Q (1982)

Does looking at this poster make you wish that you were watching this Larry Cohen film now? For me, it did. I remember looking at this title, the brief description in my film book and thinking to myself, I cannot - literally - cannot wait to watch this movie. I had read a couple of lavishing reviews, I had seen THIS poster, and I was familiar with Cohen's work. I was ready with my eyes to feast upon what this Harryhousen-styled beast had to offer. But, then I watched it. For nearly two hours, I found myself glued to a screen that I shouldn't have been impressed with to begin. The monster was there, the insane criminal was finely played by Michael Moriarty, but the rest - what I shall aptly entitle from now on, the "B-roll" was nothing short of filler and excess. The actual story could have fit within a mere hour, but what should have then been used for character development or story development, it was used to show cops drinking, the beast randomly taking people from rooftops, missing lunches, and lastly, a petty thief attempting to get his comeuppance with the NYPD for a false imprisonment that we never knew existed to begin with.

Urg, I wanted to like Q: The Winged Serpent, but what was supposed to be amazing B-schlock just transformed into a bland film that began at one point, ended at another, while attempting to fill everything else with just neat scenes - that in reality were not neat, just filler. I think this is my first Michael Moriarty film, and while everything in my body compels me to watch more, he successfully transformed what could have been the backbone of this story into a weak, uninspired side character that doesn't accompany Carradine's "Dopey Dog" sleuthing one bit. I could see where this story wanted to go. I wanted the criminal and the cop to come together to eliminated this random winged serpent from the city -- but it never happened. Carradine did his own things, while Moriarty kept feeding us information that was completely unnecessary. In one scene we learn that he was once a junkie, in another he attempts to scat for money, and in another he is getting a million dollars from the city to locate a bird that everyone in the city sees EXCEPT for the police. Couple this with a girlfriend that demonstrates no compassion for her obviously insane boyfriend (this couldn't have been the first experience with this), we just have nothing.

There were moments throughout this film where I just didn't understand what was happening. Is it a movie about a winged serpent? If so, where did it come from and who was summoning it? That last question became the crux of my confusion with this film. If the title of your movie is Q: The Winged Serpent, why isn't that the basis of the film. The old-school animation for the beast was fun, the shrilling of the knock-off violins were not, the eating special effects were used over and over again (lack of creativity), and it just continued to plummet downhill further after that. There was a few scenes that were fun near the end, where the serpent found his pride and started throwing cops off the buildings, but outside of that Q: The Winged Serpent was an utter mess. There was a part of me, and there still is, that really wanted to stand behind this film. To rally the value of such a cult B-movie, but after a viewing, I would be happy not to watch it again. Perhaps I witnessed an extremely edited version in which huge plot was removed. Nothing made sense, nothing was developed, our characters were sloppy. I just squirm thinking about what I just saw. Even Jen laughed. She wasn't even watching, just laughing at Droopy Carradine slothing his way through each line. He was like a hung-over Zen master attempting to understand police-work. What made this even more fun was his cliche partner who was African American giving us lines that have been used over and over and over again. Nothing worked. This was a Cohen disaster.

Found in my "Videohound Golden Retriever 2009" this begins a long run of "Q" films that have utterly disappointed me. For Q: The Winged Serpent I realized that this was a low budget movie that had no dreams of anything except becoming a midnight movie cult sensation, but I even think it failed in that respect. I wanted more, I wanted something that just didn't seem like drunken thoughts pushed on paper. Which, might I add, I wouldn't mind if it worked well. This movie failed. I had too high of hopes, and now it is stuck with a yellow highlight with a black line. I don't want to watch this movie again. If Criterion picked it up, perhaps I would revisit it - but for now, it was a lackluster B-roll film that Cohen sloppily threw together.

Paris When It Sizzles (1964)

First, take a look at this poster. I am not talking about the image of Audrey Hepburn, but instead the sweater wearing William Holden, holding his alcoholic beverage of choice as two Indians peek in. That's right. This movie doesn't just have booze, babes, and bands, but in fact, Indians and Tony Curtis. As un-PC as that sounds, this movie goes quickly from boring, to insane, to funny, to surreal, to risky, to just plain bizzare (and probably back again). Unsure of what to expect when this film starts, Paris When It Sizzles completely took me off-guard. At first, the inclination was that it was going to be a rom-com to the utmost degree, but after further viewing - all the way until the end - this film transformed into the foundation for Charlie Kaufmann's Adaptation. If you thought that movie was creative, then you have yet to see Paris When It Sizzles.

Jen and I went a bit back and forth on this movie. She found a scene that she wants to be played during her funeral, I discovered that drinking all day long, at times shirtless and other times attempting to play Parcheesi with Hepburn, again shirtless, can in fact provide you with enough time (2 days) to write a script. Mind you, the drinking is the most critical moment needed. I feel like I should be asking the question, "Have you ever wanted to write a screenplay?"..."Do you like to drink?" These are all important questions to ask when watching, Paris When It Sizzles. The story is simple. Holden has spent most of his advance for a script boozing, boozing, and well, boozing. Hepburn arrives as the woman to help him get his ideas back. What we, as audience members, watch are his ideas coming to the screen. In a very Hitchcockian storyline, Holden gives us the perspective from the writer. How do ideas come about? Why are twists important? How are cliche's built? These are the type of questions Holden develops, and the end result is nothing like you have seen in films before - especially those made in 1964. The concept, to me, seemed original. I liked watching a movie within a movie, the nuances that give certain scenes that panache and punch described in detail. Of coarse, what would a movie be without a love interest, and the one between Holden and Hepburn feels forced and spooky for a bit due to age and pushiness of Holden. But through time it develops. It never quie reaches that state of "real", but I don't think anything in this movie is supposed to have that feel.

I liked the inside jokes to this film. I liked that Hepburn was reciting lines from her Breakfast at Tiffany's film. I liked that Tony Curtis was the quintessential ace out of the hole. Playing a bit part, and constantly being reminded of it. While I have read critiques that the story is what lacks in this film, and the Holden/Hepburn connection is strong, I stand on the other side. I was pulled into the story of this film. I liked that it felt innocent and sincere, but the sexual jokes and party at the end spoke otherwise. Needless to say, this was a different movie than I originally thought it was going to be. Absolutely, there were parts that seemed long, there were jokes that felt dated, and there were awkward moments due to social changes, but I kinda really liked where this film went. The story within a story leading to our two falling in love without ever leaving the comfort of the hotel room was a nice device. Imagination and creativity were abound in this film, and director Richard Quine. Film buffs I think would appreciate this film more than just the casual viewer.

Oddly, this movie was found in my "Essential Monster Movie Guide" because, for those film buffs that semi-glance at this blog, there is a really cool scene in which Hepburn takes over the script and invisions Holdon as a vampire-esque creature. This, sadly, is one of those scenes that just felt random instead of tangent, which ultimately lead into a scene in which Holden was getting Hepburn drunk. Ahh, the 1960s - my question - have times really changed? I am giving this a green highlight with blue stas. I would watch this again, while I believe Jen would not (it is things from this era that I have learned are not favorites of hers - re: Tom Baker's Dr. Who years). I enjoyed Tony Curtis' in this film, and cannot wait to see him in something else. The Sweet Smell of Success is being released by Criterion soon - maybe it will be one I watch right away. I would suggest this film. I would show it to my neices. I think this era of 60s needs to be remembered, despite the heavy drinking. Good movie for MOVIE DAY. I look forward to finding this movie again.

The Pagemaster (1994)

As a film-watcher, an amateur film viewer, The Pagemaster was an utter disappointment. The animation was genuine, but ultimately dated. The acting was mediocre at best, and the voice work on our animated books seemed like open-mike night at the local karaoke bar. Needless to say, it didn't care the pomp and circumstance that it once did. The unique half-animation, half-live action that seemed borrowed from Who Framed Roger Rabbit? once impressed the child within me, but now just fell short of reaching any goal. With that said, the bookseller in me - the person that I am nearly 90+ hours a week, felt that The Pagemaster should be require viewing at our local library or within our store at least annually. The message within the film, the concept of taking books out, of becoming someone that is trapped within you, that Horror, Fantasy, and Adventure is all you need in life, that books can become your best friends - is a message that I can stand behind. Despite the horrid production, the sentiment behind this film is something that no Kindle will ever be able to duplicate.

As I write about this film, thinking about the terrible scenes intermixed with actual cult classic books (and impeccable lines like "You really are a classic..."), a glow in my heart begins to come out. Could I suggest this film to friends and family? Maybe. Do I want my nieces to watch this and get excited about books? Absolutely. Could I suggest it to children that come in the store? After much thought, pushing the film guy to the side within, I came to the answer "yes". The Pagemaster's voice overpowered its visual flimsiness. Let me be clear, the actual voices within this film is not what I am standing next to, actually far from it, Whoopi Goldberg, Patrick Stewart, Frank Welker, and even Leonard Nemoy just failed at whatever they were attempting to accomplish with their given scripts. Their work felt like it was done separately, in different rooms, and horribly edited together. Case in point, the ending scene where Horror cries. It was awkward and unprofessional to watch. The voice I am referring to is the idea of books. As we move into a year where the hottest gizmo will be a "whatver"-reader, this inspires you to pick up a heavy book, to support your local library, to not forget what it is like to fall asleep in your tree house with a great read. That is the importance of this film. That is why, despite everything I believe, I am supporting this film.

I have made my points clear about this film. If you are expecting anything to do with entertainment, you may not want to pick this up. BUT, if you want to see Mac Culkin have Atlas Shrugged fall on him as he icon-ically picks pulls it off himself ... IF you find yourself grinning at that image ... than this may be a film to just experience once. The characters are literally one-dimensional and the story is bland and predictable, but the love of books - the passion behind a product that will allow you to escape to literally everywhere, is there. It is a sword in the rough towards the world of the electronic reader - and at this day and age, I am willing to accept anything. Our store fights and wins the battle everyday, but for other smaller stores, that have to close to their community, this is a film that should be given to all of them. The fight is there - keep the passion alive.

Overall, beyond my rants and raves - The Pagemaster will be added to the collection, for both message and nostalgia of what I do on a daily basis. I will suggest this film to friends and especially parents looking for that family-friendly film for movie night. BUT, I am not going any higher than a pink score. I don't know if I will watch it again, but I am happy that I saw this at this time in my life. Like books, this movie called out during a great time, and while it is a mismatched film, the message is clear as dawn. Watch The Pagemaster, or revisit it again, and see why books need to remain a staple within our lives and the lives of our children's children. Keep the message of The Pagemaster alive.

Pagan Moon (1932); Parade of the Award Nominees (1932); Parade of the Wooden Soldiers (1933)

Sorry about the hodgepodge of photos for this, it was the best I could find for such old cartoons. Well, I would say it is a new month and so we have a new book of films, but that doesn't quite correspond to what is happening here. I did have a new book, but instead of new films, I was invited to watch three short animated features from the early 30s. Each unique in their own way, each re-imagined today, each perfect for children, but each just mediocre at best. For this one-of-a-kind entry, I am putting these all together because I watched them together randomly via the internet. Each were on average about five minutes long, so I put them together. For those few die hard readers, enjoy the change of format, for anyone new - well, just enjoy!

Pagan Moon (1931): Oddly, the biggest point of trivia with this musical number using large toothed fish and a pre-King Kong was that it was the same animation from another "Merry Melodies" short entitled Congo Jazz. I wasn't sure if I should be offended or cheated by this re-use, but none the less, this was an interesting music video that employed our little yukalaylee player into high trees and deep into the ocean as he chases after not only his instrument, but also another dancer in Hawaii (almost said jungle there ... whoops). Short, sweet, and too the point - Pagan Moon doesn't really add anything new, but was a fun black and white short to pass the time.

Parade of the Award Nominees (1932): Basically, this was one of those shorts that was never supposed to be released, but was created for one of the Oscar ceremonies to showcase those who were up for the award. It was interesting to watch for two reasons, 1) I didn't realize they did this in the 30s, I knew it was a modern technique used today, but I was not aware of its history and 2) this was the first short where Mickey Mouse was in color. That is pretty wild. Lasting only 3-minutes and using the same background over and over again, nothing much impressive about this except the color use.

Parade of the Wooden Soldiers (1933): My first Betty Boop cartoon and the first of these three with any depth at all (and the only story). A doll version of Betty Boop is created and dropped off in a toy shop who comes to life and becomes the vixen of the wooden soldiers in the shop. The toys come to life - via Toy Story - and for the first several minutes it is all about the toy soldiers attempting to get Boop's attention, but then a large stuffed ape comes to life and suddenly we are reliving the King Kong film all over again. Ending rather bleakly (as all the toys become used toys), it was the most fun of the three and one that I could watch again. Semi-steamy, sex-filled, black and white cartoons always seem to impress me.

Found in my "The Essential Monster Movie Guide", these three individually were unique, but overall just mediocre at best. The first two stories were non-existent, and the final just couldn't hold up the rest. While I could watch the Betty Boop one again, it wouldn't be on the top of my list. I wish my nieces would watch Boop, and perhaps I need to get them interested. Other than that, these probably will be forgotten (except for the trivia) within the month. I am going to give these a pink mark. Enjoyable, but not ones that I could watch again and again.

Julien Donkey-Boy (1999)

In one of the special features of this film, director and writer Harmony Korine states that since the birth of cinema over 100-years ago, that film should be constantly evolving - that the stories become increasingly complex, the way films are shot become more intense, and the quality continues to grow. Yet, he believes in that same thought that films have only gone backwards. There is no complexity anymore to the stories, that creating a film in Hollywood today is too simple. Words that I completely agree with as I watch millions of our dollars poured into ideas and executions that have been done over and over again only to change the face on the poster. Yet, does Julien Donkey-Boy progress this evolution? Being a fan-of-sorts of Korine since his work with Kids and the utterly horrific (yet powerful) Gummo, I wasn't sure what would happen with this lesser received biography of a man from Korine's life. Korine, who uses some of the same actors over and over again, appealed and received a Dogme 95 certificate for this work - making the camera jittery, the editing rough, and the story a bit shambly. Creating the ultimate question, did Harmony Korine actually pay homage to his Uncle or merely raise his middle finger to Hollywood, denouncing storytelling for the John Waters' Pink Flamingo trick of shock over substance? A question that could loom throughout this review.

To start I must clear the air by saying that I liked what Korine had to say. To remove the glamor of schizophrenia that too often plagues Hollywood's glossy world, Korine took a bold step and trapped reality at its core. The character of Julien is detailed. Ewan Bremner, best known as Spud in Trainspotting, captures the true essence of Julien. I believed his character, and the disease that he struggles with. With that said, he was the only one that carried this film. Korine's story about this entire dysfunctional family begins and ends with Bremner. Korine's muse, Chloe Sevigny and Korine's mentor Werner Herzog just fill space as the film attempts to fill over an hour and a half. Each of these two characters add nothing complex to the story, they just are there to add to the "weird" element that Korine has employed to counter the need for a plot. He builds so much emotion around Julien by actually giving him screen time, that when we are merely handed screaming scenes and flash-photography moments for the rest, it just fails to give us that entire family dynamic. That is where Julien Donkey-Boy fails. I can respect it for being a low-budget art film that peels away the gloss of schizophrenia, but it just doesn't carry or excite you for the full two hours like Kids and Gummo were able to do.

Direction is what ultimately brings this film crashing down. Using digital instead of film is a powerful tool, and that isn't to say that some of the scenes (like that in the church and the finale under the sheets) aren't amazingly well shot and emotional, but Korine over-does it. From the beginning, you are left with less-visual, meaning the blurriness of what Korine believes is the Dogme 95 principle. With these blurry scenes, we just miss so much. The over-lighting, the graininess, and the real-life placement, honestly, is needed more in Hollywood today - but for Julien Donkey-Boy it just didn't work. We missed crucial elements that could not be rediscovered. Herzog's character being one of them. The lacking depth of Sevigny's role is another. The world where Julien resides outside of his home is another in an already over-stacked Jenga game ready to topple. I wanted to appreciate Korine's vision, but after twenty-minutes of the hand-held camera work being more prominent than characters, it honestly just fell short.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book, this ends my recent string of films. I must admit, I loved most of what I saw as well as those great "Re-watch" moments that took place prior. I am eager for the next as I think I will be able to enjoy my first short. None the less, Julien was not the film to end on. It was an attempt, but overall a failure. I cannot suggest this Korine to friends or family, nor can I watch it again. Gummo - yes. Kids - yes. Julien Donkey-Boy - no. This is getting a yellow highlight with black line, never to be watched again. Sorry Harmony, I know you can do better.

Jules and Jim (1962)

For those first time viewers of Jules and Jim, may I offer these simple words. Finish the film. Occasionally with French New Wave there is a desire just to "test the waters", compare to the untouchable Breathless, or to assume that the characters are already defined within the first twenty minutes. Again, finish this film. Jules and Jim begins like any other film of this genre, a technique used decades after this release, used today, and will be used over-and-over by Hollywood in the not-to-distant-future. Two men fall for the same, unconventional woman. Simple. Jules and Jim are best friends, but when they meet Catherine (played unflinchingly by Jeanne Moreau), their world divides. While some will argue that the two become stronger friends via Catherine, as I watched it - I witnessed a strain on the emotions of friendship between these two distant comrades. Not to sound repetitive, but as you watch until the end - that final Truffaut moment - it strengthens this point entirely.

Following our friends troubles during the war and their attempt to attach to society after, we immediately feel sympathy for both. Like the third "stooge", we feel as if we are a part of this relationship. Personally, I could feel the emotion as Jules wrote during the war, I could see the struggle of comfortable love as our triangle becomes entwined, and the tension of Catherine (not by her character but by her actions towards Jules and Jim) kept me glued to the edge of the couch. You believe that you understand the love between each one, but it isn't until that final moment that the "gasp" can be let go and the truth, as dark as it may seem, is revealed. Oskar Werner as Jules was compassionate. He fell into the life he was handed, unsure of the stress and dedication he could take, Werner strongly adapted to Truffaut's film. He was the heart of this movie. Werner is the one that we, the average soul, can relate to. Jim, played by Henri Serre, is the polar opposite. An undying friend to Jules, he closely relates to that of Catherine, which makes us quietly root for him as their passion for each other grows. There is a scene where Jim is sick, but Catherine wants him to come. Truffaut uses the lag of letters being sent to build tension until each arrive, then - when the moment arrives - is just fizzles out. A fourth is added, and sympathy for Jules comes forward, Jim will obviously do something to win her back, and Catherine will be - well, just Catherine.

Catherine is the wild card of this film. What begins as just a free-spirited woman slowly transforms into (from a male perspective) this power hungry, emotionally insecure, wish-washy woman. The feelings toward Catherine go from compassion, excitement, anger, confusion, and finally jaw-dropping wonder. When Catherine tells Jim that she has been unfaithful because of something he wrote in his letter, thus making their actions equal, then we see the type of woman that Catherine has become. We also see the type of pain she can cause to everyone around her as Jim stays up all night after this comment. The fact that we, as an audience, don't even know if the child is Jules weighs on the back of your mind throughout this film. Catherine is the dark cloud in this friendship, and I cannot tell if Truffaut is speaking about women in general, or about an instance from his life. Either way, as we loom closer towards the ending, Catherine becomes unraveled, and the crushing nature of this relationship is revealed.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book, this nearly wraps up this letter. I have one more film which I am semi-excited about viewing and will see how it matches to other Dogma 95 productions that I have seen. I think the greatest film from this selection has been Jules and Jim, it was the unexpected film. Nervous about having another Breathless encounter (a film I didn't love, but perhaps a rewatch is needed), this blew me out of the water. Needless to say, I am now a big Jules and Jim fan, and have a stronger appreciation for the Werner - Truffaut blend (my only other experience was Fahrenheit 451, which was mediocre at best). This film is getting a green mark with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch it again as well as gift to friends and family. This is a movie that I can appreciate over and over again!

Johnny Guitar (1954)

Joan Crawford is intense. Either as a kept mother or a saloon-owning entrepreneur, her glass-deer-in-headlights-look will either frighten you or keep you on the edge of your seat. Add to this glassy stare the claustrophobic feel of Nicholas Ray's direction (see his work in Bigger Than Life), and you have the benchmark non-Western Johnny Guitar. Crawford owned the rights to the story, wanted another middle-aged woman to take the secondary lead, but left angry when a younger woman was cast. This anger, either intentional by Ray or merely fate, solidified Crawford as a diva, BUT also added to the needed on-screen tension. To call Johnny Guitar a Western would be odd, because it lacks everything that underlines mainstream Westerns. Yet, it is. It is outlaws, it has bar brawls, it has nicknames, it has women, it has whiskey, it has gunfights, it has a hanging, and it has you rooting for the underdog. It has the elements, BUT again, is this a Western?

For those that love Joan Crawford, this is the role you have been waiting for. More man than woman, she controls every element of the screen. Even if she is in the background and other characters are developing plot, one cannot help but get lost in those big glass eyes, wondering what Crawford is thinking and understanding that she is capable of anything. She is the loose cannon in this film, and there is no telling what spark will set her off. Could it be the lacking noise coming from the roulette wheel? Or is that she merely wants to make a simple withdraw from the bank? Whatever the case may be, Johnny Guitar is impressive to watch because Crawford leads like Wayne would in any of his roles. Secondly, this is a film about women, a direction most Westerns put in the background. This entire movie is about two women and their need for power and the heart of one outlaw (who, in fact, isn't really an outlaw). The plot moves because these two independent women will not budge in their idea of place. Johnny Guitar surprised me because I was never sure what was going to happen next. Where was Crawford's mind? Why is she so angry? Is there real love here or merely a strong business plan? As the railroad approaches, our cast's dreams unravel, and the corrupt nature of scorned women becomes the dynamite to this story.

Yet, Johnny Guitar wasn't a favorite, while I had some favorite scenes in the film (the shot Ray sets up where Crawford is playing the piano as the local town mob bursts into her saloon is phenomenal), and I liked the roles of the women in a male dominated genre, overall, I just felt like Johnny Guitar suffered from having too much. The script was too witty. It is one of those films where the lines, the witty dialogue is fun at first, but within twenty minutes of this language it gets tedious. The banter becomes less original and more repetitive. I personally just got bored with it. Also, Johnny Guitar is a troubling title, while Peggy Lee's song is a great element to the film it isn't the theme song nor do we hear it until the very end. Our character of Johnny Guitar is also only a minor character, albeit the lead minor character, but seems randomly dropped in to fill in the gaps of the plot. There is one point of the film where he is missing for twenty minutes, yet the plot continues to progress. Was Johnny Guitar the most appropriate title? With miscast characters//actors, a missing soundtrack, and an emotionless (albeit uber intense) scene to scene, Johnny Guitar just had more going against it than for it. Crawford was the woman in a man's world, and wasn't afraid to get out of her burning dress and into a more comfortable pantsuit.

In a film lacking good guys (this is a movie purely about the evil with an evil), Johnny Guitar had more potential than you could imagine. The direction was outstanding, I eagerly await the opportunity to see Nicholas Ray's vision in another genres. What this film lacks is specifics. The writing seemed overwhelming and the characters seemed misused. Crawford's intensity was grand, and the way Ray uses that to tell the final chapter of a bigger story is impressive, but the secondary players just sat around and absorbed instead of being involved. In the end, Johnny Guitar just falls short. I hate to say that because I felt a bit of love to Ray's direction, but I just don't think that this lasts the test of time. With a shrug, I am giving this a pink mark - alas, not to be watched again, but at least suggested to friends and semi-family. Pro-women unite, this may be the western for you! Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies", the line "I'm a stranger here myself" from Johnny Guitar became Ray's life motto.

I wish I could muster a bigger "wow".

La Jetee (1962)

12 Monkeys attempts to be La Jetee, but La Jetee is no 12 Monkeys. Wrap your mind around that for a moment. Gilliam's powerful, over-budgeted sci-fi apocalypse love story is intense. The Willis // Pitt // Stowe casting proves that with stark imagery, you too can polish old brass to make it look new. BUT, it comes nowhere near the original. Having just finished watching La Jetee, I wish that I could travel back in time to erase my 12 Monkeys viewing and uniquely watch this 1962-short film instead. While Gilliam pulls out his bag of surrealist-charm, what director Chris Marker does is create a whole new cinematic experience. The use of freeze frames, the shot-by-shot storytelling allows you to visit the bleak nature of the current world, the lighted happiness of the past, and the starry future without delving into too much acting. With that said, the strongest element of this film is our characters. WHA...? A film merely using the technique of narration allows for strong characters? Andy, is it possible? La Jetee is nothing short of brilliant. The use of dated sci-fi and obvious lacking budget proves that with an amazing story, and a unique way to present that story, audiences can be captured. Interests can be peaked. History can be created.

In the short 25-ish minutes that this experience lasted, more definition was determined, creativity flowed, and a simplistic (yet complex?!?) story was born -- and in 1962 no less. Knowing the story already, I was concerned that I wouldn't be enthralled with this original - but the technique alone is worth a thousand words. Then, from out of nowhere, just as we are falling for the same woman our traveler has seen from his dreams, she moves. In a film with no motion, only still shots, to have that instance where we transcend the original feel of the film, it just pulls you in further. It demonstrates that director Chris Marker has more in his grasp than just a low-budget movie - he has a vision. He knows that within the short time he must not only tell a convincing sci-fi tale, but at its core, a believable love story. He does it. When the woman blinks on screen, pulling us from the original focus, we swoon (or at least I did). I see instantly Marker's vision and focus for this film. This singular scene is stronger and more defining than any vision that Gilliam could produce.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book, this is my second unseen film AND my second Criterion film in two weeks ... and guess what - I still have another coming! This run through the "J"s has been impressive and continually show me new images and creative cinema that has been unmatched in today's world. Could you imagine an entire film with merely screen shots instead of motion being delivered today instead of the wham-bam-thank-you-ma'am current mentality. It would be unwatched by the masses but loved by us cinephiles. La Jetee proves that with a smaller budget, a creative plan, and a strong catch ... anything is possible. There is no question in my mind that this film is getting a green highlight with blue star. I will watch this film again. I will suggest it to friends and family - and be prepared - this is the type of film that I think is giftable!

Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

Chantal Akerman's Jeanne Dielman could be considered the ultimate film about voyeurism. Through the course of three days, we watch; nay, we peek, into the world of a widowed woman and her now-iconic daily rituals. Wake up, take care of Sylvain (her son), clean up, do groceries, babysit, have sex with regular "john", have dinner ready for Sylvain, go to sleep. Rinse, wash, repeat. For countless number of years, this has been the ritual for our title character, now Akerman gives us three-defining days to witness how one random instant can change the course of one woman. Combining feminism, sexuality, domesticity, and pioneering reality-television-esque cinematography, Akerman keeps us on the edge of our couches with nothing more than the drop of a brush, the burning of potatoes, and leaving the lid off the money-jar (ok, throw in a shaking baby scene for fun). Think this sounds boring? Then you have never quite experienced the power of this movie, and I cannot wait to involve myself with another Akerman triumph. She took a genre; French and over three-hours; and crafted a story that is everyday, and made it riveting.

Having such a long break between films and less-Criterion based cinema, I was nervous walking into this. Understanding the twist, reading the reviews, preparing for the mundane, Jeanne Dielman on all accounts, should have been a slice of difficult cinema to swallow - but Akerman's use of camera, the minutes-over-minutes of "my life" happening on screen, I was captured from the first frame. This is one of those rare films that is so monotonous, that when something - like overcooking the potatoes - happens ... well, it becomes nerving. The character, Jeanne, that you once knew and understood transforms into something less comfortable. The cracks in this normal life begin to show, and it is spookier than any modern horror movie. Akerman creates passion in the dispassionate. She creates comfort in the mundane, and within three hours, when it begins to break - you feel it. Tension rises, you feel like screaming at Jeanne when she can't write a letter - the passion erupts in this film. It, continuing the same lines, was refreshing and intrinsic all at the same time.

Is this the power of an orgasm? Had Jeanne never felt that pleasure before? Two things stand out after watching this film. First, she must have semi-felt it with her second "john", as that was when the walls began to crumble. Why was her result violence? Did her final "john" remind her of her husband, or was there something less passionate about their relationship? The final scene, in the dark, bloodied hands, just stands out - and remains that moment where I questioned everything I just watched. Who was this woman? Also, my second feeling upon watching this was ... why was there no conversation between any characters in this film? Jeanne and Sylvain don't even speak, they just mutter thoughts at each other - creating no conflict or resolution. Even the woman who has the baby she drops off, there are words spoken, but we never see here. There is no connection between anyone in this film, and it creates this stark, void environment where we are forced to see all of Jeanne. Again, the fear is always there - lurking in the background, haunting you both visually and psychologically.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies" book - this was a return to seeing things that had not been viewed before. I had not seen Akerman's work prior, so this was a bold, exciting entry. I cannot, oddly, wait to see this again - but it would be a bit before I can sit through the entirety. This film was engaging, important, and a surreal story of the unknown. Can I suggest it? You betcha. Is it for everyone? I'll let you decide. In my book, it gets a green highlight with blue star. Mesmerizing.

Great American Re-watch #6: Jaws (1975)

The last (I promise) of this series of re-watching some of the great films that have already been discussed on this blog, and I must admit - I loved them all again. Z was sheer brilliance this second time viewing it, discovering more and more about Costa-Gavras' style and form of storytelling. Jason and the Argonauts was pure fun - exciting, passionate, and complete Ray Harryhausen. This was a film my children will grow up viewing. Now, we come to Jaws. Jaws remains, in my eyes, one of Spielberg's greatest achievements. In this singular horror film (yep, I'm going to label it that way) he single-handedly creates fear merely by putting a camera underwater and looking up. Iconic and well placed, this continues to be used today by both every genre as a way to institute fear from below. Also, like Jason and the Argonauts, Spielberg doesn't use CGI. These were all hand-made sharks and detailed special effects. The boat did explode, the shark did as well, and that scene in the "pond" where the shark is seen underwater about to eat the man's leg, is stapled into my mind. Fear, combined with true horror, is what makes this PG-rated film an all-time favorite. Absolutely, it is played over and over and over again on nearly every late night cable channel, but watching it today, on my HD-TV, with pure Dolby sound, it was just beautiful.

I also watched the "Making Of" special feature, which, well, was mediocre at best. Having been around for 35 years, the special secrets of this film have already been discovered. It is like watching special features on any Star Wars DVD, you already know most walking into it. The "Making Of" felt boring for some reason, and I just wasn't inspired by what our major players discussed. BUT, what made me uber upset with Jaws (at least this edition) was the lacking audio commentary. I put this in hoping to get one of those by anyone involved, but nothing. This is a film that could use Spielberg or Dreyfuss in the background discussing the hardships of this production, or a funny tale about the shark. Anything would have added to this disc, but honestly, this 30th Anniversary edition seems rather bare bones. Urg.

Found in the same book that I found this one originally, "Defining Moments in Film", and I must admit - I loved, feared, was impressed with Jaws just like the first time I watched it when I was a kid. This movie doesn't age. I think that is what makes the fear remain - sure, there could be bigger guns if filmed today or bigger explosions or fancier clothes, but when you watch Jaws, it just doesn't feel like the 70s is stamped on it. That is what makes Jaws a favorite, that is what makes Jaws more than your average monster movie, and that is why Spielberg has never quite accomplished the same again. Green mark with blue stars again - I cannot wait to see this again and again and again - but PLEASE, could we get some better DVD special features?!?

Great American Re-watch #5: Jason and the Argonauts (1963)

It has happened, the second in a small run of "Great American Re-watch" films, as I am finding myself on a film book that I have used before. Yet, it seems that these re-watch films have only grown into stronger entries over time. Recently devouring Costa-Gavras' Z was just the beginning, as I found myself like a kid in a candy shoppe while escaping to the world of Ray Harryhausen and his pre-CGI creations in Jason and the Argonauts. I remember watching this for FILM CLUB, I remember watching this as a child, and I remember watching this just a few hours ago as I only hoped that the most recent Clash of the Titans could come at least 1/8th near what this singular film has accomplished. From the engrossing stop-motion Harryhausen animation to the childish-fun of Hercules, this movie has everything and more. For this viewing, I watched the Leonard Maltin // Harryhausen interview which was staged, a bit awkward, and very short (why couldn't this amazing slice of cinema get an audio commentary??), but still informational about the production of some of these cult creations.

What else can be said about this unsung classic? I mention "unsung" because I don't think Jason and the Argonauts finds its way into the world of youthful viewing. Are dads saying to their children, their young boys, "Let's watch this jagged little movie that is a stone's throw away from modern special effects tonight!" I just don't think these words are being said, and with that Jason is merely going to remain one of my favorites for a long time. It is a cool Sunday afternoon, you just need something entertaining, THIS is the movie to watch. Sure, 80s action is always of value, but Harryhausen always takes the cake. The lines are great, the chemistry between Hercules and his cohort is sincere, and those monsters - the monsters (and Zeus playing human chess) are a sole reason to keep this film in heavy rotation.

Found in my "Defining Moments in Movies", there is one more movie to watch that I have reviewed already, then it is off to something new. This is going to get interesting. There is no score change for this movie, Jason and the Argonauts will continue to get a solid green mark with blue stars in my book. I cannot wait until it makes it back to the rotation again.

Great American Re-watch #4: Z (1969)

It has been a long time since one of these "Great American Re-Watch" moments, and I was impressed to see how time improved my viewing of Costa-Gavras' Z. It has been since January since my last in this series in which I watch a film that I have already enjoyed again to see if time allows for a stronger viewing, and since April when I originally watched this film. Now, watching Z again, this time with the audio commentary by film historian Peter Cowie, it adds a whole new level of enjoyment for a film whose subject seemed foreign to me at the time, but now, with a bit of historical perspective, adds a new light on this Greek tale. The most interesting point about this commentary was how Cowie discusses side-by-side what makes Gavras' film nearly identical to that of the events that took place in Greece, BUT he doesn't place his film in Greece. Oddly, watching this film back in April, I knew that it was due to events that took place - I thought Gavras set it in Greece, but did not - and that merely shows his power of storytelling. These were French actors filling in for other worldly events. Rarely does this happen in American cinema, where we - as Americans - attempt to tell a tale of political corruptness in other land. There are plenty of films with American troops in Iraq, but no stories that translate from what Hussain did told from a US perspective. Interesting.

Watching this film this time I loved it even more. Looking back on my past review of Z in April, it seemed to take forever to watch. I remember not being able to fully appreciate what Gavras was attempting to accomplish, and discussing the polar slowness near the center of this film. Seeing it now, I semi-disagree with myself. The introduction of the Prosecutor adds a different tone to the film, one that is different from the political upheaval started at the beginning. This transition takes a bit of time to understand, but once you see that Gavras has motive and a social point, than Z takes on a whole new level. With the addition of the audio commentary, I must admit, I love this film even more. I haven't had the opportunity to re-watch my other Gavras experience, Missing, but I cannot wait until Z comes back into rotation. This has become a gifting film.

Found in my "DVD Savant" book this time, I wholeheartedly give this film a green highlight with blue stars. I cannot wait to watch it again, and while Cowie merely reads from a pre-set paper, the words and history that he provides becomes important information to fully appreciate this cinematic triumph. Criterion has done a fantastic job yet again with the packaging and special features. When I revisit this film again, I look forward to a couple of the interviews presented and finalize my exploration of this disc. Z was fantastic, a strong recommendation to anyone following this blog or just looking for a fashionable political who-dun-it.

The Fly (1986)

I realize that it has been nearly a decade since I have written a review for this site. I apologize, September notoriously becomes a month of Horror movies due to an annual horror contest that I host. While fun for those that watch in the month of October, my month of views begins in September. Oh, it is glorious. Not to worry, this film isn't on the contest, in fact, this was a movie that I watched prior to the contest ironically. So, I have had nearly two months of horror, and I am looking forward to my next trip. For those wondering, it is going to be some "Great American Re-Watches", but still fun. But, let's go back, The Fly, a film oddly I had never seen before, but heard moans and groans about it and the grotesque nature of the Goldblum transformation. Needless to say, watching it today, nearly 24 years later, it stands up. It stands up proud. From the gory transformation, the special effects (again, one of those memorable moments where CGI wasn't needed to freak you out), and Goldblum's top-notch performance as a literal "mad scientist",The Fly still stands as a monumental slice of cinema between science and the mind. I was pulled in from the beginning, and honestly could not wait to watch it again. My one, and only minute complaint, Geena Davis. I realize that the two of them were currently dating and perhaps the connection was from that, but she couldn't keep up with Goldblum. Her lines fell flat, her direction seemed stagy, and it wasn't until the end that she finally came into her own ... but then, that could have been because of what Cronenberg was doing with Goldblum. He was the focus and continued to remain as Seth Brundle throughout.

Needless to say, "impressive". Also, I want to add, the upcoming films that I am going to review will be in greater detail than this. Not that I have a problem with short and truthful reviews, but I miss talking about what I like about these films. I already have added The Fly to the collection, and I cannot wait to watch it again. Impressive.

Found, my final entry, in "Fangoria's 101 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen", this is getting a green highlight with blue stars. I will watch this again and collect it if I ever misplace it. If you haven't seen The Fly, watch it - experience it - see what horror was like pre-CGI. To recycle. "Impressive".

FeardotCom (2002)

I tried. I honestly tried to watch this movie, but I could not. After three failed attempts, I must say that this is one entry where only 2/3 of the film was watched - but in my defense, I had seen it already. I remember watching this movie with my friends Drew and Sarah one dark and spooky night, and everyone hated it except for me. I would talk about it when we were together, and everyone would gruff saying that "I was crazy", and now, looking back at a film I watched nearly five years ago - maybe I was. The acting was horrible, the story was extremely stale, and growing up in the world where future internet related horror films have come and gone, "FeardotCom" feels pale in comparison. Dorff, horrible as the detective with a darkened past, attempts to get his head around this murderer using the internet to kill his victims, or is he? The plot is useless in discovering how Stephen Rea captures his victims and kills them as people sign into the site to watch. The watching is what kills them, or is it? Question continue to pile up as we go on the hunt for someone or something (aka a girl in a white dress) that continues to kill more and more. Oddly, every one of the killings take place around Dorff and his timid partner, a terrible actress named Natascha McElhone who laughed her way through every scene. It is horrible and difficult to watch.

The scares aren't even worth the printed screen. There are moments that could be great - in fact this was a decent premise, but it was execution that failed. Director William Malone just couldn't combine both the fears of the Internet and this serial killer that evades Dorff. It should have been one or the other - an actual Ghost in the Machine instead of Rea's heartfelt performance. So kill me, I liked what Rae did with this bit part. He wasn't given much, but he created a spooky character. His voice was frightening, his demeanor was strong, he was the crux of this film, too bad everyone else around him just plain sucked. I hate using that word when reviewing films, but it had to be said. Despite not finishing, NOTHING worked. Nothing built value in this film. Let me give an example. There is a part early in the film where a guy does clutching a book about the "soul of the internet", but nobody cares. Later the idea is picked back up, a guy is found in a bar who wrote it, but once he speaks his peace, they forget about it all over again. I normally do not follow the mold with films, I like to see the redeeming value of what artists do, but sometimes the sloppiness just fails. "FeardotCom" is a perfect example of this. Lurking down near the worst films on IMDb's Bottom 100, there is no doubt in my mind it will stay there for a while.

From bad acting to a story that will literally put you to sleep and not find a substantial conclusion, "FeardotCom" within the world of technology, has aged poorly. Advances in the Internet, real fears that lurk out there - in 2002, this could have been a more pioneering film instead of meandering to false hope. This could have been a predictor to what we see today, but instead is just feels fake from the beginning to end. Our actors fail - this film fails. Getting a yellow highlight with a black mark, it will never be seen within the house again. The real Internet is spooky, "FeardotCom" comes nowhere close.

The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh (1979)

Laugh as you must with this title, and despite the fact that I HATE sports movies, this little feature did the trick in both entertaining and providing a couple of great laughs. Using both Stockard Channing and Jonathan Winters as anchors to this farce of a film, we watch this down-and-out basketball team discover that because of their astrological sign, they cannot win any games. BUT, when a kid discovers that Pisces work well together, our little Pittsburgh team gets the support they finally need. Featuring some of the biggest names in basketball in the 70s, this little VHS has never seen the light of day - and I don't understand why. It was light, simple, incredibly fun, and exceptionally intelligent despite its age and topic. Using both sports humor as well as racial un-comforts, "The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh" was a fun little film that I was not embarrassed to watch.

Despite my sneering hatred for sports movies, in the fact that they always seem to use the same formula again and again and again - when you watch movies of this nature, it is notorious that you will always realize that the underdog will arrive victorious by the end - the crowd will go wild - love will still blossom. I am not trying to sound cynical, but not much has changed in world of sports films over the past decade - or even the past 100 years. It is a sound, but true formula - and it still works. While I get angry about these types of films all the time, "The Fish that Saved Pittsburgh" seemed to move along that same focus, but somehow felt fresh and fun. The characters were light - the story was fun - and Jonathan Winters continues to make me laugh and laugh. "Mork & Mindy" laugh. The use of Stockard Channing was also light as it just felt like she was having fun with the script. It was totally absurd, but because everyone was having fun - the chemistry between the teammates worked - it worked on screen as well. There was something about this film that she seemed stronger than other films of this nature.

Oddly, now don't laugh, this was found in my "Fangoria 101 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen", this was actually a side film mentioned as an actor that was in the 101 films was in this movie (or director or someone), but I was glad to have discovered this film. I am still nowhere close to being a fan of sports films, but I will proudly suggest this movie to anyone that has a VHS player and is willing to laugh at the look and feel of the 70s. There is no doubt in my mind that this movie is going to be played more - and I cannot wait to laugh with a sports team built around an astrological sign. Oh, and to see a kid drive a Bentley around Pittsburgh - hilarious! Green highlight with blue stars - no question, I will watch this movie again!

Harlock Saga (1999)

So, the saga of the Anime movies has come to an end. Thankfully. I hate to put it that bluntly, but within five movies I only found one keeper, that is a horrid "ouch" sound. Not to say that the "Essential 500" aren't important Anime films, it is just these particular five were just a mixed bag of rancid stories, fluff characters, and tired animation. It was embarrassing, but hopefully the remaining 495 will provide with endless hours of entertainment. With that said, "Harlock Saga" - a 1999 six-part series that officially has a beginning and a quasi-ending. Without knowing anything about space pirate Harlock and his misfit team of unknowns, this was an exceptional introduction to this world. I liked the world of Harlock, surprisingly, and was impressed by the storyline with this one, the end of the universe with time-lord-esque creatures, who couldn't enjoy this brief "Dr. Who" throwback. The episodes were short, the characters were fun, and the story had just enough development to keep you interested - so, why doesn't this series get a green mark with blue star? Bordom.

You betcha, while it had everything someone who loves anime would want, I just found myself bored by the end of the story. There were moments of pure genius with Harlock and his crew, but then, we would spend an entire half of an episode on absolutely nothing. No development, no character action - nothing, just long inner // outer monologues. The science of this series was strong, I loved the space opera that was placed within the DVD player, and I shouldn't complain because as a whole this was fun, I just couldn't find myself watching this again. The concept that two organ players control the value of time is a powerful notion, but it could have been packed into four episodes or something. I hate to be that vague, but as we came to a close with this series, I just felt relieved to be over. I liked certain elements, but in the end hated more than I loved. Perhaps hated is too strong of a word, I just didn't appreciate the final "hurrah".

Can I suggest this film to friends? I have a couple of dedicated anime watchers that will appreciate the classic nature of this film, and the strong characters, and the powerful plot - and I can say every one of those elements were enjoyable. Yet, at the end, we would have a conversation about anyone else just getting bored with the end result. How do I put this better? Good. Good. Good. Good. Blah. Overall, I think the "Harlock Saga" is getting a pink mark in the book. The first pink in the "500 Essential Anime Movies" book that I am not as excited about returning to. My discovery via this trip down Japanese lane, I just don't love Anime movies - or perhaps it is just that I haven't found the right one yet. Whichever it is, I can suggest "Harlock", but I just don't love "Harlock". What do you think?

Hare + Guu: Volume 1 (2001)

Lately my posts have been bashing Anime and the world they surround due mainly in part to the dull stories and misshapen characters, but today I find myself with my hypothetical foot in my mouth. Upon beginning this series, I was extremely hesitant to say the least. The last two entries into the Anime world the Jersey Shore equivalent to "grenades" and "land mines", just horrible stories and overall plots that would make even the most sympathetic cringe. "Hare + Guu", the first volume, was a breath of fresh air. With a oddball storyline that remains relevant throughout, constant tense humor, and that dark void of the unknown, there was just something about this series that pulled me in deep. I loved the use of colors, the in-you-face, yet sly symbolism that would make kids question and adults laugh - AND - I loved, loved, loved that this was a series for children (maybe?), yet the events that occurred were utterly and completely adult. Hare's mother loves to dance, she loves to drink, and morning + Hare's mother just doesn't work. As a 33-year old male, this made sense to me - I could relate to Hare's mother's daily life.

The first four episodes on this disc were a delight, a series that I can thus far suggest and recommend everything Hare + Guu bring to the table. It was as if someone had this insane dream and decided to flesh it out into a series. The fact that Guu eats everything and an entire society // culture is residing in her stomach is hilarious to me. It was so extreme that it worked, and yet the story still remains an open mystery. Beginning with this drab image of Hare's mother walking away from this darkened figure, the image remains in your mind - hoping, knowing, that eventually this tall backstory will get fleshed out. One watches this series with hopes, excitement, and a desire to see more. Who is this Guu? Where does she come from? What was that dark shadow in the forest? Does chest hair really make you a better leader? Why is Guu always so hungry? All of these questions, I hope, will be answered, and if the rest of these volumes are anything like what I just witnessed here, I am going to love what "Hare + Guu" bring to the table.

Admittedly, I chose to watch this (rarely) with the English dubbing, and I was surprised on how well the English counterparts did in creating the tense emotion between the characters. That isn't to say that I am always going to do this, but for this film -- I was happy. Looking forward to the other volumes, but as I get close to the Horror Movie Contest, I don't know how quickly these posts will be coming. Horror movies - here I come. In the end, this series is getting a green mark with blue star. I am excited that I found this in my "500 Essential Anime Movies" and finally see some value to the list created in sed book. I cannot wait to watch more and have others experience the world known as "Hare + Guu".

Harmagedon: Genma Wars (1983)

I think I am beginning to realize that I cannot wrap my mind around both sports movies as well as, now, Anime movies. I don't know when this happened, but the last two films that I have watched I just couldn't find the power, or interest in continuing with them. As I write this review, "Harmagedon" continues to play in the background as our story gets further and further convoluted and NOW they are saving fawns and rabbits instead of the human race. That is the un-detailed depth of this film. Considered pioneering for its time for bringing "real" life places within the fictional world, "Harmagedon" introduces a plethora of multi-cultural characters into this struggle to save the planet Earth from destruction from a being known only to eat full universes. Using powers of the mind, this rag tag bunch of characters cause mayhem and chaos throughout the planet, bringing hope to the remaining peoples left on Earth. While it sounds like a great concept, it just didn't work in the 132-minute format. I think doing this as a series, the opportunity to really flesh out the different characters, would have benefited this story greatly. While I loved the concept, it was the execution that failed with this film. Here I am, at the 100-minute mark and we are still being introduced to new characters, characters that will be used for the pen-ultimate battle that we are building up. Why would you do this? Why introduce characters, words that we are supposed to feel emotion for, when there is no time for development? Utter failure on the part of "Harmagedon".

Being a fan of "Akira", I thought this would fall in line, and there are images and techniques used in this that will obviously be used in "Akira", but where this is different than "Akira" is the story. I felt nothing for our characters or the plot. Interested, but never quite developed. We spend nearly an hour and a half with two focused characters, yet we are to follow at least seven of them to the ends of the battle. It just didn't work. Also, there were moments that were too over-dramatic even for me. In Anime, I expect things to be a bit over the top - watching "Hamtaro", there were parts that were just a bit too zany, but it worked due to the brevity of the episodes I was comfortable with what was happening. That should have been the case here. Shorter episodes may have built a better world - by the end, which I am coming up to now, we just don't have enough time for anything. Characters are forgotten, past experiences have come short, and overall it just seemed like a flash in the pan instead of an epic story. I wanted to like "Harmagedon", but nothing peaked my interest - like a sports film, it felt like old techniques used over and over again. Boredom settled early with this film, and it never let go.

If it isn't obvious, this film is getting a yellow highlight with black mark. Maybe suggested to the die-hard Anime watchers only, this would be a tough suggestion to the amateur eye. Found in my "500 Essential Anime Movies" book, I cannot see why (outside of the historical element) this made the list. It was dull, void of emotion, and what should have been a 13-part series packed into two hours. There just wasn't enough time or energy to build the connections that needed to build the final climax. Overall, I just got bored. Not a fan of this film, and Anime as a whole is making me nervous.

The Fall of the Louse of Usher (2002)

A bitter old man attempts to recreate his youthful cinematic adventures with another romp through the failed corridor of Edgar Allen Poe. This should have been the opening line of any review that would have preceded anyone watching this horrid, disjointed mess of a, should I say it?, horror film? Being a fan of Russell's "The Lair of the White Worm", I was excited to see another entry into his cinematic cannon, another chance to spoof, be thrilled, and overall have that sense of campiness that only Russell can bring to the table. This is the same man that directed The Who's "Tommy" - would he ever lead me onto a unpaved path. Well, he did - with "The Fall of the Louse of Usher", a movie that seemed like it was made due to being bored on a rainy Sunday afternoon. With minimal budget, horrid script, and direction that made me think that a 5-year old was allowed to be cinematographer, "The Fall of the Louse of Usher" easily transformed into one of the worst films that I have seen.

There is a thin line between campy, could be cult, and just downright painfully bad, and alas, this film falls into the later category. With scenes where some of the production crew in the shot, special effects with strings attached, and a story that made no sense at all, it was surprising after my last Anime endeavor that I even finished this project. This was a movie that Russell should have been making in his youth, at a different time, this film may have been considered perhaps a early classic for a great director, but being made in 2002 (despite claims that it runs with some difficult themes and non-linear symbolism), it just felt like Russell was attempting to grab at an audience that didn't deserve this Russell. I am still introducing new fans to "Lair of the White Worm", and when you put these two together - merely for directing styles - it feels as if Russell has lost any bit of sanity known to man. Was he spoofing "The Benny Hill Show" or was it just a lack of control? Filmed in what seemed like his backyard, this may have worked as a student film (understanding that technical errors are common), but knowing that was Russell in front and behind the camera - it just crashed and burned, leaving behind no survivors at all.

If you haven't guessed it, I hated this film. Perhaps I am becoming more cynical as I continue to grow with my movie watching, but this should have been renamed to "The Fall of a Great Director". Russell seemed insane with this film, while his passion was obviously there - the final product just reeked of failure. Is this the last great Russell, his legacy to be remembered with this? Who knows, but I am going to be more nervous the next time the suggestion to watch Ken Russell comes up. Early Russell, no problem - into this decade .... BEWARE! A yellow mark with a black line, is what this film gets. Never to be watched again nor suggested to friends. What a waste of my time.

We miss you Ken Russell!

Hades Project Zeorymer (1988)

That's right kiddies, the Anime is back and in full effect. This first line of this review can be read in any way, a positive note -- or, in the instance of "Hades Project Zeorymer", perhaps a bit sarcastically. Whenever we get to this style of cinema via my books, I get nervous, this is one of those genres that is either going to be smooth sailing or an ferocious uphill battle, for "Hades" it was the latter. I am not sure when "HPZ" switched from interestingly original to just plain repetitive, but through the only FOUR episodes (that's right, didn't take that long to go from good to bad), I could only watch three and a half before I had to turn it off. This series had terrible things going against it. The first being that it is a two disc set, and each disc was made by a different distributor, creating a mixed viewing experience. Also, I think parts were left out between the two discs because there was quite of bit of sub-plot missing. Difficult to explain because the story continued, it just didn't feel like the first two episodes that I watched. Something was amuck.

With the second disc feeling like a lesser production company rushed it out, I was already not feeling the emotional draw for this film - but I continued, and dozed as this story came to an end. It is within this "story" that my second argument comes into effect. "HPZ" had a decent opening; a boy unbeknown to him has been raised by people claiming to be his parents, but are only in it for the money. He was genetically made to drive this huge monolith of a machine that will determine the end of the world away from this gigantic corporation. It is the simple story of Sampson vs. Goliath, a story that shouldn't be difficult to emulate. Alas, "HPZ" failed. Seven large corporate machines against this sole machine, stolen by the government years ago, now these two children must use whatever powers they forgot they possessed to bring justice to the world (or something as I, for the first time, didn't finish this series) - but battles feel repetitive, the animation seems redundant, and by the end, you - an audience member - just didn't care. The emotion, the heart, the joy of whatever "HPZ" began with failed. There were some extremely cool scenes within this debacle, but in the end - it failed - it fell on its face hard, and everybody should have been there to laugh. I had hopes for this series, I hoped it would lead me into a further realm of Anime, but it gave me no hope nor excitement for whatever comes next. I will watch, but "Hades Project Zeorymer" will be forever resting on the back of my mind.

So, four episodes, three and a half watched - it should be no question as to what will be the summary here. Found in my "500 Essential Anime Movies", this made me feel horrid as I could not finish a measly four episodes. From a horrid story to a bountiful amount of same frame animation, this is obviously going to get a yellow highlight with black mark. Never change horses mid-stream, never change production companies as well - just terrible. Never to be spoken about to me or recommended again. This gets the Mr. Yuck sticker for children.

Fast Times at Ridgemont High (1982)

Realizing that I had only seen this movie on either late-night television (censored for the late-night audiences) or via bits and pieces from any "quintessential" 80s stock countdown, I was ready to experience what the now-infamous Ridgemont High had to offer. Being a bigger fan of "Rock and Roll High School", I was unsure if this comedy (if one could place this into that category) would still remain watchable or even, should I dare say it, funny. After an hour and a half, I was proven wrong, and chalk another great film of the 80s whose modern relatives like "American Pie" or any pre-teen film, just can't hold a finger to what this had. Maybe it was Cameron Crowe, maybe it was the vast talent that walked these halls, maybe it was that "Fast Times" isn't just a sexual comedy, but in fact this extremely dark tale about children and the future of our world. Sure, this was constructed in the 80s, but it still feels relevant today.

What did I like about this film? First, let me say that the "same-day" abortion scene seemed light, but also one of those previously discussed dark scenes. High school girl gets pregnant, brother takes her, then together they form a strong bond - or how about the fact that sexuality seems a flash in the pan to our focused lead, Stacy Hamilton (played with some range by Jennifer Jason Leigh who HASN'T aged a day since this film). Also, what about that final scene in the gas station, a focused teen with great grades, a girlfriend, and a powerful car, I also think he was uber popular, but ends up working for minimum wage in a retail job. That final scene where Brad Hamilton (played by the Judge himself) has to foil a robbery with Spicoli seems like an odd way to end a film, but it brought the darkness further into the room. It wasn't this glossy image of teens in high school, this was the precursor to Smith's "Clerks", that sort of mall-rat film that put everyone in a empathetic job with only sex on the mind.

Found in my "Fangoria's 101 Best Horror Movies You've Never Seen" (OK, so not a horror film, but mentioned within as crediting one of the writers with an actual horror film), and I must admit - I loved this movie. I loved the characters, the jokes (Ok, go gentle on me, I'm starting with SANKA today), and the fact that this comedy felt more like a posed threat than a modern teen-boob movie. Giving it a green mark with blue star would be an understatement, but I am proud to give it that. It is a film I am proud to have in my collection and can recommend to anyone. It holds up amazingly well for nearly 28 years later.