filmed almost entirely in one extremely long close up.  Nearly everyone involved with the original production (including choreogapher Bob Fosse) was brought on board.  As a result, we have...pretty much what audiences in New York saw.  There are some differences, such as songs cut or rearranged and the like.  And it's perfectly entertaining.  But it's not very cinematic. 

As for the songs (written by Frank Loesser of Guys and Dolls fame), they're really nothing special, though there are a few that are nice and hummable.  Of particular note is the especially funny "A Secretary is Not a Toy," which features some of the best song and dance in the film.  But by and large, the songs sounded like an afterthought, which is a weakness in a musical.  As an old-time sound man once told me, "Nobody ever leaves the movie humming the picture."

I think this movie is pretty much a product of its time.  It's a great picture of the '60s before the hippies took over; back when everything was swinging and ultra-modern.  It holds up pretty well, though if it took place today, there would have to be a new number written for when the President of the company testifies before Congress about embezzling the employees' pensions.

Day 13: Dot, Dot, Dot!

MAMA MIA! (2008)
Directed by Phyllida Lloyd
Starring: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth, Stellan Skarsgard, Amanda Seyfried, Julie Walters, Christine Baranski

Can I make a confession?  Promise not to tell anyone?

I love ABBA.  I do, I can't explain it.  I just think they made some catchy music that is not only fun, but has a bit of sophistication underneath the surface.  They're the only good thing that came out of the disco years.

Okay, that felt good!  Can I make another confession?  I hate weddings.  Nothing gets on my nerves more than a bunch of overly excited women screeching about how happy they are for one another; especially if there's a lot of thinly concealed animosity and jealousy underneath it all.  In fact, I only go to weddings if a) it's a family member or close friend or b) there's booze.

So in this movie, we have something I love and something I hate.  Let's see how they mesh together.

Sophie (Seyfried) and her mother Donna (Streep) run a hotel on a small Greek island.  Sophie is getting married, but there's a problem.  She wants her father there.  Oh, and there's another problem: there are three men who could possibly be her father: Bill (Skarsgard), Sam (Brosnan) and Harry (Firth).  So she invites all three men to the wedding, and doesn't tell her mother.  Meanwhile, Donna's best friends Rosie (Walters) and Tanya (Baranski) also arrive, and the trio proceed to drink a ton of ouzo and sing ABBA songs that are strangely specific to their memories.  When Donna discovers her three former lovers on the island, she naturally has a bit of a fit.  Everyone is at a loss to explain what's going on.  So they sing even more ABBA songs and do some pretty nifty dance numbers to chew up time.  When the plot finally resumes, My Three Dads finally figure out why they're there and all agree to give Sophie away at the wedding.  This flies in the face of Donna's get-these-men-out-of-here-as-soon-as-possible plan.  Sam tries to rekindle things between himself and Donna.  Sophie decides she doesn't want to get married.  Rosie attaches herself to Bill.  Harry comes out as gay.  And they all live happily ever after to the strains of "Dancing Queen."

Thank God the music was good in this one, because the plot was weak too weak to stand on its own.  Seriously, the songs carried this movie.  And that's the problem with musicals these days.  The best musicals are a harmonious marriage of song and story.  If one is stronger than the other, it's not balanced.  In this case, I couldn't wait for the next song to start, because I simply didn't care about the characters.  It was like watching a series of music vidoes cut together with a lost episode of "Days of Our Lives."

As far as the performances go, everyone seemed to be having a wonderful time.  I can't blame them.  If someone told me I got to go to a Greek Island, sing and dance AND get paid for it, I'd be there two weeks before the crew.  Though it must be said that the singing ability of some of the cast leaves a lot to be desired.  Especially Pierce Brosnan.  He may be suave and sexy and a former James Bond, but singing isn't his strong suit.  Meryl Streep didn't do too bad a job, and the rest of the cast holds their own.  Streep actually does a lot better when she's singing trios with Walters and Baranski.  Those three are a hoot. 

So I didn't hate this one, but only because I liked the music.  I was prepared to hate it, because, in the first five minutes, we have hyperactive women screaming and jumping and cheering about how happy they are for the bride.  But while there was enough here to keep me even the least bit interested, I understand there are quite a few people out there who don't like ABBA.  Well, I hope you like weddings.  If not, there's nothing here for you.

Day 12: I Was Born Under A Wand'rin' Star

 PAINT YOUR WAGON (1969)
Directed by Joshua Logan
Starring: Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood, Jean Seberg

During the California Gold Rush, the cranky Ben Rumson (Marvin) is burying a man killed in a wagon wreck.  That is, until he discovers there's gold in that there grave!  A claim is quickly staked as he, out of goodwill, nurses the dead man's brother (Eastwood) back to health.  He also gives his new "Pardner" (as he is hereafter refered to) a 50/50 share in the gold.  However, the two come from different backgrounds.  Pardner is a stoic, sober man, whereas Ben is a hard drinkin', hard livin' old cuss who wants nothing to do with civilization.

A makeshift town is built to accommodate all the riff-raff who hear about the gold, and things are about as uncivilized as they can get, which is just the way most of them like it.  However, when a Morman comes to this no-name city called...well, "No Name City," with his two wifes, it is the first time in a good long while tha many of the men have seen a woman.  Elizabeth (Seberg) is the trouble wife, and the Morman agrees to do the honorable thing and and put her up for auction among the men.  Ben wins her with a drunken bid and they marry.  Of course, the rest of the male population are jealous and want women of their own.  So they, too, do the honorable thing and hijack a coach with six French prostitutes, turning the city into an actual boom town, full of all the whiskey and women any drunken and horny prospector could ever want.  In the meantime, Ben and Pardner's "pardnership" runs into trouble as Elizabeth expresses her love for both men.  Again, logic prevails and they all three agree to live as husband, husband and wife.

In the late 60's, there were two kinds of films that audiences had turned their backs on: westerns and musicals.  This movie is both.  And at the time, that meant it had two strikes against it.  And it's got other problems as well, namely the fact that Lee Marvin can't carry a tune in a bucket.  Luckily, the songs are by Alan Jay Lerner and Frederick Loewe, the duo who brought us Camelot and My Fair Lady.  One of their signatures is a leading man who does a sort of talk-singing, so more or less any actor could play the lead.  But Marvin fails even at that, however, as his whiskey-and-cigarettes voice growls through the few songs he "sings."  Eastwood, on the other hand, actually isn't half bad on the singing front.  I know it's strange thinking of Harry Callahan or "Blondie" singing a syrupy ballad about lost love, but Eastwood pulls it off rather well, even if he does seem a bit uncomfortable in the role at times.  And yes, I checked.  That really is Clint Eastwood singing.  That's really Lee Marving, too. 

Most of the songs are forgettable, though not altogether bad, and there are a few standout tunes that everyone can hum along to.  Of particular note is the song "Wandrin' Star," sung by Marvin.  In this number, his gruffness and inability to sing actually come in handy, as he bellows about the loneliness he's going through.

Also, it's interesting to look back at the time when this movie came out.  In 1969, the free-love movement was at its peak, and all the major plot points center around what is and is not acceptable to society.  The love triangle between Ben, Pardner and Elizabeth is a good arrangement for those involve, but outsiders see it as strange or downright sinful.  A preacher who comes to town acts as a prophet to condemn all the boozing, whoring and carousing in the town, saying God has doomed No Name City to destruction.  He's like the Fred Phelps of his generation; only a little more likeable. 

This is a highly flawed and overly long movie (it clocks in at nearly three hours), but I still found it fun, even if it does, like Ben, suffer from bouts of melancholy.  But it never wallows in it, and there's plenty of comedy to keep things light.  Especially at the end, where a series of unfortunate events make us wonder if the preacher was right all along...

Day 11: "Schmuck" is a Jewish Word

THE JAZZ SINGER (1980)
Directed by Richard Fleischer
Starring: Neil Diamond, Laurence Olivier, Lucie Arnaz, Catlin Adams

One of the many reasons I started "100 Days, 100 films" is so I could really stretch my writing muscles.  I've been told I don't completely suck at it, so I try to write as much as I can.  This project has certainly given me time and a reason to do so.  But now comes a challenge: writing about the first movie in this project that I hated.

Neil Diamond plays Yussel Rabinovitch (or Jess Robin, as he prefers), a young synagogue cantor in New york who moonlights as a night club singer.  His father (Olivier) thinks he should save his voice for Shabbos, as it's a more noble endeavor.  However, after his band mates play a tape of Jess's songs for a pop-music bigwig, they're out to Los Angeles to record it.  After Jess decides to join them, he decides that the band is doing the song all wrong and shows them how to do it correctly by taking all the flair and personality out of it.  Because it was the late 70's and that sort of thing was in, he is noticed by Molly (Arnaz), who quickly becomes his manager and wannabe lover.  Sadly, Jess is still married and his wife Rivkah (Adams) visits during one of his shows.  Jess is getting bigger and bigger for some reason, but Rivkah wants her simple life to stay simple and leaves him.  Now free to finagle around with Molly, he does so with gusto, while recording some pretty lame music that the entire West Coast goes ga-ga over.  But one day, Jess's father arrives and, with some of the saddest overacting I've ever seen, begs Jess to come back.  That is, until he meets that shiksa Molly.  Mr. Rabinovitch is devastated and rends his garment, crying out the Kaddish, as he now considers Jess dead to him.  This would be extremely sad if the performance wasn't so laughably over-the-top.  In fact, just thinking about made me forget the rest of the film. 

Oh yeah, I remember now.  Jess pisses off his band, his lover and his friends, leaves town, turns into Hank Williams, Jr., sings a bunch of country songs, is found by his band leader, comes back, meets his newborn son, and goes back to New York to perform at Radio City Music Hall.  But before that, we have one of the few good scenes in the film.  See, it's Yom Kippur, and a Rabinovitch has sung the Kol Nidre prayer for four generations.  Only this year, Jess is famous and his father is ill.  Moved by all this, he returns to the synagogue and sings the Kol Nidre.  Jess's father forgives his son, and that would be a great place to end the film.  However, since this is a Neil Diamond vehicle, we've still got one more awful song to sit through.

This movie made me sad for a number of reasons.  Number one, it was a remake of the vastly superior 1927 version with Al Jolson (widely believed to be the first sound film, but it wasn't.  It was the first successful sound film).  Second, it was directed by Richard Fleischer, who did my favorite Sci-Fi film Soylent Green.  And last but not least, we have Sir Laurence Olivier, widely regarded to be the best actor of his generation, turning in one the worst performances I've ever seen from any actor.  There is a difference in actors who realize they're in a terrible film and just give the bare minimum of effort.  It's another thing when an actor gives it everything he has and it looks silly.  And Larry looked silly here.  His misplaced accent, overly dramatic delivery and wild gesticulations just made him look like the whole film was an elaborate practical joke, with him as the victim.  If you want to remember Sir Laurence, go rent the 1948 version of Hamlet.

Now, contrast that with Neil Diamond, who had never acted before.  Now I'll give him credit - he tried.  There's no shame in that.  And his performance, all things considered, isn't that bad.  However, he did write all the songs for the movie, which were ranged from bland and uninteresting to terrible.  I wasndering whether or not Neil Diamond had released an album of Jewish Prayers, because those were the best musical numbers in the film.

Now I know a lot of people will read this (all three of you) and say, "Oh, it's the easy thing to do, picking on Neil Diamond."  Believe me when I tell you that it was not my intention to "pick on him."  I will admit to liking a few of his songs.  Just not any of the songs that appeared in this film.  Which, by the way, are about as far away from "Jazz" as one can get.  Isn't that the title of the film - The Jazz Singer?  Where was the jazz?  It was replaced with some pretty lame pop songs without an ounce of life in them.  But I guess The Lounge Singer wasn't as catchy a title.

Day 10: Saturday Morning Cartoons

MONSTERS, INC. (2001)
Directed by Pete Docter, with Lee Unkrich and David Silverman
Starring the voices of: Billy Crystal, John Goodman, James Coburn, Steve Buscemi

I am determined to see everything Pixar has come out with so far.  In that vein, here's Monsters, Inc.

In the city of Monstropolis, the company of Monsters Inc. is in the business of collecting the screams of children.  Why?  As it turns out, they're a power source that fuels the entire city.  And the top scream collecter is James P. Sullivan (Goodman), along with his good buddy Mike (Crystal).  Close behind is the diabolical Randall (Buscemi).  It's a dangerous job, due to the widley held belief that children are extremely toxic.  That turns out to be a problem when a little toddler girl makes her way into the Monster World, wreaking a rather innocent havoc on the unsuspecting monsters. 

This film seems to be a bit different in tone from the two Toy Story films or A Bug's Life.  As the fourth in Pixar's line of films, expectations were probably still pretty high.  It's not easy being the leader in your field (I imagine).  In the first two films, the goal seemed to be innovation of the medium as well as telling the best story possible.  Here, the focus is on story alone.  Yes, the visual design and animation are all top notch, but there's nothing all that innovative here.  It's all about heart, which is what Pixar does so very well.

It's also absolutely hilarious.  With comic talent like Billy Crystal and John Goodman, it's hard not to have a lot of laughs.  Having David Silverman (of The Simpsons fame) on your creative team doesn't hurt either.  Pixar seems to have the pull to be able to get all the best talent in Hollywood for its films.  Having Disney as your distributor probably helps.  They are an entertainment juggernaut that cannot be stopped.

I'm getting a little nervous.  Everything, and I mean everything I have seen from Pixar has been great.  Nobody's that good all the time.  Having said that, the only Pixar film I have not seen yet is Cars.  Stay tuned, and we'll see if their winning streak continues.

Day 9: Skip To The End, How Do I Kill It?

HELLBOY (2004)
Directed by Guillermo Del Toro
Starring: Ron Perlman, John Hurt, Selma Blair, Rupert Evans, Jeffery Tambor

There's a difference between real Nazis and movie Nazis.  In real life, the Nazis just wanted to take over the world.  In the movies, they always want to destroy it completely.  To start from scratch, I guess.  In one of their many attempts to do just that, they employ the services of the supposedly dead Rasputin to open a portal to hell so that an army of demons can come, cleanse everything by fire and leave the earth a desolate wasteland.  I don't think Hitler thought this plan through to the end. 

Anyway, the Allied Forces are there and stop them just in time.  But not before the cutest lil' baby demon you ever did see escapes and is taken in by the troops.  He goes home with Professor Broom (Hurt), a prominent demonologist, and is given the name bestowed upon him by the troops: Hellboy.

Comic book movies are a mixed bag.  Some are wonderful and faithful to the source material.  Others are so faithful to the source material that they don't bring anything new to the table.  Still others strive to put a new spin on an old favorite to make it modern and hip for the kids, thus destroying what we liked about that character in the first place.  Very few movies get it right.

So, did Hellboy get it right?  To tell you the truth, I don't know.  See, to properly review a comic book movie, it helps to have read the comic book.  Before Watchmen premiered, I borrowed a copy of the book from my then-girlfriend so I could have some kind of reference point.  But I've never read the "Hellboy" comics.  So I can only tell you about the movie itself, which was a lot of fun. 

Everyone tries to cram movies into genre-holes.  For Hellboy, we'd have to create the "Supernatural-Horror-Sci-Fi-Action-Romantic-Comedy".  And Hellboy would be the first film of its kind.  It's got a little bit of everything.  It follows the "three-ring circus" philosophy of entertainment: if you don't like the clowns, there's elephants.  And if you don't like the elephants, there's the trapeze, etc.  The trick is to take all of these elements and blend them together into one cohesive unit called a "movie."  And as fun as Hellboy is, it doesn't always blend together.  Many of the romantic subplots seem out of place, as Hellboy (Perlman) pines after Liz (Blair), a woman who can summon forth fire, but can't controll it.  Now research has told me that the film borrows plots from about four "Hellboy" comic stories, and maybe that was the problem.  Better to stick with one (or two at the most) rather than try to cram in every element of every plot.

Guillermo del Toro is probably the most visually inclined director working today.  He's really got an eye for detail that goes missing in a lot of films.  His later film Pan's Labyrinth on the outside looks like a dark, yet rather benign children's fantasy.  However, once we get inside the hidden world, it becomes the stuff of nightmares - nightmares designed by del Toro himself.  Now, with Hellboy, I know there was a comic book involved, but I can't help but wonder how much of the production design was a combined effort between del Toro and Mike Mignola (creator of the "Hellboy" comics).  I do know this much: the demons were pure H.P. Lovecraft, so I think he should get a nod here, too.

This is what we get when a film tries to be all things to all people.  It's a little uneven, but it's got enough action and humor to keep it fun.  Plus, it makes me want to check out the comic it was based on, which is, in the end, what all comic book movies are made for.

Day 8: He's So Green

THE FIFTH ELEMENT (1997)
Directed by Luc Besson
Starring: Bruce Willis, Milla Jovovich, Ian Holm, Gary Oldman, Chris Tucker, Luke Perry

I was hoping something like this would happen.  In fact, you could say that this is one of the reasons I started this project.  A lot of the movies I've watched in the past week have been hit-or-miss.  There have been times when, even before this project began, that I would watch a movie for the first time and would fail to live up to the hype.  Quite a few friends recommended The Fifth Element, and this one lived up to the hype.

Back in 1997, CGI was becoming all the rage in film-making.  Films like Jurassic Park had put it to good use, giving us the most realistic looking dinosaurs audiences had yet seen.  But, like all good things, it was abused, and directors soon became full-fledged CGI junkies.  George Lucas was among the most notable casualties  Not only did he create new Star Wars films that were a triumph of style over substance; but he preceded that by going back and digitally altering his original films. 

I bring up CGI because The Fifth Element uses it rather sparingly.  Of course, it would be impossible to do many of the shots in this film without digital assistance, but Luc Besson does something here that I think is worth noting.  There are actual rubber-latex alien costumes here.  There are actual working sets and props that were done by hand.  He went old-school, creating a world that can be seen and touched by its inhabitants, using CGI only when it is absolutely necessary.  It calls to mind the Sci-Fi epics that came before, when a director had to use all of his imagination and ingenuity to create a world; a talent that is sorely lacking in films today.

I know I usually give a synopsis here, but I would be here all night and the library closes in twenty minutes.  Here's the Cliffs Notes version: Long ago, aliens sought to protect some ancient stones representing the four elements (fire, earth, wind, water), which were to be used as a weapon against evil.  The only thing missing was the Fifth Element (and no, it's not "heart").  Flash forward 250 years and, wouldn't you know it, evil just happens to show up in the form of a giant planet that devours everything like a black hole.  Some aliens try to steal the ancient stones, but they are thwarted by a Supreme Being, who, thanks to science, takes the form of a lovely woman (Jovovich).  A priest (Holm) tries to warn of the danger.  A cab driver (Willis) picks up the Supreme Woman in his cab via the sunroof, after she dives off a building running from authorities.  Only she knows where the stones are, but a profiteering weapons dealer (Oldman) is hot on the trail as well.  Everything culminates on an intergalactic cruise ship, where a flamboyant radio DJ (Tucker) gets caught in the middle of everything.  Eventually, everyone gets to the ancient temple and they activate the weapon and the evil planet is destroyed, but only after the cab driver realizes that the Fifth Element is really love, and he and the Supreme Woman live happily ever after.  So...I guess the Fifth Element was "heart" after all.  Got it?  Good.

Now, to cram all of that into two hours takes a bit of doing.  As such, the pace is absolutely frenetic at times.  But that's not to say the movie doesn't take its time when it needs to.  A scene where a blue alien opera diva gives a recital is a great example of the film slowing down and giving us a chance to take in the strange and yet beautiful ambiance. 

Everything in this movie is about one thing and one thing only: entertainment.  And to be entertaining, you have to work on all of our emotions: humor, sadness, drama, anger, fear, etc.  And not one of these emotions go untouched.  I cheered when I needed to cheer and laughed when I needed to laugh.  But none of it ever felt forced.  It wasn't a Pavlovian response.  It was real.  And when a movie this outrageous makes you feel something, you know it's a movie done right.

Day 7: We're All Out Of Cornflakes. F.U.

THE ODD COUPLE (1967)
Directed by Gene Saks
Starring: Jack Lemmon, Walter Matthau, Monica Evans, Carole Shelley

Based on the 1965 Tony Award-winning play by Neil Simon, we have the story of Felix Unger (Lemmon) and Oscar Madison (Matthau).  Felix's wife has kicked him out of the house and is seeking divorce.  Oscar, along with his poker buddies, all fear for Felix's sanity, so the slovenly Oscar decides to take him in, despite Felix's assertion that he is a very difficult person to live with.  Of course, how bad can it be?  Well, when your friend-in-need-turned-roomate is a compulsive clean freak, trying to make his situation resemble his former marriage as much as possible, pretty bad.  Felix constantly gets on Oscar's last nerve, even ruining a planned night of romance with two British sisters (Evans and Shelley).  Finally, Oscar can take no more and orders his suicidal friend to leave.  Felix complies, but with a stern warning that whatever happens is on Oscar's head.  As it turns out, everything is alright, as the British sisters love the sensitive and sweet Felix and take him in.

It's always a risk trying to convert a play into a film, as what works on the stage doesn't always work on the screen.  Even the acting is a different kind of animal.  On stage, the actor must constantly stay in character for two hours a night.  Shooting a movie takes weeks of shortened takes, shot out of sequence, so an actor may be jovial one day and weeping the next.  But when you get actors who are familiar with material that is already golden, you generally don't have many issues.  And that's the case with The Odd Couple.

There are two ways to go about doing a comedy.  You can either go the sketch route, with gag-driven scenarios that get plenty of laughs, but don't really endear us to the characters.  It's perfectly valid, but it's not what's called for here.  No, here we have a more observational humor that is character-driven; the gags all center around Felix and Oscar's eccentricities.  They play off each others differences in a hilarious way.  And works as well as it does because Felix and Oscar are believable as people.  As such, we can identify with them.  And because of that, we can laugh at them, especially since we all know people like them.  Maybe we even are them.

Of course, the other problem with turning a play into a film is the tendency to shoot the film like a play.  The Odd Couple falls into that trap at times, focusing a majority of the action in Oscar's apartment.  However, the action is taken outside to the streets of New York from time to time, and even to Shea Stadium.  But everything important happens at Oscar's apartment, only because it doesn't have to happen anywhere else.  Besides, the problem of having your polar opposite as your roommate is the entire crux of the film.  So who needs to go outside?

The Odd Couple actually holds up surprisingly well - better than a lot of films from the sixties.  I don't think that was the intention, but when making movies, it's a good thing to bear in mind that people may very well be watching it forty or fifty years from now.  Now the T.V. show based on this film?  That's another story...

Day 6: Everybody Wants To Be A Cat

THE ARISTOCATS (1970)

Directed by Wolfgang Reitherman
Starring the voices of: Eva Gabor, Phil Harris, Scatman Crothers, Pat Buttram, George Lindsey

The trend these days for animated films is to make them as appealing to adults as possible.  Sure, we've got to keep it relatively clean for the kids, but the focus is on story and character development and the finer aspects of film-making. 

So then, it is sometimes a treat to go back to earlier days and see what animated films used to be like; a simpler time when movies were sanitized for our protection, the characters stated outright what they felt and plot points were spelled out for us so we didn't have to do any thinking.  Man, those were the days.

Here, we have The Aristocats (not to be confused with The Aristocrats, the 2005 documentary about the world's dirtiest joke).*  A rich old French lady bequeaths her entire estate to her cats, as rich old women are wont to do.  And as the will stipulates, once they die, her faithful butler Edgar gets everything.  Given that there are four cats living about 12 years apiece, Edgar, who apparently doesn't plan on living that long, decides to do away with them.  He must be pure evil, because who would ever want to harm the lovely Duchess (Gabor) and her three kittens, Marie, Toulouse and Berlioz (which I have to admit are really cute names).  This privileged feline family lives happily enough until Edgar puts them all to sleep!  No, not in the veterinary way, but with sleeping pills in their food.  After they've dozed off, he ditches them in the country where's he's hounded by Napoleon (Buttram) and Lafayette (Lindsey), two trouble-making farm dogs.  When everyone comes to, they find themselves stranded in the French countryside.  But along comes a smooth-talking alley cat named O'Malley (Harris) who, after wowing Duchess with his hep-cat lingo, decides to accompany them home.  Along the way, they meet up with other animal guest stars, including a swinging (or "Schvinging," as Duchess says) jazz combo headed by O'Malley's bestest bud Scat Cat (Crothers).  After a pretty darn good musical number - probably the highlight of the film - O'Malley and Duchess confess their feelings for one another, but decide that, due to their differing lifestyles, they should just stay friends.  But after Duchess and company return home, Edgar decides to send them off once and for all in the most crackpot way possible: locking them in a box and mailing them off to Africa.  Luckily, O'Malley and his gang show up to save the day, and all is well, as Edgar ends up in the box and, we assume, lives out the rest of his days getting chased by elephants on the Serengeti. 

So all animal puns aside, this movie wasn't all I had hoped for.  I was actually pretty eager to see it, as I'm a huge fan of Disney's The Rescuers, which followed seven years later and Robin Hood and The Jungle Book that preceded it.  This film seems like it was rushed into production, as the story was weak and uninteresting; it was really more gag-driven than anything else, which isn't a bad thing, but gags are like special effects.  They can only carry the film so far.  The saddest part of watching any disappointing film is the feeling that everyone involved could have done better.  And I know the Disney folks were/are capable of so much more. 

But on the plus side, there is the musical number "Everybody Wants To Be a Cat," which is the best part of the film.  It's a catchy little tune that really sticks out in an otherwise mediocre movie, and I'll be humming it for days.  And if you're into saccharine cutesiness, the opening ten minutes deliver that in spades.

This actually poses an interesting question: have animated films come so far in recent years that we've become spoiled?  Or was this just a rough spot on Disney's track record?  I'd say it's the latter.  Yes, the both the medium and the art form have come a long way in a short time (thanks mostly to Pixar), but I can still sit down and enjoy other films in the Disney cannon because of the characters, the story, the songs and the vocal performances; in other words, everything that was lacking in this film.  But it's okay.  Even the best filmmakers have a few blotches on their record.

*Do NOT click this link if you are squeamish or easily offended.

Day 5: The Defendant Will Refrain!

STRANGER ON THE THIRD FLOOR (1940)
Directed by Boris Ingster
Starring: Peter Lorre, John McGuire, Margaret Tallichet

Up-and-coming ace reporter Mike Ward (McGuire) and his up-and-coming finance Jane (Tallichet) are planning to get married!  But first, Mike has an important matter to take care of.  See, he was the only witness to the gruesome murder of a coffee shop owner.  So right after Mike testifies that a stuttering, frightened young man, who of course swears he's innocent (don't they all?) killed said coffee shop guy, thus dooming him to the electric chair, it's off to Albany to get hitched!  Jane, however, doubts the squirrely young man's guilt and, sickened by the whole thing, refuses to see Mike.  Despondent, Mike goes to his boarding house and sees a stranger (Lorre) slip out of the house, refusing to even say hello, which was required by law in the 40's.  Mike begins to notice things are amiss.  For one thing, his normally cranky neighbor with the window-rattling snore is absolutely quiet.  In a full reel of internal monologue and flashbacks, we are told how Mr. Cranky Neighbor was a thorn in Mike's side from day one, and how Mike made a few off-handed remarks about maybe, possibly killing him, though of course he was just blowing off steam.  Mike tries to sleep off his misplaced guilt, but he has an incredibly bizarre nightmare, culminating in his getting the electric chair and being taunted all the while by the Squirrely Young Man.  Mike decides to investigate and Mr. Cranky Neighbor is, in fact, dead; his throat cut in the exact same manner as the old Coffee Shop Guy.  Though, the police don't seem to notice this, and it takes about another 10 minutes for Mike to bring it up as well.  Meanwhile, Jane, out to proves Mike's innocence, even though he hasn't really been accused of anything by anyone, asks around to see if anyone has seen the man Mike was describing.  On the way, she meets up with the Stranger who, because he trusts her, pretty much confesses to everything.  After all, why would the Whitecoats send a woman?  It turns out that all the Stanger wants is to not go back to the nut house, which is a pretty reasonable request, so long as you don't kill anybody.  However, after Jane threatens to call the police, the Stranger wises up, and tries to kill her.  As she runs away, the Stranger is run over by a truck carrying over 5,000 pounds of deus ex machina.  All ends well, as the Squirrely Young Man is released and becomes the Squirrely Young Cab Driver, who gets Mike and Jane to the church on time.

If you survived reading that lengthy synopsis, you already know that this movie is pretty goofy and dated.  But it was just a B-movie, and they were rarely taken as seriously as the features.  However, there are some pretty innovative things in this picture.  Many have credited it as the first true film noir.  Heavy use of light and shadow, the troubled soul who tells the story in voice-over, the man wrongly accused of a crime; they're all here.  Of course, they'd been in movies before, but never really together, and certainly not in American films, which were more focused on glamour rather than mood.  Also, the dream sequence borrows very heavily from German Expressionism, and calls to mind especially The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. 

But that's not the only thing borrowed from the Germans.  Here we have Peter Lorre in one of the many B-movie villain roles he took upon coming to the States from Europe.  His big international turn was in Fritz Lang's M, which got him noticed by Alfred Hitchcock, who cast him in the original version of The Man Who Knew Too Much.  Lorre's underplayed and downright creepy performance (it is rumored he learned his lines phonetically, as he spoke very little English at the time), is a great contrast to the over-the-top, "Please notice me and how well I'm emoting!" performances of the rest of the cast.  It was as if everyone was so desperate to get out of Poverty Row, that they dialed up their performances.  But not Lorre.  He just did what he did best, with his scratchy voice and horrible teeth, and gives the best performance in the film.

So yeah, it's a goofy ride, but a lot of fun, and pretty innovative for the time.  It's definitely worth a look, but don't take it too seriously.

Day 4: You're Some Kind Of Freak, Aren't You?

EASY RIDER (1969)
Directed by Dennis Hopper
Starring: Dennis Hopper, Peter Fonda, Jack Nicholson

This is a film that speaks to people.  It was the cinematic voice of a generation.  It finally told the story of the disaffected youth of America, about how their dreams for the future were slowly dying.  It's like Kerouac's On The Road for the 60's. 

Dennis Hopper and Peter Fonda, two graduates of the "Roger Corman" school, decided to go off and make a movie about two guys traveling the countryside, smoking a lot of grass, drinking a lot of beer and getting hassled by The Man on their way to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.  With Hopper directing and Fonda producing, two young up-and-comers got their chance to tell a story about their generation.  This had already happened in the music world, but at the time, most filmmakers and studios shied away from anything about the hippie culture.  Stories abound regarding the production time of this film, which was just as wild, if not more so, than what happens on screen.  It's a miracle this film was finished at all.  But it was released to wide acclaim and made stars of Hopper, Fonda and Jack Nicholson.

The only problem is this: does it still work, now, forty-plus years later?  And what about first-time viewers like me?  What will we think about it?

Well, here's what I think: it was...okay.  Not life-altering, not earth-shattering.  Just okay.  There is a lot to like here, to be sure.  If you're into great cinematography, you're in for a treat.  America's countryside is beautifully captured.  Dennis Hopper is a treat to watch as the high-strung Billy.  And Jack Nicholson's turn as a drunken ACLU lawyer named George Hanson is just as fun, especially in the scene where he's introduced to "grass" for the first time.  Also, the scene near the end where everyone drops acid is (from what I'd imagine) pretty accurate in its interpretation of that experience.  It was certainly innovative from a filmmaking point of view. 

However, it's really difficult for me to get into a movie with no plot.  Yeah, I know Billy (Hopper) and Captain America (Fonda) are on their way to New Orleans for Mardi Gras.  But...why?  Where did they come from?  Why are they going there?  These are two pretty important questions.  Now, I am completely open to the interpretation that there may be no answer, and these are just two crazy kids out for kicks.  I can buy that.  And maybe, if you were watching this in the 60's and stoned out of your gourd (and if you were watching this in the 60's you were stoned out of your gourd, admit it), that was understood.  They're just two wanderers with no place to go and all the time in the world to get there.  I get it.  But it makes it really hard for me to care about them.  Which, in turn, makes it kind of hard for me to stay interested.

Still, it's a treat, especially for those who are into the independent film scene, as this is pretty much the prototype for every independent film since, which is a good thing.  I'm sure this movie inspired many to just pick up a camera and start shooting. 

Day 3: Let's Name The Zones Of The Open Sea...

FINDING NEMO (2003)
Directed by Andrew Stanton and Lee Unkrich
Starring the voices of: Albert Brooks, Ellen DeGeneres, Willem Dafoe, Geoffery Rush, Eric Bana

I don't know how Pixar does it.  I mean, who cares about fish, right?  They're...well, fish!  And yet, by the end of Finding Nemo, I found myself tearing up a bit, just as I did when I saw Wall*E and Up.  Tearing up over fish.  Pixar is the only movie studio that can do that for me.

I think one of the things that really helps is the fact that the story is so complex.  Marlin (Brooks) is an over-protective dad looking after his only son Nemo, but this goes from annoying to embarrassing as Marlin keeps a watchful eye over everything Nemo does.  Because one of Nemo's fins is smaller than the other, Marlin doesn't let his son do anything.  In an act of defiance, Nemo swims off, but is captured by divers and is put into a fish tank in a dentists office.  Blaming himself, Marlin sets off to find his son with the help of a forgetful fish named Dory (DeGeneres).  While Marlin and Dory scan the ocean, Nemo makes some new friends in the dentist's fish tank, including Gill (Dafoe) who is hell-bent on escaping, and plans to use Nemo to do it.  At the same time, Marlin is getting over his own fears of...well, everything, and tales of his exploits reach the ears of local pelican named Nigel (Rush), who just so happens to be friendly with the fish tank crew.  Eventually, it turns into an aquatic version of The Great Escape and both Marlin and Nemo turn out to be heroes neither one of them thought they could be.


It's really hard to do a simple synopsis of this movie; there's a lot going on in the 100-minute running time, but nothing ever feels rushed.  The story runs on the simple premise of giving your main character a goal and then putting as many obstacles as possible between them.  This technique is used a lot for one simple reason: it works.  And the reason it works is that it forces characters to emerge.  Characters are defined by choices, and the more choices you force on your character, the more well-defined they become.  And that's critical when your protagonists are fish.  There's a lot of disbelief to suspend, and well-defined characters help that happen. It also ups the ante when it comes to action and danger.  If we actually have some sort of emotional connection to the our characters, we feel their fear.  All of this goes toward working on an audiences emotions, and Pixar does it just as well, if not better, than many live-action studios.


A lot has been said about Pixar sort of "growing up" the animated feature.  What has been for years considered strictly a children's medium is quickly growing to cover much darker and more mature material, thus making it more palatable to adults who, most likely, were forced to bring their kids to the movies.  This really started in earnest the following year with The Incredibles, but there is still a lot for adults to enjoy here.  While not my favorite Pixar film (that honor goes to Wall*E), it's still got a lot to love.  It's funny, sad, exciting and heartwarming without being saccharine.  And it made me tear up over fish.  This is the only movie I can say that about.

Day 2: Yippie-Ki-Ay, Mamma-Jamma

DIE HARD (1988)
Directed by John McTiernan
Starring: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Reginald VelJohnson

It's the fact that I had never seen a movie this well-known that I started this project.  Everyone has seen Die Hard. It's like Dark Side of the Moon - everyone you know owns a copy (maybe even two).  And now, I have caught up with the rest of the world.

If, like me, you have never seen it, Die Hard is the story of John McClane (Willis), a New York City cop visiting his wife in Los Angeles.  While at a Christmas party at an LA high-rise, a group of European terrorists drop in, led by the ice cold Hans Gruber (Rickman).  And...that's it, really.  John McClane, aided by Los Angeles Police Sergeant Al Powell (VelJohnson) on the ground, eventually saves the day, despite the best efforts of the LAPD and the FBI.  But not before a lot of stuff gets blowed up real good.

Though it's probably not true that this film started every trope that has been in every action movie for the last twenty years, it is fair to say that this is the film that "turned it up to eleven," so to speak.  It's a pretty thin story that relies mostly on the explosions and Willis' machismo to sell it.  However, the fireworks are spectacular and Willis is more than enough man for the job, even if his character is equally thin.  McClane is often called a "cowboy" by Gruber, and that's a pretty accurate assessment.  He sees wrong and is compelled to right it.  Sure, his wife is among the hostages at the party, but little is made of that fact.  He is on a mission, and it'll take more than C4 and surface-to-air missiles to stop him.

But quite the opposite of Willis' bragadocious McClane is Alan Rickman's chilling and yet wonderfully charismatic Hans Gruber.  I've always believed that the hero of any story is only as good as the villian.  And Gruber is one of the best ever.  The thing that makes him so convincing is that Gruber believes, in his heart of hearts, that he is in the right, and Rickman, in his feature film debut, emphasizes this trait.  Of course, it's impossible for me not to love Alan Rickman.  His suave yet intense delivery has carried a lot of films (Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves comes readily to mind).  His demeanor - polite, yet ruthless - makes for a memorable bad guy.


Even though there was nothing really new in this movie, it was still enjoyable, if in a testosterone-fueled, escapist revenge fantasy sort of way.  But the makers of this film knew that audiences like to be taken on a wild ride, so long as the danger isn't real.  This is why roller-coasters are so popular.  It's manufactured terror in a controlled environment, with a few laughs thrown in.  And we ever feel we've had a rotten day, we can pop in Die Hard and say, "Well, at least I'm not this guy."

Day 1: The Man Who Wasn't There

THE MAN WHO WASN'T THERE (2001)
Directed by Joel (and Ethan) Coen
Starring: Billy Bob Thornton, Francis McDormand, James Gandolfini, Tony Shaloub

As I write this, the Coen Brothers have, in the eyes of many reviewers, revitalized the Western genre with their remake of True Grit.  Of course, Westerns have been a hard sell in Hollywood as of late.  So I'm wondering how hard of a sell it was for the Coens in their pre-Oscar-winning days to convince backers to finance a black-and-white film noir - another genre that has been out of favor with modern audiences for some time.

The story concerns a barber named Ed Crane (Thornton) who leads the most boring life imaginable.  That is, until he gets the feeling that his wife Doris (McDormand) is having an affair with her boss, Big Dave Brewster (Gandolfini).  At the same time, a strange man appears talking about some new-fangled business known as "dry cleaning."  Intrigued, Ed decides to take him up on the offer.  But to get the money, he has to do something this normally passive and less than verbose barber wouldn't normally do: blackmail.  Thus begins a strange journey where everything Ed touches turns to mud, so to speak. Doris is framed for murder, a slick-talking lawyer (Shaloub) is brought in to distort the truth and what started as simple revenge ends up coming all back to get Ed Crane in the end.

Whenever an established Hollywood director tries to resurrect a long-forgotten genre, one of two things generally happens: if he fails, everyone says that he did no research whatsoever and/or he took the tried and true idioms of said genre and put a "modern" spin on them.  Or, he could succeed and be called a genius.  The Coens succeed in a big way here.  While the Ed Crane is not the hard-bitten detective protagonist of The Maltese Falcon or The Big Sleep, he is the man in the wrong place at the wrong time for the wrong reasons, as in Double Indemnity.  However, instead of letting his emotions get the better of him, Ed Crane is downright stoic, never letting on that he is feeling anything.  Thornton's downplayed performance and deadpan narration let us know the wheels upstairs are turning, but Crane remains even-keeled; almost cold.

The film is, as you might have guessed, shot entirely in black and white, as it should be.  Film noir is not a genre that lends itself well to color (with Chinatown, being the possible exception) and there's a reason.  The black and white photography (beautifully shot by Roger Deakins) adds a certain amount of weight and mood to the film that would have otherwise have been lacking.  Also, having been called "the actor's medium," black and white helps the performances of the actors shine forth.  Even an extra with one line can look like a polished thespian if he's lit properly.

The Coens certainly did their homework for this film, though their trademark wit is there to keep things from getting too heavy.  It comes off more as a love letter to film noir than an actualy film noir itself - made by fans, for fans.  If you're a fan, it's worth checking out.

100 Days, 100 Films

I am on a journey; a journey not only of sight and sound, but of mind....

Nah, that stinks.

Here's the deal. I am on something of a quest of cinematic discovery. Every time I get into a conversation about movies with someone, they always bring up something I've never seen before. I can't tell you how many times I've had "I can't believe you've never seen (insert movie here)!" screamed at me. So in order to rectify that, I'm going to watch 100 movies in 100 days and relay my thoughts about them right here.

There is only one rule: I cannot have ever seen the movie in its entirety before. If I've seen bits and pieces of it, that doesn't count as "having seen it." I've got to watch it from start to finish.

They will not all be good films. They will not all be classics. They may be so obscure that the only other person who has seen it was the director. Then again, it may be a film that everyone has seen but me. Variety will be the spice of life here.

There's really no reason for it, other than I think it'll be fun, educational and entertaining. And who knows, you and I may find new favorite movies during the next 100 days.

So here we go.