BUCKET LIST: A REVIEW

THE BUCKET LIST (2007)

This is an easy film to take for granted. That’s way so many reviewers have done just that. For me the most disagreeable thing about the movie is that I hate to see two remarkable actors getting into the senior citizen’s ranking. Nevertheless, the characters they play are also veterans of life, and both have developed terminal illnesses–barring miracles. Without debate, in films miracles can happen.

Directed by Rob Reiner, the film was professionally guided from beginning to end, and what more can you ask? This is another film I would describe as sentimental at heart. Written by Justin Zackham, the movie produces an ultimately heartwarming experience for the moviegoer, and if it went a bit boldly for “wet” from the audience, from my observation the effort was not without a measure of success. A director such as Reiner tends to get “hammered,” if movies he directs don’t consistently achieve exalted artistic levels. Who can please the dyspeptic?

I thought Morgan Freeman, particularly, put this film over. Sure, Jack helped, but when doesn’t he? There were good supporting actors. I thought Beverly Todd, Rowena King, and Sean Hayes deserved a nod of appreciation. Ms. Todd looks pretty good for a woman well beyond the “tiny-bopper” stage.

The storyline: An odd couple, both facing death from cancer, decide to “live a little” before the Grim Reaper does his thing. They make a list, check it out twice, eliminating things that aren’t quite right, and then they begin to do each item on their list of “to dos.” This list is what is known as a “bucket list”–things to do before you die (“kick the bucket”). Once they set forth on their adventures, the film becomes episodic and takes on the look of a travel-channel program, to a certain extent. They must deal with each other, as well as other people, family and business personalities, on the way to the Tavern at the End of the Road. Estrangements are healed. Relationships are sealed. Yet, there is a curious epilog to this film.

This film begins with a Morgan Freeman narration and concludes with a narration by him. He is good at it. Morgan Freeman is playing a character named “Carter Chambers,” who makes his living as an auto mechanic. Given the events in this film, it is odd that he is giving the initial narration and flat-out astonishing that he is giving the epilogic narration. Maybe the production team expects the moviegoer to forget crucial elements in the very story they themselves “rigged up.” Or maybe the moviegoer is to put his faith in an out-of-body experience. Are we to believe in a spiritual presence? A last page of a prescient letter? An audiotaped summation of what will be?

A caveat: Although this film is in the form of a family-oriented story, dealing with issues of aging and disease, there is an unmistakable male-bonding process here, including something akin to an elopement. Further, the final scene of the epilog produces with two cans of Chock-Full-Of Nuts coffee something of the same sentiment and symbology that was produced by the tee-shirts in the closet in Broke Back Mountain.

The Freeman character is a calm, cool, and collected man. He is on the deep side. There is a stoical element to him. Therefore, when “Edward Cole” is put in the same room with “Carter Chambers,” the odd couple formula is joined. By the end of the film each man has given to the other something of himself.”

This relationship was initially resisted by Carter’s wife, Virginia, who accuses Edward Cole of taking her husband away from her. However, love conquers all–in the end. The film presents some thin philosophical banter from time to time, as well as faith in the Almighty, on the one hand, and faith in the almighty dollar on the other. In the end it is neither specifically–only love and acceptance.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

MAD MONEY: A LONG REVIEW

MAD MONEY (2007)

This is a movie that defies the usual Hollywood film formula that ultimately ”crime doesn’t pay.” This is done with a lighthearted, whimsical style that seduces the moviegoer into being a sort of “armchair gangmember.” Hence, one may easily find oneself “rooting” for the misappropriating female troika. I really have turned over in my mind exactly how to describe their offense. I believe the law would dub it some form of unlawful expropriation of funds.

There is a persistent refrain in this film, “Prove it!” [This is a popular term employed by many powerful, and not so powerful, people.]

I thought that this film was sealed by the fine work of Diane Keaton as the wealthy housewife turned “criminal mastermind.” As the name Martha Stewart came up in this film–and such things aren’t accidental–the moviegoer can safely assume that this Keaton character was inspired to a certain extent by the Stewart personality, image, and frailty. Since there is a certain lack of confidence in their film’s audience, the director Khouri and screenwriter Gers take the time to point out their inspiration in no uncertain terms.

The support given by Queen Latifah and Katie Holmes was sufficiently good to allow Keaton to “run for daylight” and score. I found the filmtale enjoyable, even though neither morally nor ethically sound. That’s why it’s seductive. Not only does crime pay in this film but one is invited to enjoy the sin. The primary males were somewhere between credible and stereotypish. Ted Danson on occasion was very effective. Adam Rothenberg did a rather good job playing a Kansas “dude.” Some humor was undoubtedly intended to be derived from his vain and sometimes “goofy” ways. Further, he does seem to have “dumb luck.” He works in a beef-processing plant where “meatheads” are implied to have a natural home.

His wife, Jackie, is a lively sort. She is no shrinking violet. Her brainpower probably won’t intimidate her hubby. Katie Holmes as “Jackie” uncorks some odd facial expressions, which don’t suggest an accomplished actress. Still, she can “move it, move it, move it.”

On the otherhand Latifah’s Nina is a “decent, single-mother” trying to act as responsibly as she can. Yet, this character “set-up” seems to be rapidly overtaken by Nina’s resort to a  ”wild gamble” whose merit isn’t one that clearly justifies her doing so. Is the education of her sons in an elite school a justification for jeopardizing her life and that of her children? And the same can be said of the security guard who becomes her boyfriend. Given his personality and responsibilities to his mother, is the risk justified? I don’t think so. Still, the movie couldn’t have been made if viewers weren’t willing to suspend rational analysis. Sometimes people just go crazy and do crazy things. That is the filmmakers’ explanation, no doubt. Most people will accept it.

Furthermore, The filmmakers have Bridget at the outset state her theory that “criminal acts are contagious.” One person commits a crime. Soon, people nearby are also committing crimes. It isn’t too long after that an epidemic of crime is noted, and politicians and journalists are inveighing against the “causes of crime” (usually poverty, poor education, broken homes, lack of discipline, etc.). This seems to be “keyed” upon by the filmmakers as “motivation.”

The storyline: Successful couple find themselves separated from their successful ways. As debt piles up, the wife (Keaton) decides that she must get a job. It’s not so easy. Hubby (Danson), too, is about to join the “discouraged drop-outs among the unemployed.” A former maid-service worker at her house gives the wife a tip where she might get a job as a cleaning service person. It turns out to be the Federal Reserve Bank facility in Kansas City. There, she is employed. She notes that there is a lot of money being destroyed (too old and worn). What a waste! She begins to plot. She needed confederates. She begins to scan the other workers for potential allies in “recycling the old money.” Her view seems to be humane: Don’t burn money; spend it! She spots a “flakey” moneycart pusher (Katie Holmes) who seemed to have the right “moves”. Then she spots Queen Latifah at the money-burning station. There’s a likely lass, she thinks. Diane Keaton as “Bridget Cardigan” proves to be tenacious in pursuing her future gangmembers. The issues are answered and the team gets on board. Crime, as with business, works best when there is a plan of operation, and Bridget has planned well. Things go swimmingly. Loot piles up. Hubby and boyfriend get on board. After all, it isn’t stealing; it’s recycling. There is a moment of danger when a security guard at the “Fed” (Roger R. Cross) confronts the Queen. He is “soft” on her, and she flipflops him into a boyfriend and gangmember. Things continue along very well. The gang had promised to abide by the rule not to spend the money ostentaciously. Bridget’s hubby, Don, advises them that if they had some nominal, or even fictional, jobs that would provide an alibi, then they could spend some of the loot. Jobs were assigned, and soon the loot was, indeed, being recycled. Yet, mistakes are made and bank examiners, et al, begin to investigate. Bridget’s clever and has an unforeseen ally in the head of security at the Federal Reserve Bank. She also has a neighborhood friend who is a tax attorney and who understands how useful untraceable cash can be to a “legal eagle.” Well, once again we perceive the truth of Mr. Robert Burns: “The best-laid plans of mice and men oft go aglay…” The Bridget gang has to settle with the I.R.S. and government prosecuters in such a way that they will face no charges but will lose all the money they “squirrelled away.” Dang! Things were so right! Now its “tap city” again. All the goodies and toys were gone. What a sad waste. The moviegoer may prefer that the gang not revert to dire need. If that is the case, the end of this film will provide some reassurance.

The moviegoer watches as Bob Truman (Rothenberg) and his wife, Jackie (Holmes), move on up from a glorified can of a mobile home to the latest RV. Bob also buys a new, custom-built, motorcycle. Parenthetically, one might note that last name.

At one point, prior to the jobs agreement and spending relaxation, Bridget had bought a $60,000 diamond ring, which Queen Latifah’s “Nina” had flushed down a toilet. Bridget almost had “withdrawal” symptoms. Now, she could spend some of that loot! Her status as a wealthy person restored, she could return to the party-throwing and entertainment she relished. But who was that strange man at her backyard party?

Hubby Don was deemed to be so successful as a fictitious ”business consultant” that he was offered a position as head of a corporation.

Nina Brewster (Latifah) was able to send her two sons to private academies and do a bit of philanthropy, as well.

For the merry moneychangers things seemed to be going well. At times both Don and Nina had suggested that they stop now and walk away with plenty of undetected loot. Bridget wanted to continue and won the argument (helped by the piles of money).

Still, the Federal Reserve Bank had a security system that had been patterned off the procedures used in the maximum security prisons operated by the Bureau of Prisons. Its head was always at the monitors–a veritable “all-seeing eye” incarnate. There were cameras everywhere. Yet, as the object of the scam operated by the Bridget gang was aimed at money intended to be burned anyway, there was no evidence of theft, unless they themselves were found with concealed money on their person. And, as a matter of fact that was brought out in the film, “strip” searches were randomly executed. Therefore, when the security guard at the Fed joined, he could provide reassuring information. Relieved of this concern, no one saw a compelling reason to quit.

Incidentally, not only did the security guard have a “crush” on Nina, he apparently had a mother in need of medical care. So, he was doubly inclined to get involved. He could use the money.

One of the points made in this film is the underpaying of ordinary people. This was amply demonstrated by the character “Selina” (Sylvia Castro Galan), who wanted her earned money from Bridget. Of course, Bridget didn’t have it. When people don’t have any money, they are in a weak position relative to the few that have “gobs” of money. Therefore, this film tries to imply a sort of “Robin Hood” merit to the Bridget gang. Yes, they take from the rich bank, but they do good and they enjoy. Further, the money circulates around stimulating the economy.

 This whole process is contrary to the Establishment’s formula of impoverished wage-slavery for the many and excessive wealth for themselves.  They are smart and will use the money well. Its benefits will “trickle down” to the near-starving masses. This is the way God and Nature intended: the Fittest prevail.

This movie should not be perceived as “heavy.” It is a comedy. Still, there are implications that pierce the veil of humor.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

CLOVERFIELD: A REVIEW

CLOVERFIELD (2008_

This is a difficult film to watch. Much of it is related as cinema verite. The moviegoer “sees” much of this documentary-like film through the camera work of a novice digital video-maker. This allows the production team to execute a reasonably effective touch of irony. Unfortunately, there are few scenes that aren’t confusing, topsy-turvy video experiences. This does not mean that the camerawork annihilated the storyline, but it acted as a distraction. The accompanying audio lost much of its clarifying potential, due to the style of this film, whose amateurish videotaping wasn’t limited to visual deficiencies.

The production team and actors are not well-known in the U.S.A. The director is a Mr. Matt Reeves. The story was written by a Mr. ( or Ms.) Drew Goddard. J.J. Abrams was the primary name associated with the film production. This film effort has more than a little kinship to ’50s sci-fis, and seems to borrow a little from “The War Of The Worlds,” “Starship Troopers,” and “Alien,” as well as other films and documented events, such as the “dust tsunami” that flooded down the streets of Manhattan after September 11, 2001, destruction of the World Trade Center’s twin towers.

The film stars: Michael Stahl-Davis (“Robert Hawkins”), Odette Yustman (“Elizabeth ‘Beth’ McIntyre”), Mike Vogel (“Jason Hawkins”), Lizzy Caplan (“Marlena”), Jessica Lucas (“Lily”), and T.J. Miller  (“Hud”), and a cast of many. This crew could not be characterized as “stellar actors.”

The film begins curiously and perhaps this was inevitable. There are camera shots (reasonably photographed) of some events transpiring in space. There are shots of spaceships, space stations, and the like, while audio informs the moviegoer that “The Eagle has landed” or “That’s one small step for man, one giant step for humankind.” Then there are glimpses of a cartoonlike “pink robot” and “DOD” and “Department of Defense” indicators, which soon include the data that there is a  ”Cloverfield project” and a “Central Park site.”

This none-too-clear opening at least suggests that this film will involve space travel and the Pentagon planners. [In fact at one point in the film the Robert Hawkins character suggests that the Pentagon may have created the villainous things running amok.] However, the film promptly cuts to an amateurish videotaping session executed by the Robert Hawkins character and involves his new girlfriend, Beth. This serves to initiate the documentary in its amateurish cinema verite style.

The storyline:  a young man (“Robert Hawkins”), who is at the start of a romance with a girl (“Beth”) he likes, finds himself pulled in another direction, as he is promoted to vice president in his company and will be immediately transfered to Tokyo, Japan. This is something he had wanted, prior to his sleeping with Beth. Equivocal feelings strife within him. His brother (“Jason”) and friends have planned a “going away/congratulations” type party that evening. This very mundane situation takes a harrowing and horrifying turn, when the “party” is “busted” by unwanted invaders. Suddenly, issues of the first rank must be dealt with in a chaotic environment. Cool heads are needed. And maybe a fast plane.

Elaborating on this film, Robert Hawkins apparently takes his girl friend to Coney Island for a last “fun thing” together before he has to go, and this event is filmed. This would serve as a partial “fill in” of some elements of the story, later in the film. The moviegoer isn’t aware of the trip except by reference to its documentation on a videotape. This documentation is later at the party overwritten by a subsequent documentary under the camerawork of Robert’s pal, Hud. The viewer is aware of it by frames between stops and starts in the later videotaping. Further, Robert’s brother, Jason and his girlfriend, Lily, are introduced. The viewers see them playing a bit. Soon (that evening), they are all at the most boring party ever shown on the “big screen.” It is, itself, arguably a masterly put-down of such merry events. The film allocates quite a lot of time to this party, where everyone that had any import in the film was introduced, as well as a large number of “cocktail glass” holders. This whole tedious business was barely endurable. However, some of the actors find themselves on a balcony, or some such, when suddenly, “hellzapoppin.” Confused and anxious, they begin to make their way to “safety” in Brooklyn. Suddenly, there are explosions and the head of the Statue of Liberty comes hurling toward them and squashes some luckless BigAppleites. The military has arrived and there are firefights with–with–something big and ghastly-looking. The Brooklyn Bridge goes down in a neat special effect with much loss of life, including an important member of the cast. By chance Robert discovers a message on his phone from his girlfriend. She’s trapped in her highrise and bleeding badly from a wound. Robert and his remnant, including Hud the documentary-making pal, head to the girlfriend’s abode to save her. Meanwhile, the somewhat mysterious villain is “shedding” little monsters like dandruff. One military man confides that the “enemy is winning.” Manhattan may be “nuked” as a last resort. Robert will not forsake his true love and tells the military to shoot him in the back, if they want, but he was going to save his girl. Of his crew, only Hud, Lily, and Marlena are left to struggle on, the remainer being dead or having vacated via helicopters during an earlier rescue. Although it is often chaotic for the moviegoer to watch, the little group, nevertheless, are seen to arrive at the highrise where the trapped Beth resides. Marlena has been bitten by a baby-bug villain. Not good! Beth is found and rescued, after removing a rod that has impaled her.  The whole business ends with the remnant gang getting rather spiritual. It’s a case of “love in the ruins.” Well, bury my heart in mid-town Manhattan! The film concludes with a neat bit of irony.

There were some curious-looking villains in this flick. I’m at a loss to describe the “big Moma” (or Dad?) as other than a combination of preying mantis, reptile and bat, about the size of Godzilla. The “young’uns” looked somewhat like a cross between leggy crabs and toothy armadillos. Folks, don’t even try to reason with them.

This film had few intended points of humor that worked well. One that I liked involved the character Hud, responding to the advice of Robert Hawkins. He said, as if to capsule the options friend Robert was offering the remnant, “You’re saying that if we stay here, we die. If we go there, we die. And if we go outside, we die?”

One is reminded of the folk wisdom: Life’s a bitch–then you die.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

ONE MISSED CALL: A REVIEW

ONE MISSED CALL (2007)

This is a film the production of which seems to be a combination of Japanese and American talent. The story itself is based on a Japanese work [Chakushin ari, by Takashi Miike]. It was directed by a Mr. Eric Valette. I thought he did a rather good job. As a matter of fact, although this is a “B” grade, formula flick [about $30 million], it is a very commendable film in many respect. Firstly, Director Valette keeps the film fairly tight. It has a compact quality, and yet there is a microcosmic density totally at one with the Japanese reflection upon the “universe within.” There is an intellectually tantalizing juxtaposition between this “inward universe” and the film’s play upon the Western, especially Christian, “outward or otherward universe,” which apparently drives the story.

Further, the use of sound effects is very good. People, I get into films! I admit it. I’m sort of an “empath” –straight out of Star Trek. The use of sound effects at times got the hair on my neck “tingling,” however briefly. This is GOOD. I have seen many, many spooky flicks in my day, and my reactions are deadened a bit. However, if this film got to me at times, I’m confident it will get to others.

Nevertheless, don’t go to this film expecting to see boatloads of gore. That doesn’t happen. It isn’t a “slasher” flick. It is after the chilling genre that includes the very good movie, The Haunting [original television version]. For that reason alone–the lack of blood & gorey horror, there will be more than a few people who will be disappointed.

Furthermore, the lighting in this film is very good. There are many night scenes that are very satisfactorily rendered. However, most points of the day appear in this film and are well done. Complementing the lighting is the use of natural sets and patterns of travelling on the screen, so that interesting camera angles are frequently exhibited (Glen MacPherson, cinematographer) and add greatly to the interest, although for most moviegoers, this is unobtrusive and, thus, not really noticed. It should be noted. The editing (Steve Mirkovich) and transitions are intelligently executed and sometimes interesting. The structure of this film is very praiseworthy, especially considering its relatively modest budget, as one would not expect to see such skill. Assuming a young production team, I, therefore, expect to see them contribute strongly to a variety of films yet unconceived.

Having said this much, the moviegoer will notice many “stock & trade” aspects of this film. The use of clock faces on walls, the slightly drawn-out stare at a door at the end of a hall, phantom-like appearances of blurry, enigmatic figures, and the like. There is the ominously burned-out, hospital building. Females abound on the “plank that must be walked.” Well, films of this kind automatically have a large number of dispensable characters who fall by the wayside during the filmtime, as the story narrows down to a precious few–typically the stars.

Perhaps the touch that sort of overwears is the repetition of the portentous music. In this case that music is a cell phone “jingle.”

One aspect that is rather surprising is the exorcism scene. Why? Well, the texture of the film is noticeably different. If one reflects briefly on the recent film, I Am Legend, the film begins with a grainy tv film interview, which is distinct from the film-look of the main tale. Also, the grainy film-look at the opening documentary part of Hitman can be cited, being distinct from the main part of the tale. My understanding of this American production is that it included pieces of film from the Japanese original. For this reason the “exorcism” seemed, from the point of view of appearance, to have more in common with ”B” grade renderings of Haitian Voodoo ceremonies than any known Christian one.  

Speaking of which, the scene of the exorcism seems to suggest that demonic forces had “seized” control of the figure of Jesus upon the cross and other Christian images, usually associated with the Roman Catholic Church, as well as Orthodox Russian & Greek Christian denominations. However I considered the matter, I came around to the view that it was a bit cheeky, putting aside the validity of graven images for the moment and focusing on probable intent of the film’s writer(s). On the other hand, if they had to borrow the footage, they had to take what was there and try to make it work. It is an imperfection in the film in most every respect save one: a zany sort of humorous addition. But does that even fit with the rest of the film? In a strained sort of way, perhaps. Why?

This film at it lofty essential is the well-known tale of the battle between the moral plane and the wicked plane: In short, spiritual good and spiritual evil. On the complementary lower baseline, it is the story of wholesome psychology vs. aberrant psychology. Both spiritual good and wholesome psychology are as rare as “hen’s teeth” in this film. On the battlefield Earth, according to the exorcists, evil spirit energy operates through the same media as light and electricity. No wonder cell phones are the devil’s workshop!

As a matter of fact, most of the young women encountered in this film and at least one young man, “Ted Sumners” (Ray Wise) attend a class being taught by a “Julie Cohn” on psychologically damaged children (abused). Others are nurses at an institution (St. Luke’s Hospital) that at least in part deal with the mentally disturbed. Further, it appears that at least a few of these women were themselves abused childeren.

“What goes around, comes around,” folks, Dig it!

Storyline: There is a hospital fire that kills five people and terrorizes the others, including a little girl, Leann Cole (Azura Skye), who proves to have a quiet but portentous influence on events. Well, quiet isn’t quite right: She Says Nothing. No one knows where Leann’s mother is. From this fiery beginning the film cuts to a very attractve young woman, who is lounging about her Amer-Asian style, digs’ back deck–not far from the small pool stocked with 2 pound guppies. Shrubs and large rocks complete the charming layout. The lass is attempting to do some things, which we, the moviegoers, know must be consequential, such as: What shall I wear tonight? Do I really understand Ms. Cohn’s point in yesterday’s lesson? and so forth. She has a cell phone. There’s something odd going on. There is her cat on the far side of the pond. What’s that cat up to? The lass goes over. She seems to be seeing strange things. She notices that her guppies are acting rather skittish. Getting down to her knees and leaning forward on her hands, her decollete discreetly adequate, her cat now observing from a pondside rock, when suddenly a hand comes out of the murky pool, grabs her by the throat, and yanks her entirely (and rapidly) into the depths [Who could have guessed it was so deep?] and, hardly had the moviegoer taken this in, when the hand comes forth and yanks the cat, too. With this preamble, the director has gotten the attention of the viewers. From this point forward we rapidly encounter the rest of the films “disposables” at a party for students. We meet “Beth” (Shannyn Sossamon), the heroine, and “Taylor Anthony” (Ana Claudio Talancon), whose good-looking and makes it to the exorcism. There is talk of the fallen friend (found drowned), and there is talk of the strange phone call and weird behavior, involving close friends. There are also allusions to stock college talk on psychology and motivations. This tends to draw us quickly into the films initial pose of being scientific, material and practical. Yet, as friend after friend bit the dust after “that strange phone call” and weird “happenings,” even the most “today” college student finds his confidence in real-world explanations shaken. Further, there is a hastening perception that: I may be next! Introduced fairly early in the film’s serial “mystery deaths” is Jack Andrews (Edward Burns), who plays a detective whose sister has met a weird death recently, which ties in with the students. He notices red sphere of hard candy in sis’s mouth. Clue? Inevitably, Jack and Beth are drawn together, especially as the numbers dwindled. As they try to get to the bottom of all this, the old St. Luke’s Hospital fire becomes the focus. They learn that Leann’s mother, Marie, never left the hospital. Jack discovers new evidence on a disk hidden in a stuffed animal, known as a “nanny camera.” Shocking revelations of abuse. For Beth and Jack the pieces are falling into place. Yet, time is short, because Beth has finally gotten the phone call (from a dead person!). Parenthetically, throughout the serial “wack-attacks,” there have been beaucoup sightings of outre creatures, creepy things, and blurry –aah–aah–THINGS! Further, nothing seems to stop the cell phone “jingle” ring. Crush it, stomp it, drown it, no one seems to know how to stop it. Finally, there seems to be no hope. Beth is alone and in harm’s way from something not altogether living (as we understand the word) nor material. She desperately needs a “good fairy”? Well, folks, hold onto your seats! The film ends with a fade to black, but there is an ominous audio.

There may be a sequel, especially if this one gets a good profit on the $30 million.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.

WALK HARD: A REVIEW

WALK HARD THE DEWEY COX STORY (2007)

This is a rather heavy-handed satire. It’s directed by a Mr. Jake Kasdan. Those moviegoers who can remember SPINAL TAP  will have some idea of where this flick fits in the film scheme of things.

There was a rock-n-roll song that came out in the ’70s, as I recall, that contained the lyrics: “drugs and sex and rock-n-roll.” It was the heart of the song–a sort of mantra. These words also form the essential ingredients that are present almost from beginning to end. Further, there is a progression from what might be dubbed “infancy” to “senior citizen” in each category of essentials.

Therefore, the moviegoer witnesses what might be thought of in retrospect as innocent naughtiness progress to nakedness and simulated sex later in the film. In regard to drugs the progression moves from alcohol to marijuana to touch base with most of the drugs that surfaced and became widely used in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s. Lastly, the music followed from the initial pop to blues to rockabilly to various experiments in rock-n-roll, while touching on disco, Motown, Folk, Punk, and on and on and on.

All this being so, the film takes on a sort of historical dimension–at least within this slice of American culture.

I thought that John C. Reilly did a good job. At times he seemed inspired. Whether or not he actually sang his songs or lipped-sync, I can’t say. I’d bet my money on lip-sync, although, here and there, he may have actually sung. That he did a good job is quite important because he dominates this film from beginning to end. He has a lot of supporting actors/actresses. Among these are: Jenna Fischer (“Darlene Madison”), Raymond J. Barry (“Pa Cox”), Kristen Wiig (“Edith”), Margo Martindale (“Ma Cox”). Most of these were tolerable to effective supports.

Does that make this film at least a pretty good movie? Please recall my initial words: “heavyhanded.” Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn’t. This is to be expected in a film where almost everyone and everything in this facet of America is targeted. Launching a fusillade of satiric harpoons will certainly hit the mark on occasion. Hence, I sometimes laughed, and at other times felt ill at ease at what I was witnessing. To witness frontal nudity in movies is not my thing [nudist colonies need not send me an invitation]. Once relegated to seedy, pornographic flickshops, nudity is now viewed regularly in films. For many it is a gauge of their maturity and sophistication. Others, pointing to classic statuary, make pretense to High Art in regard to such scenes, regarding each figure with a detached, discriminating air. Mr. Kasdan may be one of these, as he directs the camera to linger a bit long on such shots.

John C. Reilly plays a man named “Dewford Randolph Cox.” This is the legendary figure [based on a "true" story!!!] named “Dewey Cox.” He was born about 1938 in Springberry, Alabama, and died 2007, according to the movie. At one point there is a cut to 1953, where the moviegoer sees John C. Reilly for the first time as Dewey Cox and is informed that he is 15 years old! One look at him and one knew immediately that a farfetched “biography” was just around the corner. There is a 12 year old woman [Kristen Wiig, who looks to be in her 30s] who is a cousin, as I recall, who promptly marries Dewey. This whole business points to Jerry Lee Lewis (“The Killer”), who married his 14 year-old cousin in the ’50s in Memphis, Tennessee.

Indeed, this film is built upon picardesque vignettes which touch on incidents involving well-known musicians/singers.

Storyline: An Alabama family in the ’40s experience a tragedy when one son cuts the other in half with their father’s machete. The death of the talented son (Nathan) was a bitter blow to the father, who expected great things from this boy. He focused his bitterness on the other son, Dewey, stating: “The wrong son died.” The gifted Nathan had sworn his brother Dewey to do great things for the both of them. By chance Dewey learned to play the guitar from a couple of Black men (David “Honeyboy” Edwards, singer/guitarist) singing Blues in a general store. The lad was talented. Later, he was to “wow” the locals at a talent contest hosted by Springberry. However, not everyone was happy and fights broke out. The community was divided by Dewey’s music, and his dad threw him out of the house. He took his 12-year -old wife with him and found a job cleaning up at a Black “erotic dancing” club, where he learned all the songs & music being played by the featured club singer & band. Naturally, this led to his “big break.” Accepted by the discriminating Black audience, Dewey was noticed by three Hasidic Jews who were scouting talent for a music company. They arranged for Dewey to get his first studio try-out. Meanwhile, he had just composed his first original song, while experiencing domestic discord as the multi-babybearing wife belabored him in regard to getting a good job and helping with the babies. At the studio he was failing until, just as a favor to the three Jews [Wise Men?],  he was given another 15 seconds to sing. He sang his new composition: “Walk Hard.” Smasho! He song was instantly out and went to the top. From this point forward the movie follows Dewey’s ups & downs over four decades of evolving music and singing styles. The film ends with Dewey’s first stage appearance in 25 years to sing a new song he had written. The song blew away the audience, and shortly thereafter Dewey dies of a heart attack (apparently).

Some movie “highlights” are: fights between Christians and rock-n-rollers at a talent show; the Jewish approval of and aid to the rock-n-roll development; the various styles of Black music–blues to rap; various satirized “big names” in rock-n-roll, such as Big Bopper, Buddy Holly, Elvis, The Temptations, The Beatles, Bob Dylan; antics of rock-n-roll singers/bands in hotels, etc.; birth of drug-addicted baby sired by Dewey’s pal & drummer from Alabama; various stage performances by Dewey, including a tv program; a celebrity tv interview; a trip to India to visit a guru; and the celebrity come-back. Some “spiritism”  or “visions” introduced also, as influential on Dewey.

The character of Dewey Cox, himself, seems to be a clearly satiric rendering of Johnny Cash. Those who saw the biographical movie, Walk The Line, will be completely familiar with the general, familial situation and evolution of this spoof. This includes the women in the life of Dewey. There is a June Carter Cash surrogate also. Still, there are a wide-ranging set of characters and vignettes, that go beyond the Johnny Cash line.

This film may have something for everyone, yet, it may not be a movie for everyone. As with the audience in the talent show at the early parts of this film, there may well be a marked cleavage of opinions about it.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008

ALIENS VS PREDATOR–REQUIEM: A REVIEW

ALIEN VS PREDATOR REQUIEM (2007)

This film was directed by The Brothers Strause (Colin & Greg). It isn’t a very good movie, but the moviegoer’s attention seems to become more focused toward the end, where the action picks up. As contemporary films go, this movie is relatively tame. There is a “pretty young thing” (Jesse, played by Kristen Hager) who strips to a bikiniesque attire at one point. That is IT in regard to playing the sex card. There are a few scenes of a gorey sort, which won’t shock anyone who has seen an ALIEN flick or a PREDATOR flick before.

The movie is a “B” grade type. It seems to be a throwback to the ’50s science fiction movies (some of which had characteristics which immortalized them, such as INVASION OF THE THE BODY SNATCHERS). Since some Japanese filmmakers were inspired, apparently, by those American Bs, the moviegoer, not surprisingly, also notes a kinship in AVPR with such curious Japanese films as GODZILLA VS MOTHRA and KING KONG VS GODZILLA( English titles). As a matter of fact, the film credits at the end of this film are a resounding homage to those ’50s sci-fi flicks.

Hence, although the film wasn’t too impressive, per se, there were enjoyable aspects, which for older moviegoers and “old film nuts” provided a pleasant recognition and remembrance.

The film stars: Steven Pasquale (“Dallas”), Reiko Aylesworth (“Kelly”), John Ortiz (“Morales”), John Lewis (“Ricky”), Ariel Gade (“Molly”), Robert Joy (“Col. Stevens”), and a cast of many. I’m not familiar with any of them, but I don’t get around like I used to. Maybe they are famous.

The storyline: Two varieties of creatures from outer space are lurking in the vicinity of Earth, and clearly, one of them has the upper hand over the other. As a matter of fact the dominant creature(s) seems to be treating the other as both prisoners and “guinea pigs,” and the victims don’t like it one bit. You could say these two sets of creatures hate one another. As fate decreed, the oppressed were able to break free momentarily, and a battle on board the orbiting spacecraft results in a crash landing on Earth. It appears the oppressor creatures(Predators) all died, leaving the remnant of the other (Aliens) free to “lick their wounds.” However, the Predator civilization in outer space is aware that something went “bad wrong.” A Predator puts on his mask, loads up on Predator firepower & ammo, gets into a small space vehicle and heads to Earth. This appears to be a mission of revenge, and the moviegoer infers that there will be no prisoners. Meanwhile, an adult Earthling and son are in the woods of Colorado, hunting deer. Guess who the first dispensable actors in the film will be? Yet, hardly had the Aliens (who seem to be both nasty and fecund) done their thing, then here comes the Predator (traveling solo) to “rain on their parade.”  Incidentally, it rains a lot in this locale. The primary issue to speculate about is whether this Predator has brought along enough ammo to kill the rapidly increasing Alien population. He does stop by the wreakage to check on the now deceased Predator, noted at the outset, finding also the deceased Predator’s weapons & ammo to add to his own. After this, it is a run-and-gun tussle between Predator pursuer and multiplying Aliens in and about “Gunnison County, CO.” Meanwhile, the wife of the deer hunter & son is concerned and goes to the law in these parts, Morales. He organizes a search party. About this time “local hood,” Dallas shows up. He is an old pal of Morales, prior to Morales’ going “tin horn.” Morales offers to help him get a job. By means of a camera cut, the moviegoer is introduced to Dallas’ bro, Ricky, who is a deliverer for “Pizza One.” By means of him Jesse and her clique are introduced. It’s beginning to look a lot like a “teen flick” at this point, and the viewer half expects “Jason” or “Michael” to jump out. Or perhaps a cut to the highschool. No, this serves up the film’s initial brewing romance, as it is clear that Jesse has eyes for Ricky. Verbal potshots between Ricky and the clique’s males leads to a “stomping of Ricky” whose car keys are tossed in a sewer grate. Another camera cut introduces U.S. Army soldier Kelly who is coming home either because duty is done or R&R. At any rate she has a husband (good Dad, bad fate) and daughter waiting in a nice home. As the realization of external troubles due to horrendous creatures from who-knows-where attacking any human they encounter, the people are drawn together, dropping their minor issues. Calls by Morales to the military results in a Col. Stevens reassuring them. He advises them to head for the center of town and await rescue. This piece of advice is questioned by Kelly, and there is an admirably cordial separation of the remnant into two groups. The Morales-led group go to the appointed rendezvous spot, while Kelly, driving an armored personnel vehicle, leads her group, including Dallas & Ricky, to the hospital where they hope to find escape via a helicopter. At this point in time there is a battle royal going on between the Predator and the Aliens, and many humans still about are also falling prey. Meanwhile, it is apparent the gloomy Col. Stevens has sent a jet fighter-bomber toward Gunnison County’s main town, Crested Butte. As luck would have it, the Predator finally has used all his ammo and hightech weapons but must face a formidable Alien still. Folks, it’s ugly mouth time. Those who were led by Kelly, indeed, found a helicopter. Those who were led by Morales “waited for Godot” and never felt a thing. Col. Stevens has sent the Morales group to “ground zero.” The jet is carrying at least two nuclear weapons, and the bomb bay-doors open. That’s correct. At last in film the military gets to nuke the enemy (the “contaminated” part of Colorado). There’s the mushroom cloud! There is the shock wave! And there’s Kelly! She is “riding the wave” just ahead of disaster. Well, this is the sort of thing that might just bond an Army-tough, single mom and the reformed town hood. But in outer space, nuking kinfolk might not sit well.

I didn’t think that Reiko Aylesworth (Kelly) showed much acting ability but is definitely better as an action actor. John Ortiz was not impressive either. Steven Pasquale was adequate as an “intense” character. Kristen Hager was cute but, since everyone she interacted with was pedestrian, she tended to “reduce to the mean.” Perhaps the best actor in the film was the father who was killed off near the film opening.

Parenthetically, I thought that the Predator was presented as a smarter creature than the Aliens. However, although the Aliens bear a resemblance to Earth reptiles, blended with wet-looking armadillas, neither of which are notably inteligent, these creatures must come from a civilization that is at least crafty hitchhikers. Still, they are treated as little better than dangerous vermin by the Predator, who definitely comes from a hightech civilization. So, why does he skin humans? I don’t know. Why do some humans skin a chicken  before cooking and eating it? It’s a matter of taste, I suppose. One way or another, both Aliens and Predators seem to have humans on the menu.

The end of the film’s ugly-mouth, to-the-death tussle between Predator and Alien somewhat reminded of the dragon tussle at the end of DREAMCATCHER. The associations one connects to in viewing this film are more interesting than the film itself.

All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2007.