"Rocketman"

-2019

This elton john biopic is my nominee for worst movie of the 21st century.

It should only be shown with this caveat stamped to the screen: "Any resemblance between this film and elton's life, is entirely accidental".

Mind you, i don't see a lot of new movies. But it's hard to imagine any cinematic turd more appalling. This film is an object lesson in why you should NEVER let your subject be one of the film's producers. The most egregious act of masturbatory self-adulation to ever (dis)grace the screen?

All the flaws of the film are encapsulated in the casting of the lead. Taron egerton is seven kinds of talented, but no skill can mask the fact that he is a Hollywood hunk.

Elton darling, i adore you, but you were never a hunk. You were a short, unathletic nerd. And i LOVE the idea of making nerds sexy...but this ain't the way to do it.

Instead of using your influence to fight beautyism, you capitulated to it, in the worst possible way.

Somewhere out there, is a great movie about the life of elton john. It just hasn't been made.

Though actually, maybe the freddie mercury pic was worse...

tears actually

LOVE ACTUALLY
2003, directed by richard curtis

Update: I was mildly surprised to learn that some feminists hate this movie, and...you can't deny they're mostly right. The trope that posits wimyn are better seen and not heard, and that they exist to be "won" by a dynamic male? That critique has merit.

But i originally took this movie into my heart, not in spite of its occasional idiocy, but BECAUSE of that. It's a romantic comedy - doesn't one watch any rom-com with the presumption of idiocy? The fact that it's occasionally smart, wasn't the point either. I thought that in embracing a rom-com, any rom-com (something i'd almost never done), i would gain common ground with many wimyn. And perhaps thus increase my chances of getting laid.

An admittedly mercenary motivation...but underneath that was joy over the fact that this movie sometimes actually tells the truth about romance. Some people in this happy movie get CREAMED, with no reprieve, and i will always be grateful to the creators for that.

Plus...the most-vilified plotline, with the smitten best man showing love posters to his best friend's wife? That's one of my favorites - perhaps the only moment in cinematic history that speaks to my experience of the often stunningly-noble aspect of unrequited love.

Maybe you've never been there.

Is the film idiotic?

Of course.

Except when it's not. Can you say that about any other rom-com?

(original review)
I cried thrice in the past twenty-four hours, all while watching the movie LOVE ACTUALLY (or its special features). It's such a gentle miracle, crying, and i wonder whether i'll ever do so as much as i'd like. I've come a long way from my boys-don't-cry childhood, but still only cry once a month or less.
LOVE ACTUALLY, from the creators of NOTTING HILL and ABOUT A BOY, is wonderful. I've never seen a movie so happy and life-affirming you nearly forget that some characters don't find the love they need. We all muddle about, disappointing and hurting one another...and even when we get things right, there's a doomed longing to have love wrap us up and never leave.

Today's tears were while watching the deleted scenes, and a feature on the music (it's all wonderful, none more so than joni's new recording of "Both Sides Now"...the wisdom and sadness she precociously penned in her twenties are given heart-rending texture decades later). Not only should everyone add this movie to their holiday tradition, everyone should pester Universal to release a "deleted scenes/no-colin" version (um, that's colin the CHARACTER, not colin the actor). The cut scenes are often better than ones kept in. The commentary is delightful too.
Are there moments (and one entire colin plotline) that are forced and saccharine? Sure. But this movie also starkly reflects the pain we inflict on ourselves in the name of monogamy - jealousy, betrayal, denial...we put ourselves through agonizing spiritual contortions, trying to fit ourselves into a paradigm contrary to our nature. In the corners of this film, there might be tiny baby steps into a more enlightened future. Three plotlines (a spoiled rock star and his manager, a step-father and his child, and two adolescents) celebrate love itself, free of sexuality.
My tears remind me that this past year there have been two songs which have made me cry - paul simon's "Father and Daughter", and don henley's "Annabel". An insight into my lonely, grieving spirit...

I actually love...all of you. 

"Earthlings"

-written and directed by shaun monson
2005
We do not deserve to live.
We do not deserve to live.
We do not deserve to live.
Please be over.
Please be over.
Please be over.
Stop.
Stop.
Stop.
By and large, these were the only words i was able to think or whisper during my viewing of this documentary. The only other coherent thought i recall is, "If anyone can watch this film and not stop eating other animals, i give them my complete blessing."
I know that any words i might add are pale shadows of this film's impact. Humyns are visual creatures, and this is an unrelenting onslaught. To not provide a single moment of reprieve to catch one's breath is an artistic choice, and one that i cannot begrudge. The viewer's suffering, while profound, can never be anything but a holiday jaunt compared to the incomprehensible horror that uncountable billions, even trillions, of other animals suffer at our hands...which is precisely the artistic point, i suppose. The music feels a bit gratuitously manipulative in the first five minutes, but get over it.
There's nothing in this film i hadn't already known. The only reason i subjected myself to a full viewing, when the sane response would have been to run far away, was so i could assess it for you.
Of course, "full viewing" is an exaggeration. Much of the time i was averting my eyes, or unable to see through my tears...at one point i took to watching the images in the reflection on my window, seeking only escape.
Is it fair to say that all people can be divided into two groups - those who have seen this, and those who haven't?
(with an interesting sub-divide...those who get through it, and those who don't)
The film starts by drawing parallels between slavery/racism, the dehumynization of wimyn, and our treatment of other animals. The questions of sentience and comparable suffering are addressed. The stages of denial (ridicule, violent opposition, and acceptance) are outlined. It finally moves beyond the obvious topics of food animals and the pet industry, into the worlds of fashion and entertainment. Because these last images are unexpected, they are perhaps the most devastating and damning.
This film doesn't (but perhaps ought) raise the question of what the word "desensitization" means. It's a concept that most people with an average education are at least briefly exposed to, but what does it truly mean? I have long fancied that my struggles with the world, and my descent into mild depression and PTSD, simply reflect my own self-directed resensitization. But i'm beginning to suspect that even academia doesn't fully understand this aspect of current humyn socialization. I searched for a comprehensive book on the subject, and found nothing.
Much of the history of our intellectual relationship to other animals has been the search for what makes us "unique". That pursuit, however, could be described as an abuser losing one crutch of denial after another, as we've realized that other animals embody tool-making, self-awareness, humor, death-awareness, language, art, and culture. The one bastion of singularity remaining, the notion that we're the only creature to project our lives into some abstract future, may soon fall as well. Which leaves me wondering whether the only unique facet of humynity is the ability to blind ourselves not simply to the suffering of others (which all animals do in a survival-based, competitive world), but also blind ourselves to OUR OWN suffering. This may ultimately be the only meaningful definition of humynity, and the key to understanding how we could have become the destroyer of all life, including ourselves.

P.S. It was funny to observe my own rush into escapist behavior immediately after my viewing...there was lots of chocolate and Monty Python involved.

"Ishtar"

-directed and written by elaine may
1987
Oft-acerbic cartoonist gary larson penned some 4000 THE FAR SIDEs...and there was only ever one for which he publicly apologized. A "hell's video store" featuring shelves full of nothing but ISHTAR.
The zeitgeist's attitude toward this movie has softened from its initial roaring condemnation, when ISHTAR became the infamous poster child for bloated Hollywood wretchedness. Perhaps money was a factor in the public scorn that cascaded down, but not in the obvious way...perhaps it was a subconscious twinge of shame from an obscenely rich country that allows millions of its citizens to live in poverty. What's that? $40,000,000 for a MOVIE?? A comedy, no less? I HATE IT!!! Or perhaps, in this sycophantic culture of self-loathing, sometimes we have a cathartic need to immolate - for every Beatles or AVATAR, we need a nixon or ISHTAR. And if you read the trivia section from this movie's IMDB page, you might be dumbfounded at how seemingly doomed-to-failure it was, with toxic disagreements between director and stars and studio chief david puttnam (whose lack of enthusiasm for this inherited project may have blossomed into outright self-sabotage). It's certainly puzzling how the wheels fell off so swiftly, especially after the pre-release screenings were all successes.
But in the intervening decades, more and more cries of "unfairly maligned" have popped up. Or some version of "not bad, and the songs are wonderful". So perhaps someday ISHTAR will be hailed as one of the great comic gems of all time. I don't dabble in hyperbole (well, much), but i promise you, this film is on par with the quote-reference status of marx, mel, Python, or ZAZ.
One fascinating by-product of the discord was that may, hoffman, and beatty each had their own team of editors, making three different versions of the film. Which was released?? How many years are we going to have to wait for a deluxe edition, with all three?
So here's what you'll fall in love with, if you dare. Hoffman (TOOTSIE, THE EARTH DAY SPECIAL) and beatty (BULWORTH, THE MANY LOVES OF DOBIE GILLIS) play two hack lounge singers who get a booking in Morocco, then get swept up into intrigue between a despot, rebels, and the CIA. In acting, drama gets the glory...but comedy is harder, and dustin and warren nail this one. Throughout the mayhem, lyle and chuck keep writing songs and focusing on their act...and indeed the music (by may and songwriting legend paul williams - THE MUPPET MOVIE, THE LOVE BOAT) is so off-the-charts, intentionally-awful hysterical, one can only hope it was as much fun to create as it is to hear. It's so infectious, you might end up rejecting the "awful" premise altogether. It's certainly my holy grail, as a soundtrack was recorded but never released. Are you reading this, paul?? Tell us you didn't burn the masters! Our bumbling leads both fall in love with the same revolutionary (the impeccable isabelle adjani - NOSFERATU THE VAMPYRE, QUEEN MARGOT). The oscar goes to charles grodin (MIDNIGHT RUN, DAVE), who manages to make an amoral CIA antagonist both hysterical and sympathetic. Jack weston (THE INCREDIBLE MR. LIMPET, THE FOUR SEASONS) plays the duo's jaded agent, to hangdog perfection. Carol kane (TAXI, THE PRINCESS BRIDE) is priceless as a put-upon girlfriend. Matt frewer (MAX HEADROOM, THE CRIMSON PERMANENT ASSURANCE) is spiffy as a CIA operative.
The chemistry and comedy are seamless...and sometimes the accidents worked in their favor. There was supposed to be a big military climax, which warren almost insisted upon, but it wasn't elaine's forte. Warren gave in, and as a result, that scene centers around a lone jeep in the desert...which is a perfect metaphor for chuck and lyle themselves. It keeps the lightness and pathos close at hand.
There. I've told the truth. That's dangerous business.

"Planet of the Apes"

Take your hands off me, you damn dirty...
The classic APES franchise. One moment of brilliance followed by a parade of putrescence?
Substantially, but not quite.
PLANET OF THE APES (1968) ****
Solidly based on the fantastic novel by pierre boulle, the original is a classic, and rightfully so. A trio of astronauts experience an accident that brings them back after 2000 years. They crash on a planet they are unaware is Earth, and find a society of talking chimps, gorillas, and orangutans who have enslaved a population of pre-vocal (or post, rather) humans. An intelligent, seamless script married to a lightning strike of acting/directing/production chemistry. So absorbing, you forget any thoughts of overt artistic message, until it all comes hammering home in the vision of the half-buried remains of the Statue of Liberty. A career-defining performance by charlton heston (BEN-HUR, TOMBSTONE). The ape makeup is exquisite. The only major flaw is the marginalization of females - the lone human woman is essentially a mute supermodel (insert obvious joke here). But otherwise...a film deserving of consideration on any "greatest movies ever" list.
BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970) ***
A sequel that attempts to further the original artistic vision, not just copy it. On future Earth, an underground human society worships a derelict nuclear doomsday weapon. More astronauts arrive in search of the first crew, and the apes pursue them. Heston plays a small but crucial part. It ends realistically, with planetary annihilation. Not nearly as great as the original...but a million times more worthy than JAWS 2 or TEMPLE OF DOOM.
ESCAPE FROM THE PLANET OF THE APES (1971) **
The chimps cornelius (franchise cornerstone roddy macdowall - TALES OF THE GOLD MONKEY, FUNNY LADY) and zira flee the doomed Earth in a salvaged spaceship, and time travel to our present day. They hide their intelligence and knowledge of the future as long as they can, but eventually end up in government torture/interrogation. They escape, and are given sanctuary in a carnival run by ricardo montalban (FANTASY ISLAND, STAR TREK: THE WRATH OF KHAN). Before being killed with cornelius, zira gives birth to a child who is spirited away. A fine try, but the writing and balance falter...
CONQUEST OF THE PLANET OF THE APES (1972) ***
Montalban raises the orphaned chimp in a time when all dogs and cats go extinct, and are replaced as human slaves by non-human apes. The child (also beautifully played by macdowall) has all the intelligence and abilities of his parents, and ends up leading an ape revolution. A bit plodding, but worthy - the wild card that keeps the franchise from being a perfect jaws spiral. The original brutally murderous ending has been restored in blu-ray.
BATTLE FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES (1973) *
In a post-nuclear world, the ape leader caesar has built up ape society, and tries to foster amicable relations with the surviving humans...an effort which is subverted by a pocket of humans still highly armed. Cue the title. The whole affair feels like a pretense for the mindless, interminable battle scene.
Beyond all that, the only conspicuous, consistent failing of the franchise is in reinforcing the misconception that humans aren't apes. We are one of six ape species on the planet, and the fantasy that we're not is one of the chief reasons why our own extinction will probably mean the end of all other animal life too. Is it too much to hope that the current re-boot of the franchise includes a population of speaking bonobo apes? Now THAT would sell some popcorn! Perhaps the most perfect classic APES experience however, would be watching the first movie followed by the short-lived TV series. Those episodes lack any particular intellectual ambition, but they do have the tightness and charm that the big-screen sequels failed to recapture.

three wild moments

UN MOMENT D'AGAREMENT (ONE WILD MOMENT)
-directed and written by claude berri
1977
BLAME IT ON RIO
-directed by stanley donen
1984
UN MOMENT D'AGAREMENT
-directed by jean-francois richet
2015
My favorite french film has always been 1977's "Un moment d'agarement", a tender, poignantly funny look at a middle-aged man having an affair with his best friend's under-aged daughter. The backdrop is a beach holiday for two men and their teenagers. Pierre (jean-pierre marielle - URANUS, THE DA VINCI CODE) regrets the affair as soon as it happens, and tries to extricate himself from her declarations of love while coping with his friend's insistence that he help find the mystery cad who used and abandoned his daughter. The film is a gentle but so, so real look at human desire and hypocrisy. Its only weakness is (of course) patriarchal double standards, as we see an enraged father try to control and deny his daughter's sexuality...but all that is profoundly offset by the incredible humanity agnes sorral (THE OGRE, I LOVE YOU) invests into her part. Berri refuses to moralize - the lovers face each other in the final scene, and as the credits roll the audience has no idea where they will go.
1984's "Blame It On Rio" is one of the few Hollywood adaptations to shine as brightly as the original, because they didn't even try to capture the same flavor, instead creating something much more akin to a bedroom comedy, which hilariously follows the father and his miserable accomplice as they chase the "unknown" lech. Donen found the perfect writers (charlie peters and larry gelbart) and perfect cast, led by michael caine (ZULU, THE MUPPET CHRISTMAS CAROL) and joseph bologna (MY FAVORITE YEAR, JERSEY GIRL). Valerie harper (RHODA, VALERIE) plays caine's estranged wife, and demi moore (G.I. JANE, BEAVIS AND BUTT-HEAD DO AMERICA) his daughter - you can take the opportunity to smile or cry as you see the beautiful breasts nature gave demi, which would soon be mutilated by the surgeon's knife. Caine has never been better, and michelle johnson (GUNG HO, DEATH BECOMES HER) is also perfect as the smitten teen.
Perfect, but...johnson was also a sexbomb who was eighteen playing sixteen, which de-toothed the humanity and poignancy of the original. Soulless Hollywood strikes again! Which brings us to the 2015 re-remake, back in the hands of the french. Sadly, you might be justified in wondering whether french cinema now sucks as much as the yank stuff. The film stars vincent cassel (IRREVERSIBLE, BLACK SWAN) and lola le lann, who are wonderful...but once again we have a sexbomb teen playing a younger part, and on top of that, vincent looks so much like a movie star that the combination hijacks any deeper meaning, as the audience ends up just wanting these unrelateably handsome people to fuck already. You're a fine actor, vincent - you couldn't have grown a beer belly maybe? The ending also feels too easy, as laurent's own teen-angsty daughter forgets her outrage, and louna's father forgives his friend...which one might chalk up to a more enlightened european sensibility IF we hadn't spent an hour watching the man boil with homicidal rage toward the "despoiler". It all feels like such an opportunity lost. Couldn't we have tossed the patriarchal, sexually self-loathing overtones out the window? With apologies to THE READER and TADPOLE (but not many, as that fifteen year-old was twenty-three), isn't it long past time for a movie about a non-tragic affair between a teenage male and an over-forty woman?
Anyway, the first two would make a delectable double feature. One of the funniest, sweetest connections is the lightning strike at the exact same moment in each film. Wonderful.

"Good Hair"

-written and produced by chris rock
2009
It would be hard to overstate how much hope i had for this film. A documentary about the things black women do to their hair, prompted by chris' young daughter coming up to him and asking "daddy, why don't i have good hair?" In the world of straightening (and now weaves), black women have been horribly torturing themselves inside and out for many generations, striving to live up to a barbie doll world...but the time has long since passed when this problem can be blamed solely on the mass media images we're sold every day. Malcolm x was railing against this problem in the sixties, correctly identifying it as nothing less than racial self-hatred. It's about trying to be white, and every intelligent person in the world has long been waiting for black women to love themselves as much as we do. But if anything, the problem only gets worse. Black girls learn at an early age to devalue themselves. Many mothers start straightening their daughters' hair at the age of five, or younger.
So my hopes were sky-high. This film had enormous potential as a trigger for sanity...something hip, funny, and scathing from one of the world's most beloved comedians. And the movie is occasionally brilliant. Chris shows the health risks and searing pain involved in exposing a human being to sodium hydroxide, the chemical in "relaxers". He serves up the staggering impracticality - how straightened women must avoid water, and weaved women may NOT BE TOUCHED, even in the most intimate circumstances. He exposes the conflicted attitudes in the black community, plus the staggering economic burden black women choose for themselves (and the fact that most of that money goes right into white or asian hands). He provides a global view of black women's willful servitude, and indian women's compulsory servitude. But ultimately, chris backs off from taking any strong stand. He could have made a film that changed people's lives, but it's like his HBO bosses told him not to offend anyone - especially housewives in Iowa. He interviews maya angelou, and DOESN'T ask the hard, obvious question - WHY would she start straightening at the age of seventy, when she had seemingly spent a lifetime making the racially proud choice? He similarly soft-serves al sharpton. I love that he interviews a black actress who keeps it natural, but an untouched afro would have been a better choice than coils. There's a brilliant group talk in a barbershop in which chris gets one man to admit that some black men prefer white women because they can have more intense physical intimacy. He finishes the film with a half-hour segment covering the most famous annual black hair show, but it's wasted time. A far better (and funnier) choice would have been to stage a mock game show, in which four black women (one straightened, one weave, one afro, and one bald) would be seated on the stage, facing away, in booths where they cannot see or hear each other. The contestants then have to choose which head they want to run their fingers through. Any contestant who picks the weave triggers alarm bells and a klaxon shouting "DON'T TOUCH, DON'T TOUCH, DON'T TOUCH", and is expelled from the show immediately.
"Good Hair" - a good movie that should have been great.
Postscript: A friend tells me that there may finally be a growing movement of young black women rejecting the straightened/weave world. Is it possible i was too hard on this film? In either case, hallelujah brothers and sisters.

"Secrets of a Married Man"

-directed by william a. graham
1984
For a slightly silly and potentially provocative evening with friends, you might not do better than this delightful television movie starring william shatner, michelle phillips, and cybill shepherd. The subject is adultery, and the treatment surprisingly even-handed (if there is any monogamous difference of opinion among your companions, the discussion may get heated). Shatner and phillips play a married couple whose sex life has been eradicated by stressful jobs, parenthood, and twelve years of monogamy. Poignancy abounds, as we see them fumblingly reach out to one another for that which once came easily. Determined to not stray emotionally, he begins patronizing prostitutes (it's okay, go ahead and get it out of your system - t.j. and the hookers!). After a series of one-night stands which are unfailingly frank about the risks and rewards of his behavior, he finds a woman (shepherd) to whom he returns again and again. He develops an emotional bond...but eventually finds his comfortable existence threatened by the realization that she is neither an art student nor "independent". Yet he still tries to help her, as his world closes in. You may cringe and cry as you see phillips react horribly and hurtfully to human nature. All of the possessiveness and jealousy which lie in the heart of our poisoned society, are personified in her. Not that he's a saint; were the shoe on the other foot, one cannot doubt that he would act just as hatefully. A fine turn is also offered by glynn turman (GREMLINS, A DIFFERENT WORLD) as a startlingly non-stereotypical pimp. All three leads are sympathetic, which is surprising, given the sexually repressive era. With "straying" being mostly as hot-button now as it was then, your laughter may be leavened by the occasional hiss from a closed-minded companion.
Laughter, you ask? What could possibly be funny about this film? Is it intentional humor? Well...no. But it's shatner! I say that with nothing but respect and love, for there is indeed nothing shatnerian about his performance here - he is understatement personified. But if you have a certain bent of humor, there is just something giggle-friendly about shatner. The pitfalls of a "go for broke" personality being loved and known so well (this film falls just after STAR TREK III and smack dab in the middle of T.J. HOOKER). So even though he resembles a caricature of himself in no way, you just might not be able to resist the occasional howl or hoot as he steers his catwalk course. Phillips* and shepherd also rise to the occasion with deftness and aplomb. The ending doesn't disappoint, as moralizing is again avoided. Will our beleaguered couple survive or split? It could go either way. So if you want to cry for self-loathing twentieth century humanity, or just laugh and think a bit, this film too goes...either way.

* She also becomes the answer to a tantalizing trivia question - who is the only actor to ever be leading lady to both shatner and patrick stewart?

"Crumb"

-directed by Terry Zwigoff
1994
A documentary about cartoonist R. Crumb, creator of Zap Comix, Mr. Natural, and Fritz the Cat. It explores his work, life, and family (or at least those who agreed to appear). The viewer is invited to decide whether Crumb's work crossed a line between social satire and masturbatory misogyny. This is one of a tiny handful of the most rawly transformative films i've ever seen. It's a document (intentional?) on how living in this world mutilates us all, and how some internalize/rationalize/deny it less well than others. Crumb's family are a compelling example of how even intelligent people can be mutilated, and have only a hazy notion of what happened, or why. The film is also a bracing dose of anti-Hollywood reality - all the media images that pour through our brains are so relentlessly polished and homogenized (including many documentary films), that we begin to believe that's what people are really like. Seeing a film like this, with very real, very damaged people shown naturally (or as naturally as possible when cameras are rolling), one's sense of reality is turned at a disconcerting angle. You might have the urge to believe that it's a put-on...that these are circus creations, not possibly real...until you finally accept that these are the same people you've known and seen all your life, not in movies, but in your family and at work and on the street. One of the interviewed family members committed suicide within a year of filming, and it's fascinating to ponder a possible connection. Because Crumb is the subject of the film, and we live in a mythologizing culture of celebrity, you might be tempted to view him as some elevated hero (or anti-hero). But keep looking, make a conscious effort to put that filter aside, and CRUMB might just leave you dizzy, dazed, or disturbed.

"Supergirl"

-directed by Jeannot Sczwarc
1984
Welcome to the movie that was born to be tortured. Purely in self-defense, that is - if you don't torture it, it will do far worse to you. In a minute, i'm going to try to lay the plot on you in a single sentence, and there's a good chance you'll think i'm making it up. If you managed to live through the 80s without seeing it, you should either cherish your ignorance forever, or watch it with a group of friends whose sense of mockery is keen. Alone, you'll be capable only of muttering "why..." or "how...", unable to believe that there was any semblance of intelligent intent, or that it was connected in any way to the Christopher Reeve franchise (though admittedly, i haven't seen 3 or 4). Yet the irrefutable evidence will be staring you in the face - Marc McClure (SUPERMAN 1-4, BACK TO THE FUTURE 1&3) as Jimmy Olsen. SUPERMAN was admittedly no MY DINNER WITH ANDRE, but you'll be unable to reconcile the obvious fact that SUPERGIRL was intended for adults (or teens, at least). Vaccaro's presence can ONLY be accounted for by Dunaway's insistence that she have a friend on-set for all those long days of shooting. Perhaps the greatest mystery of all is how the film lost only twenty million dollars.
Okay, here goes (innnnnnnnnnhale)! A kryptonian city survives in an alternate dimension, powered by a spinning ball which Peter O'Toole (LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, VENUS) loses, forcing Helen Slater (CITY SLICKERS, THE LEGEND OF BILLIE JEAN) to leave her mother Mia Farrow (ROSEMARY'S BABY, HANNAH AND HER SISTERS) and chase it into our dimension where it lands on Earth and gets picked up by Faye Dunaway (BONNIE AND CLYDE, NETWORK), a second-rate con artist who drives a Cadillac and lives in an abandoned amusement park with socialite Brenda Vaccaro (MIDNIGHT COWBOY) and warlock Peter Cook (BEYOND THE FRINGE, THE PRINCESS BRIDE), who realizes her plans for world domination can finally be achieved, and sets to work doing so by putting a love spell on a hunky gardener, while Helen becomes Supergirl and enrolls at a girls' school where she has a shower, then the gardener sees Helen first, then Jimmy Olsen visits her roommate Lucy Lane (never mind that she's sixteen), but their face-sucking is interrupted by the invisible demons and construction equipment Faye sends to get the hunky gardener back and destroy Supergirl, who are sucking face on a beach even though her home city is about to be destroyed, then she's thrown into a dimension where she loses her powers and Peter (O'Toole, not Cook) is waiting to die, never mind that he knows how to get out, then Helen pops back onto Earth, where Faye sends more demons, who turn on their master and everybody goes home!
Phew. And the dvd actually has a director commentary track...with a historian too, to provide, um...lots of perspective, one would hope.

"The Break-Up"

-directed by Peyton Reed
2006
This Jennifer Aniston/Vince Vaughn dramedy has a nice premise – instead of ending with boy and girl finally together, it dispenses with all that by the end of the opening titles, and proceeds to the falling apart. Bravo! Now, i’m about to knock this film hugely. I wouldn’t do that if i didn’t have a little respect for it - the creators are not idiots, and they genuinely tried to make a non-idiotic film. But future generations might hold this film up as a crystallization of how our society is so painfully, horrifically dysfunctional with sex and romance. The film's fatal flaw is taking the easy way out – instead of rendering the relationship in realistic shades of grey, they turn Vaughn into a cliché. He’s so irredeemably selfish (and to his charming credit, he almost makes it believable), the only possible resolve is a transformation of his inability to open up to her – which isn’t ridiculous in and of itself, but it takes a complicated issue and turns it into cookie-cutter pop psychology. Beyond that, watching these two fall apart has an utter inevitability to it, when perceived with a clear eye on human nature. No two humans could endure these kinds of stresses without love turning into something like hate (in that respect, the film is quite realistic). The two of them live together - in scene after scene, the door shuts with them alone in their gilded cage. Their mutual isolation is almost visceral…and in an environment like that, OF COURSE the things that annoy each other get magnified a million times. OF COURSE they break up – anyone would, and that should be the message of the movie. In a society that had any sense, these two would never be allowed to have almost ALL of their self-worth defined by each other, with almost no escape from the presence of each other. But that’s who we are, that’s what we do. The only other thing worth mentioning is the luminous talent of John Michael Higgins (BEST IN SHOW, A MIGHTY WIND). The original ending was a performance of “The Rainbow Connection”, by his character’s a capella group. Higgins arranged it himself. It’s pure brilliance.

"The Medicine Man"

1930
-directed by Scott Pembroke
What an absolutely fascinating slice of cinema history. Jack Benny's first starring film role, in a movie that is perhaps correctly critiqued for not knowing what it wanted to be. As comedy it falls short, as light drama it's too heavy, as drama it's too supercilious. But still, whether through intention or accident, this movie is an entertaining piece of film history and an enthralling piece of social history. Benny plays the emcee of a traveling medicine show. All the cliches are played out...the women he uses and throws away...the locals who fall for the con game...yet these cliches are often turned on their head, as one abandoned woman catches up with the show and outdoes them in the shakedown game, and they are then further shaken down by a sheriff who spares them from the lynch mob (as long as they let him win beaucoup bucks). Fittingly, in this dark comedy, it's hard to root for anyone...but this comes across as far more honest than other films of the era. The only characters you feel sympathy for are the children of a local abusive merchant. The daughter (Betty Bronson - PETER PAN) falls for Benny, and the movie keeps you guessing right up to the end regarding his intentions toward her. The abusive father, starkly portrayed by E. Alyn Warren (TARZAN THE FEARLESS), intends to marry off his daughter to the local butcher. His affirmation of the butcher's right to rape her, and patricarchal attitude in general, are at the core of what makes this film so compelling. All films are "message" films - they only vary in degrees of subtlety. But this film is a ridiculously frank portrayal of the literalness with which children (and daughters in particular) were considered the property of the father. And it's profoundly progressive in its disapproval of that reality. Adapted from a play by Elliot Lester, it's possible that his filmography was short not because of lack of talent, but because he wasn't offering the cookie-cutter fare the studios were looking for. Fascinating.

"Coach"

1979, directed by Bud Townsend

Not a great film. The writing flirts with good, but occasionally descends into obviousness. The directing and cinematography could have used a defter touch.
Not a great film.
But an absolutely astonishing one. Astounding and confounding.
Every movie is of course a snapshot of its era. Even films that deal with the past or future, cannot help but reflect the attitudes and morals of the day. COACH is about a female ex-olympian, Randy Rawlings, who is hired to coach a boy's high school basketball team. The Principal who hired her (a dandy performance by Keenan Wynn - DR. STRANGELOVE, SANTA CLAUS IS COMIN' TO TOWN) wasn't aware she's not a man, and tries to dismiss her. She threatens litigation, and the "woman vs. boorish male establishment" vibe is one you fully expect from a 1979 film. Randy (Cathy Lee Crosby) is of course very capable, and triumphs. Well and good. But what you never expect...
Is anything other than a pedestrian film. The studio, Crown International, was pumping out a slew of drek during the 70s. A glance at the bios of the writers and director doesn't prepare you for anything special.
A huge part of the plot deals with romance. No surprise, you say? The romance is between Randy and one of her players, Jack Ripley. Ah, that gets your attention? Jack is played by Michael Biehn (TERMINATOR, ALIENS, THE ABYSS, TOMBSTONE), in his screen debut. So, a tale of forbidden love?
No.
Not really.
No.
Modern eyes cannot conceive of any movie dealing with a sexual relationship between a high school student and teacher, unless it's in the context of some morality tale in which there will be, must be, punishment and suffering. The only movies that get around that rule are comedies that makes no pretense to reality....AMERICAN PIE, or something of that ilk.
COACH is none of those. It's a comedy, but an earnest one, never straying from the attempt to portray real life.
And the confounding thing is, you keep waiting for the hammer to fall.
You keep waiting for the love affair to explode.
So many moments go by, when you think for sure the hammer was supposed to have just fallen.
It never does.
The film portrays a loving, sexual relationship between student and teacher...and not one life gets shattered. The team triumphs, Randy and Jack keep having loving sex, and...that's it, really. There's not even a mawkish "you know this has to end" scene. Randy is aware of Jack's inexperience, and never encourages him to think that their relationship has a future...but she also never tells him it won't. I know what you're thinking, this is all just some overblown male adolescent fantasy. I don't think so. Randy is very much her own woman. She's smart, not a caricature. Plus, one of the writers was a woman, Nancy Larson. I often look for the presence of a female writer on any show that deals with sexuality, and feel affirmed when i find one (does this reverse-sexism bother me at all...yes).
But it's not just that the hammer doesn't fall. It's that the lovers don't spend the film walking on eggshells. There's almost no paranoia...only once does Randy bristle, when Jack brushes her ass when they're barely alone. But she immediately forgets about it. And there's an unforgettable scene where they barely avoid getting caught fucking in the gym shower. So it's not like they're in some dreamworld, unaware that something illicit is going on...they're just profoundly unbothered.
Now how you or i or your cousin Lou might feel about all this...well, most people would be bothered, even outraged. And in the past i've stated that teachers like Mary Kay Letorneau, while they should never be exposed to any kind of prosecution, probably should lose their posts. But i say that only because this society is so neurotic about anything to do with sex. We're so guilt-ridden and repressed, that almost any teacher/student relationship is likely to end in conflicts of interest and everybody generally losing their heads. But in a healthy society, i cannot imagine any consensual adult/youth sexual relationship being damaging to anyone...indeed, just the opposite. Do you really think the best way for someone to learn about sex is with a partner equally inexperienced and nervous, or with someone experienced and nurturing?
A fascinating film. Tantalizing too, because rather than just have simple bad dialogue, it's almost like the writers were going for a kind of realness, a la Mamet. The lines are faintly clumsy, but...is that intentional? Maybe.
Is COACH just an accidental product of the tail end of the sexual revolution, before the wave of PC hypersensitivity to workplace propriety arrived in the eighties? Or did the creators know exactly what they were doing? I'd love to do a remake, and lavish really good writing on it. I'd also love for a deluxe dvd to be released, full of cast and director/writer interviews. Brent Huff (THE PERILS OF GWENDOLYN) also stars, and there's another actor i'm having a hard time not believing isn't future NBA hall of famer Kevin McHale, required for some reason to act under the pseudonym Jack David Walker. Jack, if that's really you, i apologize.
Some of the moments are hit and miss, but it's a sweet film, and thanks to Crosby and Biehn it's very sexy, in a non-gratuitous way. Yes, Cathy fills out her gym suit in a way that could fill any adolescent (or adult or geriatric, or single-celled paramecium) with tingly feelings. But for its time, it leans a little closer to prudery than disinhibition (indeed, without that flaw, Randy Rawlings might have registered as one of the most beautiful cinema characters of all time). And more to the point, it's Cathy's performance that shines. Watching it, you are filled with curiosity over what ate the career she should have had. THAT'S INCREDIBLE was fun, but she obviously had much more to offer. The heck of it is though, a part of me thinks she looks back on this movie with a touch of embarrassment.
One of our family stories is how my grandfather never went any further than seventh grade. He said he knew he was ready for the real world when he started sleeping with his teacher. A tall tale? I'll never know. A tale of evil wrongdoing? You tell me.
A fantastic film to watch with a group. Be prepared for spirited, contentious discussion.

"10"

1979
-directed by Blake Edwards
"Whenever Mrs. Kissel breaks wind, we beat the dog."
-the Reverend

-Edwards' (other) masterpiece. Aren't geniuses entitled to only one? If you have more than one, they can't technically both be a masterpiece. I'm not sure how much our younger generation is aware of Edwards, one of the top three comedy writer/directors in Hollywood history. In truth, his most famous work isn't aging so well. There's no denying Peter Sellers' genius, but to modern eyes the PINK PANTHER series comes off a little forced. That is not the case for VICTOR/VICTORIA and 10, however...one suspects that their brilliance will be forever immune to the vagaries of time and taste. On my list of the greatest comedies of all time, i sincerely hope 10 will clock in at #10 (some things are too perfect).
And how do you explain a film so perfect? How do you explain every tiniest element clicking, in a fabric of funny that seems far too evenly pure for the frankensteinian process that is film-making? Is it the vision that lifts the elements, or the other way round? The truth is probably both...one needs to be fortunate enough to have the writing and acting come together just right...but then when the audience is sitting in the theater, it's the spirit of the film that makes it all take off, tapping into the viewer's willingness that the film be the funniest thing they've ever seen. Most scenes from any masterpiece could come off as merely pedestrian, were they to be dropped into a lesser film.
10 is about the mid-life crisis of celebrated composer George Webber. His longtime collaboration with lyricist Hugh (Robert Webber - 12 ANGRY MEN, PRIVATE BENJAMIN) is both satisfying and boring...a mirror of his romantic life with singer Samantha Taylor (Julie Andrews). As he bemoans the shallowness of the songs the kids are listening to these days, his surliness annoys everyone. Then he spies a woman (Bo Derek) on the way to her wedding, and is so thoroughly enthralled by her innocence and beauty, he drops everything and rushes off to their honeymoon destination in Mexico. In a rage of pills and booze, he seduces one woman and spies on the young bride. He then saves her husband's life, and as the husband (Sam Jones, the future FLASH GORDON) lies in the hospital, he takes the bride Jenny to dinner. She invites him back to her suite...
Along the way, nothing happens as it's supposed to, and Moore's physical comedy is so deft your laughter may get wet. The verbal humor is perfect, and perfectly quotable. But balancing all the hilarity is the realness of the characters...you can feel their anger and frustration and sadness, right in your gut. This is a trick lost on the current crop of Hollywood comedy actors and writers.
It's hard to imagine any other actor playing Moore's part. George Segal quit the role after Andrews' role had been inflated. I love Segal, but his departure had to be a blessing, as was Andrew's increased screentime...the sparks, both good and bad, between she and Moore, are as good as moviemaking gets (and Julie's beautiful songs also pepper the film). Peter Sellers also turned down the role...again, for all his brilliance, a casting choice that would have been wrong. And it's not just Dudley's acting, but his musical talent, that make the film. He plays his own piano, and it's some of the most sadly beautiful music you can imagine.
Robert Webber's portrayal of a gay man of humor and intelligence (without one ounce of affectation) is one of the great supporting performances in movie history. He seems on top of the world with his boy toy, but by the end of the film is awash in heartache...and we can't help feeling that all romance in this broken society can only end so.
It's the perfection in all the supporting parts that elevates this movie. It's that rare film in which you want no part of any Oscar talk, because you couldn't bear to see anyone in the cast not get one. Dee Wallace (E.T.) is heart-rendingly poignant as the woman Dudley seduces...only to not be able to get it up. It's not the first time it's happened to her...her talk of Willis Ackerman almost makes ME want to drink. Brian Dennehy gives his best performance this side of FIRST BLOOD, as sympathetic bartender Don. Max Showalter (SIXTEEN CANDLES) is a hoot as a horribly-musical reverend whom Dudley shmoozes to get info out of. John Hancock (AIRPLANE II, THE STING II, STAR TREK: TNG) is absolute perfection as Dudley's therapist, that voice telling us everything we don't want to hear about ourselves. James Noble (AIRPLANE II, BENSON) is a silly delight as the bride's dentist father, whom Dudley also shmoozes info out of (and gets a mouth full of surgery for his trouble). And Don Calfa (WEEKEND AT BERNIE'S, THE RETURN OF THE LIVING DEAD) is priceless as the hippie neighbor presiding over an unending orgy.
And...maybe you thought i wouldn't mention her...Bo Derek, as Jenny. She's been saddled with so much crap in her career. I'm not saying she's the second coming of Hermione Gingold, but no fair-minded person could walk away from this film thinking that she's anything other than a very capable actress. There's not one line she doesn't nail. The part was first offered to Melanie Griffith. And then Kay Lenz. Kim Basinger and Christie Brinkley were also considered. It's tempting to think about how Kay or Kim might have done, but you don't mess around with the chemistry this film had - enough to turn both Dudley and Bo into international superstars. And it's her role that is ultimately the focal point of what's so historically interesting. The characters of George and Samantha, for all we love them, are ultimately trapped in the mores of their time, and all the more miserable for it. We are satisfied and delighted when they get back together, with George ready to devote his life to just one woman. But that's the film's blind spot...for all their love and genuine caring, there's only one place they can be heading - a loving, contentious marriage in which the contentiousness will prevail. And in the middle of that, here's Jenny...saying life should be about happiness and love, and expressing it wherever and whenever it strikes, without guilt. She's happy to make love to George, but his burdens of guilt, and dream that she will want to give her life to him...she just can't understand that.
George isn't entirely wrong...perhaps Jenny's way is a bit too casual, too anonymous...
But she's a lot closer to right than he is.
A wonderful post-film topic of discussion.
To what extent Edwards was intending Jenny to be a sympathetic character, is another great question. He was married to his star, Ms. Andrews, so it's possible he meant Jenny to be entirely unsympathetic. My hunch is that he didn't. I wonder whether even Julie knows.

"Biutiful"

2010, directed by Alejandro Inarritu

Possibly the most honest film you'll ever see. It's taken me almost a week to feel that i can begin to communicate anything about it in words. Several of my normal response parameters don't apply. You won't hear me mention a single actor by name, though they were perfect. You won't hear me compare it to anything else. I'm sorry that it got involved with the "movie awards" scene, it's undeserving of such trite nonsense. Inarritu also wrote the screenplay, along with Armando Bo and Nicolas Giacobone. There is a genre called theater of cruelty, in which the point is to try to make the audience feel uncomfortable or assaulted. This film is a thousand times crueler than any product of that genre, because it intends no cruelty at all. It is an unrelenting, stunningly painful portrayal of present-day human society on planet earth. Yet at the same time, it is profoundly gentle, almost muted. With almost none of the contrived drama of conventional cinema, it removes itself from the emotional manipulation inherent therein. There was only one scene that i saw coming (that's me...perhaps you'll see no scene coming, or seventeen). Although there is one "biutiful" actor in the cast, to remind us that such people exist, there is none of the artificial feel associated with watching actors who are more attractive than the real people they portray. That pretense is gone, leaving you with one less slice of bullshit in your psyche. Some of the film's uniqueness can be attributed to the fact that it's European...but only some. With conventional cinematic nonsense stripped away, you're left with people who are no more or less real than you and everyone you know. Watching the pain of their lives is chokingly, indelibly hard to endure. Welcome to your world.

"he's just not that into you"

2009, directed by Ken Kwapis

I don't often broker in the emotion hate.
I hated this movie. I wanted to do an oedipus on my eyes.
Admittedly, i saw only half. The second half. Why didn't i turn it off? We humans slow down for carnage.
This is not about chick flicks. Watch LOVE ACTUALLY with me, and see who cries. The problem with this movie is not that it's insipid (it is), the problem is that it acts like it's not - and the dialogue is clever enough, the performances winning enough, that idiots will be lulled into agreeing. This is not like the romantic comedies of Katherine Heigl, which make no pretense to intelligence. No, this movie would make Gandhi want to hurt someone.
Part of it is the sense of betrayal, from actors who have done delightful, respectable work. Jennifer Connelly. Scarlett Johansson. Ben Affleck (hey, he did SHAKESPEARE IN LOVE, okay?). Luis Guzman. Were they not allowed to read the script? It may be that they owed favors to Drew Barrymore, who produced this offal. And understand, i have no hatred for Drew, but this is not EVER AFTER, an inoffensive yawner.
Affleck's character has been Jennifer Aniston's love for seven years. He doesn't believe in marriage, an eminently defendable position. She snaps one day, needing that ring! They break up. As soon as she realizes that marriage isn't important, he gives her that ring. You'll never witness a more facile, unrealistic, perverted treatment of an important issue.
On another track, Justin Long is buddies with Ginnifer Goodwin, a romantic who gets her heart trampled weekly. He tries to make her understand men. She decides that he's in love with her, and throws herself at him. Consistent with his character, he rejects her. Then he's suddenly mooning over her, realizing that...oh, never mind. This stuff makes LOVE, AMERICAN STYLE seem like DANGEROUS LIAISONS.
"he's just not that into you".
See it with someone you don't like very much.

"Shallow Hal"

2001
-directed by the Farrelly Brothers
One of the funniest, most thought-provoking movies i know, perhaps the most singularly successful conjunction of those two qualities in one film ever...the only really overt "issue" film i can think of that almost totally transcends its message.
And it's also an object lesson in how subjective our responses are. I know people whose taste in comedy i often share, who think this film is dreck. Usually these people are huge Farrelly Brother fans, while i'm only a mild fan of the rest of their work. Is HAL only so resonant with me because it pushes my buttons? For much of my life, i've walked around with a faint air of self-satisfaction at being less shallow than most of the idiots in the world (i'm the guy whose hackles raise when someone suggests Lyle Lovett is "ugly"). This movie threatens to de-pants my smugness.
Jack Black is perfect, and Gwyneth Paltrow gives a dual (but not) performance that ranks with the greatest ever. Jason Alexander is spot-on as Hal's neurotic and equally shallow buddy Mauricio. Anthony Robbins' two scenes are priceless, even a smidgen funnier than the rest of this hysterical movie. Is he spoofing himself? Somehow, yes and no. I was strongly predisposed to always considering him a parasitic wanker, but now i'll love him always. Susan Ward, as Hal's stunning neighbor Jill, must have been uber-thrilled with her part, given the shallow roles she usually gets. She's fantastic. The rest of the cast is excellent, some of them in dual roles like Gwyneth's...rarely have i seen an entire ensemble nail just the right values, without fail. No small amount of the credit for that probably rests with creators Peter and Bobby.
Hal's relationships with women have always been awash in shallowness. Robbins hypnotizes him into seeing only the inner beauty of everyone he meets. He embarks on a grand romance with 300-pound Rosemary...in his eyes, she's Gwyneth at her most slender. When Mauricio convinces Tony to remove the hypnosis, it all falls apart. There are one or two moments when the movie feels the tiniest bit facile. Do we really buy that Hal would reject Jill, when she decides he's not the shallow twit she thought he was? No...we don't. Do we really buy that Hal, at the end, wants to spend the rest of his life with Rosie? Hmmmmmm. We're undecided. But in the moment, we go with it, because the film's so perfect. Above all, would we like a window into the lives of those who created this film, to find out whether they live up to these non-shallow ideals? Yes we would.
There are moments of tear-inducing poignance, centered on Hal's interactions with the children in the burn ward. His ability to "see" their inner selves, an ability he re-finds once he's no longer hypnotized, we go along with happily.
So why does this film push my buttons so?
Shallow wrob?
I've always been aware that i'm not attracted to fat women...athletic is my type. And there has always been a part of me that feels a pang of guilt at the thought that my chubby-aversion is societally-taught. The few times i've come close to sexual involvement with a fat woman, a voice pops up: "Nope...not working". Oh, i've had one or two lovers who had extra weight, and it didn't really bother me. But too, if those women had lost those 10-15 pounds, would i have pursued them more? That's gut-check honesty time, and the answer may be yes.
There's another voice that seeks to defend my "shallowness", however. Sexual attraction involves motivations that we are nowhere near fully aware of, and it is simply a fact that sexuality is about spreading our genes, and that our bodies have an agenda. The average person is a laughable puppet in biology's hands. If you'd like a window into this reality that might blow your mind, read "The Myth of Monogamy", by David Barash and Judith Lipton.
Is that rationale a dosing of bullshit? If i lived in a society that held up chubby girls as beauty's ideal, would i be a chubby chaser? I hate to confess that i might. Or maybe i'm selling myself short - i did, after all, reject my society's ideal of the "skinny woman with big boobs".
There's a woman who works at my local post office. She carries herself with far more joy than the average person, and she and i share a lovely spark. I fantasize about loving her. She also carries maybe fifty extra pounds. And i'm NOT operating from a societal perspective that expects a woman to be unhealthily thin. So my urge to open up to her, clams up when we talk.
Will i change that? Would that be a great/awful idea?
Anyway...
The movie's bloody marvelous. Watch it now.

"Legend"

1985, directed by Ridley Scott

LEGEND, a dark fairy tale, was one of those movies i'd always heard about, but never got around to seeing. If you're in the same boat, it's not a boat you have to leave. I do recommend that every film student be required to view it, however, for a humbling lesson in how a film that has everything can simply...not work. LEGEND receives my nomination for the most almost-towering dud ever. You'll scratch your head for weeks, trying to figure out what went wrong.
The version i'm talking about is the 2002 director's cut. The original theatrical release was supposedly flat-out bad. The director in question? Ridley Scott, whose previous two offerings had been ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER. The production values are wondrous, the writing well-crafted, the acting excellent. A young Tom Cruise gives an unaffected, heroic performance. Mia Sara gives a dual performance at once so pure and so corrupted, you'll cry at the thought of the Van Damme eye candy she ended up as. And at the center, Tim Curry as the Prince of Darkness. This should have been the role of his lifetime, and he nailed it.
With all that, how could it have missed? But it did...you walk away feeling dulled and leaden.
Was it the editing? Gremlins, perhaps?
Tell me...

"The Most Dangerous Game"

1932, directed by Pichel & Schoedsack

Wow. Absolutely, unequivically, wow. One of those films you can't stop watching, even if you had other plans. An early production of Merian Cooper and Ernest Schoedsack (KING KONG), it's funny, diabolical, crisply acted and directed, and visually a feast. This creative duo are more remembered for their big honkin' monster-sized gorillas, but the world's most frightening ape is not the gorilla - it's the species you see when you look in the mirror. Fans of KONG will be fascinated, as it was shot during a KONG production delay, with much of the same cast and crew (and even some of the same sets). Based on a fantastic short story by Richard Connell, it's the tale of a Russian Count, one of the world's foremost hunters, who lives on an island and causes shipwrecks with false channel lights. He hunts the survivors. Fay Wray plays a level-headed survivor, and Robert Armstrong her drunkard brother. The Count is played with sinister brilliance by Leslie Banks. Castaway Joel McCrea, a hunter himself, gives the Count his first real challenge. The film de-glamorizes drinking and hunting, unlike many other movies and books of the time (i'm talking to you, Mr. Hemingway). The only underwhelming scene was the display of the Count's human trophies. It turns out they filmed more, but audiences were so put off that some left, so that section was edited. Here's hoping the lost footage is found. Either way, call Aunt Esther and the kids, and get the popcorn.

"WALK HARD"

WALK HARD: THE DEWEY COX STORY
2007
-directed by Jake Kasdan
What an amazing labor of love. Helmed by Kasdan and Judd Apatow, this mock biopic about a tempestuous music legend (taking inspiration from Johnny Cash and WALK THE LINE) was a commercial failure, and a minor critical hit. It deserved both less and more.
It's a bit of a dud. The theatrical release is, at times, forced. You appreciate the effort, but it falls a good deal short of greatness.
And, it's fucking brilliant. The extended version on the dvd is the only way to see this film. It's brimming with cinematic juiciness. It's an hour longer, but feels shorter. It's like they tried to turn a smorgasbord into a takeout combo, with that theatrical release. The cameos are hilarious (including the voice of Dylan, which most theatergoers missed as they vacated the theater). In a monumental performance, John C. Reilly poured out his brilliance, including playing guitar and singing his own songs. Tim Meadows, as Dewey's drummer, has some of the best lines of the film, and doesn't bungle. The standout performance is Justin Long, as George Harrison.
The special features are dripping with gems that are often funnier than the movie itself. If every movie's creative team had the same level of passion as this one, bad movies would be as rare as good ones.
And the soundtrack...another example of that curious cinematic beast wherein the soundtrack outshines the film. There was a special cd release called BOX OF COX, which i am mightily eager to get my hands on. Cash's style is of course lampooned, and so is Dylan's, the rock psychedelic era, disco, rap...like the music in SPINAL TAP, A MIGHTY WIND, THE RUTLES, and ISHTAR, the music has to be comedically derivative, yet subtly brilliant. You have to treat it dismissively, yet it also has to get under your skin. They delivered the goods. And if the movie doesn't quite scale the peaks that several of the aforementioned did, it sure as hell is a beautiful ride watching them try.
Go grab some Cox.