Movie Review: Stalag 17

Tania Says:

I wasn’t exactly jazzed about watching this war movie set in a German Prison camp during WW II. The description said it was about the American prisoners trying to escape – it all sounded a little too Hogan’s Heroes to me which is a show I have never found very funny. However, Hogan’s Heroes was not based on this movie – there was a lawsuit and everything. Anyway, that coupled with the fact that I am not a fan of war movies made this movie sound really unappealing.

Once we started watching it though I realized it isn’t really a “war movie” because there really aren’t any battle scenes and the movie is actually a lot lighter then it seemed it would be with the subject matter it was tackling. Anyway, I actually kind of liked it!

The movie is about American prisoners in a German Prison camp – but it looks like the happiest prison camp I have ever seen. But of course, they still want to escape and all their escape plans and fun times seem to be foiled by some mole in there camp who is giving the German guards info. The movie then is pretty much about trying to find the stoolie. The cool part is that they really keep you guessing and by the time they get to the reveal of the insider it was a surprise to me because I was clueless as to who it was. Then the stoolie gets his comeuppance and that is the end of the movie! It’s a fun movie with little bits of seriousness thrown in. I read somewhere that people where offended that a movie was made about WW II that was a comedy but I think that is sometimes a necessity – see MASH. This movie reminded me of MASH in way just because they were making a comedy out of a sensitive subject but I enjoyed it more then MASH because the guys weren’t as mean. Some of the comedy in Stalag 17 isn’t that funny and there are some annoying guys in it who are meant to be comic relief but aren’t. Overall though, I am glad I watched it because it really is not a movie I ever would have rented but I am glad I saw it!


Josh Says:

This is one of the few movies that I’ve watched since the movie The Usual Suspects (I AM NOT SAYING I ENJOYED THIS AS MUCH OR IN THE SAME WAY AS THE USUAL SUSPECTS) which had me completely clueless as to who the villain was an genuinely surprised at the end. Unlike The Usual Suspects, however, they are able to do this by essentially keeping the villain out of the main story line, thus exonerating him of all suspicion, which in my opinion is cheating.

I could have done without some of the campier humor such as that bearded guy’s entire part, but understanding that this was a result of the period in which it was made I was able, for the most part, to get past it and ended up really enjoying the story.

There are some interesting tidbits about this movie that illustrate how much power the studios in Hollywood used to have back in the “Golden Age”. For instance, this was by a long shot Billy Wilder’s most successful film, however he made very little money. The reason for this was because the studio informed him that he has lost money on his previous film and the losses would be deducted out of his share in this film. A great little racket the studios had whereby they could enter a project with virtually no risk at all.

Another interesting tidbit is that William Holden, who would end up winning the Academy Award for Best Actor for this film, actually refused the role (as did Charlton Heston previous to that) but the studio forced him to play the part. Though this obviously turned out well in his favor, it really shows that even twenty years in, SAG had a long way to go in terms of providing it’s members with protection against the powerful studios.

Movie Review: Shadow of a Doubt

Tania Says:
Believe it or not, I have never seen a complete Hitchcock movie. I have seen parts of them or bits and pieces but I have never watched one from beginning to end. So – this was my first. It’s very sad that I haven’t seen a Hitchcock film before but I am excited that I get to see a bunch now that are all on the list! And I am glad that Shadow of a Doubt was first because I really liked it and it made me excited for more.

If you haven’t seen Shadow of a Doubt, it is about a small town family who are living a small town life. Charlie, the family’s teenage daughter, is especially bored with the small town life and hopes things change for the family when her exciting Uncle Charlie comes to visit. When Uncle Charlie arrives everyone is so excited and things are going great and then young Charlie starts to figure out that her Uncle may not be all that great and in fact could be a serial killer. The movie does a great job of walking that line of “is he or isn’t he?” and you can feel the suspense as Charlie looks for more and more clues. This is what I always imagined a Hitchcock movie would be – suspenseful, a little creepy and intriguing. I thought this movie hit all those notes. It is an earlier Hitchcock film so some of the dialogue is clunky for sure, and the name Charlie is spoken a little too much (170 times!!!!) and some of the scene transitions or editing is choppy and a little incoherent but overall it is a really good movie.

Theresa Wright plays young Charlie and I think she does a great job. She’s charming and spunky in the beginning and plays the transition from being Uncle Charlie’s biggest fan to his not biggest fan really well. Joseph Cotton plays Uncle Charlie and also does a great job on that same fine line of “is he or isn’t he?” I think he is sufficiently creepy. Also in the film is a very young Macdonald Carrey who is known to me forever as Dr Tom Horton on Days of Our Live.

I think this was a great movie to initiate me into the world of Hitchcock and I am excited to see more.

Josh Says:

******Please note that Tania used the name Charlie 9 times in her review above.*********

I was really excited for this one. I've seen quite a few Hitchcock movies and remember looking forward to watching reruns of the old Alfred Hitchcock presents series as a kid with my parents. That this is widely documented as his personal favorite and one that I hadn't seen had me going into it with some pretty high expectations.

To say I was disappointed would probably be an overstatement. I liked this movie. I just didn't love it the same way as I do Rear Window, M for Murder, Psycho, The Birds or even the Revenge episode of Hitchcock Presents.

As with any good Hitchcock work (and it is good, please don't get me wrong), it's all about the story and much less about anything else. Like any of his other works, you are tightly riveted to the story and constantly trying to get one step ahead of him, anticipating the great reveal, second guessing yourself all along the way only to find out that............ok, no spoilers.

James Cotton was really good and most definitely creepy enough for the part, Theresa Wright does a pretty good job as the young girl with the bright fairy tale view of the world. The most under-rated performance has to be that of Patricia Collinge as the mother. She's just perfectly oblivious and obedient in that way that I always picture the Moms of the 40's and 50's but assumed they never talked about, at least not in the negative light that I thought she was portrayed here.

I would definitely recommend this to anyone who is a fan of Hitchcock (who isn't) but if I had it to do over again, I'd go into it without the knowledge that it was his favorite film as the expectations that brought were bound to go unfulfilled.

Movie Review: Amadeus

Tania Says:
I can’t believe I have never seen this movie. I love this movie! Seriously, I am all of a sudden obsessed with this movie. How could I have never seen it?

For those of you who are weird like me and missed this movie for 20 years – go rent it and watch it and make your life a little better by having watched it. It is about the supposed rivalry between Mozart and Salieri ( also a composer) – well really, the rivalry is all on Salieri’s side but he spends the whole film being jealous of and trying to sabotage Mozart. F Murray Abraham and Tom Hulce play Salieri and Mozart respectively and both of them are perfectly brilliant. What happened to both of them? And what happened to the chick who plays Mozart’s wife? She is awesome and I looked her up on IMDB and now she is guesting on Grounded for Life. Anyway – back to the stars – Tom Hulce plays Mozart as a spoiled brat, mildly naïve kind of kid who knows he is brilliant. The way he plays this is both annoying and completely endearing. You can’t help to feel for him when things don’t go his way. I read somewhere that Mozart’s laugh was described at different times as “an infectious giggle” and like “nails on a chalkboard”. I wonder how an actor can take those descriptions and come up with something that works but Tom Hulce comes up with the perfect laugh – at first you want to giggle along, then you start to kind of chuckle at it, then you want to kill him. It goes beyond his laugh though – he just does a masterful job.

F Murray Abraham does as well. He also makes you feel sympathy for him because he is always in Mozart’s shadow and then as he becomes more and more jealous he gets more and more evil and you stop feeling sorry for him but you still feel something for him. It is hard to explain. You feel for him because he is so troubled and instead of working on his own craft he spends his time trying to ruin Mozarts.

I am gushing in the most incoherent way but that is how much I love this movie.

It is also just plain beautiful to look at. Even though it was filmed in the 80s and film quality itself has come a long way since then, the scenery and costumes and sets are all stunning and seem perfectly period. The Opera sequences are great fun as well. I know I am way late to the party on this one and that makes me sad but perhaps I can inspire one person who is as late as me to give this movie a try.

Josh Says:
I suck at writing good reviews. I mean, if you haven't seen this movie, see it. If you don't, you're missing out.

You're missing out on one of the greatest performances in cinema by F. Murray Abraham as Salieri.

You're missing out on a wonderfully unorthodox, almost over the top performance by Tom Sulce.

You're missing out on the visually stunning costumes, architecture and scenery.

You're missing out on the best biographical film piece ever made (is that title selling it short though?)

Most importantly, you're missing out on the incredible hilarity of picturing Mark Hammill in the role that he lobbied heavily for, Mozart.

Blade Runner

Tania Says:

Again, another movie I had seen once and that was awhile ago. Apparently though I enjoyed it enough back then to buy it and never once open it but leave it on the DVD shelf to collect dust. This project gave me a chance to spend 15 minutes trying to open the shrink wrap and all the sticker things. And the final verdict – I do like this movie quite a bit!

The story is basically that age old Sci Fi story of man creating a machine that is too smart and too human and then trying to figure out how to destroy said machines. Blade Runner does it really well though and adds a more human element by making the machines, well, humans. Actually Replicants that look just like humans and act just like humans (unlike HAL in 2001 or the Robots in I, Robot which I haven’t seen but those robots don’t look human in the previews.) Harrison Ford is a Blade Runner which is a cop who “retires” Replicants. There are 5 running free and he needs to work his magic. Four of them are running around reeking havoc because they want to know how long they will live and of course the fifth (played by Sean Young) doesn’t know she is a Replicant and Harrison Ford ends up falling in love with her.

Ok, the love thing between Deckert (Harrison Ford) and Rachel (Sean Young) is a little creepy to me. First of all, he kind of forces her to stay and kiss him and stuff when she really looked like she wanted to leave and then he starts telling her what to say. That creeped me out. It was like his own personal Buffybot so I question if he really loves her or just wants a sex robot. But really, the movie isn’t about that.

Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah are two of the other Replicants looking for their maker because they don’t want to die. I really ended up feeling for them (not Daryl Hannah because she is annoying) but for Rutger Hauer because they were made by man to be nearly human and so they want to live a human life but can’t. This brings up the deeper issue of man and his obsession with power and creating human life in an unnatural way and the consequences it can create that no one thinks of. But Blade Runner doesn’t get all preachy and boring like I just did but it did put that seed in my mind which is cool. It makes you think without being a “makes you think” kind of movie. The production value is pretty low but I didn’t bother me because I just think it is an all around cool movie.

Josh Says:

I had never seen this movie in it's entirety before, though I'd caught enough pieces of it to have probably watched the whole thing at least once or twice. The problem that I always had catching it on USA at 2:30 in the morning as I drifted off into dreamland (read: passed out after a long night at the bar) was that it always seemed to have been made in such a low budget shoddy way. The special effects, the weird, cheap lenses it was shot in, the lame props, choppy edits and set design all seemed a bit too 'b' grade to entice me to actually sit down and watch the whole thing.

Of course, that's the whole problem. I had never sat down and watched the whole thing. Sure, all of that stuff is still there, it's not exactly a crisp finely tuned machine from an aesthetical perspective, but viewed in it's entirety, this movie pretty much rocked and had me thirsting for a good buddy movie with that great duo Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer. In fact, I don't think I'll ever be able to think of them independently again. It's always going to be Harrison and Rutger for me now.

So, if you're like me and you read the original review by Siskel and Ebert before they sold out or came to their senses or whatever, or maybe have caught only pieces of this movie and thought, "what a cheap piece of cr** who would ever want to watch that trash?". I'd strongly recommend you give the movie, the whole movie another shot.

Movie Review: Gladiator - 2002

Tania says:
I remember seeing this movie in the theater when it was released and thinking – “huh, that was pretty cool.” I hadn’t revisited the movie since then and for some reason I was kind of dreading watching it now because I thought I might hate it. I’m not sure why. Either way, I didn’t hate it at all and ended up liking it more then I think I originally did – so bonus!

Russell Crowe is super good as Maximus – he is all subtle and you believe he is a man who would rather just be working his farm but got swept into a world that he can’t get out of. I read that the role was first offered to Mel Gibson and Josh and I agree that he wouldn’t have been able to pull it off because he is all crazy eyed and a little insane. Crowe gets it right.

Joaquin is super creepy which totally fits his part. He does a really great job and I think this is when people started to notice him.

So yeah, it is pretty much a fighting movie but it does try to have a little bit of a deeper plot by throwing in some stuff about revenge, Roman politics and just trying to be an all around good guy. Even with that stuff seeping in it would still just call it a big old fighting movie. The deeper stuff is pretty much on the surface but I don’t think it would have been the big hit it was if it delved much deeper. But even for a fighting movie, the story is interesting enough and the character of Maximus is sympathetic enough that it does set itself apart. I don’t really think it should have won Best Picture (although I look at the nominees and they are slim pickings’ too. I think Traffic was better.) But it is a good movie and worth a watch if by some reason you have never seen it. It’s long but it actually sped by really quickly when we watched. Plus it has a CGIed Oliver Reed in it – that could inspire a fun game of which Oliver Reed is real and which is CGI. (I mean no disrespect to Oliver Reed. RIP.)

Josh Says:
It's said that upon visiting the colloseum, Ridley Scott said that it was too small so they designed an oversized version of it for the film. This pretty much sums up everything about this movie I think. Everything is just done in a big way.

The fight scenes are big, the violence is brutal.

The characters are big. River Pheonix's Commodus is done in so close to an over the top manner yet just grounded enough to work brilliantly. The same is true for Crowe. The way in which he turns Maximus into a gigantic hero of mythic, almost godlike proportions yet simultaneously keep him down to earth is quite impressive and likely couldn't have been done by anyone else.

Which brings us to the solid but sometimes difficult choices that were made regarding the cast in this movie. Of all of these choices (Gibson as Maximus would have been bad, J-Lo would have been bad as Lucilla........thank god for their judgement there) there is but one that I am saddened by..........Sure, it's a small character, but rumors that the great Lou Ferrigno was passed up for the role of Tiger just have me perplexed. With all of the gigantic greatness going on in this film, how is it possible that the most gigantic man ever to have his own TV show could have been overlooked? I would have loved to hear his version of a British accent, not that historically, the British accents made much sense anyway but back to the point.......a green Gladiator? How awesome would that have been?

Other than that, I really can't fault much about this movie. Sure, it's a bit of a popcorn movie, sure, it's a big budget "Action" movie but it's all done so incredibly well in nearly every way such that it's actually one of my favorites. I'm not sure if it's a guilty pleasure type of a film or actually a great film but either way, I love it and it. I'm also a bit of a Russell Crowe fanboy. There I said it. I love you Russell Crowe.

Movie Review: Little Miss Sunshine

Tania Says:

I LOVED this movie! I heard great things about this movie which is why again we skipped ahead on our list and gave it a spin in the old DVD player. I was not disappointed in the list and in fact it even overshot my expectations.

Little Miss Sunshine is about a very dysfunctional family who has to take a last minute road trip to California because they find out that their daughter will be in the Little Miss Sunshine pageant. Ah yes, family road trips make for wacky comedy and hijinxs to ensue but this movie is more then that and has surprising heart and not in a cheesy Full House kind of way. I particularly enjoyed the ending (and I will try not to spoil it) which was filled with laugh out load moments and that non-cheesy heart I mentioned. An ending to a movie about a dysfunctional family could end up being one of two things – 1.) Not satisfying at all because no one or nothing changes or 2.) So unrealistic and saccharine filled that it ends up tainting the whole dysfunction we had grown to embrace during the film. Little Miss Sunshine does neither and instead ends with a promise that at this moment the family has made their peace with what they are and embrace themselves and one another. Will it continue to be this way in their day to day life? Probably not but at the moment we share with them – well, it really was the perfect way to wrap up the story. Wow – I ended up sounding as cheesy as an episode of Full House but trust me – the movie doesn’t and it still warms your heart!

The performances are all around really strong and I can’t imagine changing any of the actors in the film. Steve Carell is particularly good. As a huge Office fan I have a hard time separating him from the obnoxious Michael Scott but his Frank is subdued and sad and often hilarious. I thought he did a great job and I would love to see him tackle some more, even more serious dramatical work. Abigail Breslin is also pretty amazing as Olive, the Little Miss Sunshine wannabe. She is both sweet and naïve and seems to be what keeps the entire family from falling apart. The rest of the cast is also great – Greg Kinnear as the a-hole Dad and Toni Collette as the Mom just trying to keep her family afloat. Stealing the show was the VW bus that the family takes to California.

This movie is a comedy but as I mentioned above has some great dramatic themes in it as well. Dare I call it a Dramedy? Maybe I will. Either way, I loved this movie and so glad we picked it up at Best Buy where if you bought three new releases you got a $10 gift card! This movie fared better then the other two we purchased (which will not be reviewed but were All the King’s Men (JUDE LAW!) and Lady in the Water. They both get a “meh” from me. But see Little Miss Sunshine! It rules!

Josh says:
I had heard such great things about this movie, that I'd love to be writing Tania's review. I'm not though, cause I'm not quite there with it. It's not that I didn't like the movie, I did. I just didn't love it. The cast is interesting. In a way, I found it very hard to believe that these people were related, however, on an individual basis, I have a hard time seeing anybody else playing these people. I mean in terms of the individual characters:

Arkin as the grandpa, perfect, but of course, he's just playing himself.

Carell as the uncle is perfect as well. I just can't see anyone else playing this guy so perfectly, the subtle irony he brings to every character he plays is just too perfect.

That kid is perfect as the older brother, once you warm up to where he's coming from.

That little girl was perfect as that little girl, the perfect amount of cute and pathetic.

Toni Collette as the mom, perfect.

Lastly, I'm generally not a big fan of Greg Kinnear but he's such a prick in this movie that, for me, I can't see anyone else in the role.

Still, something about these people as a family unit really didn't work, save for a few rare moments toward the end.

As for the story itself, it's cute, but excluding the fact that it had me waxing nostalgic for my old VW, it just seemed like it was a bit contrived or perhaps worse yet, a new and marginally improved Vacation (yes, I'm looking at you dead grandpa in the trunk gag) minus Wally World (can anything be improved by taking away Wally World?).

It does provide an interesting social commentary on what it is that constitutes 'success' and what it is to be 'normal' without that preachy feeling so many people hate in their movies. The movie also has some fairly realistic heart wrenching moments that come off very well with no cheese whatsoever. Overall, it's one of the better movies we've watched as part of this project, but we've watched a lot of really bad movies so far..................I'd recommend it be watched, but I just wouldn't expect a movie of the year or whatever everybody's calling it.

Movie Review: Superman Returns - Low Expectations, Not Low Enough

Tania Says:
Superman Returns in a little further down our list but we jumped ahead because it was a movie we were sad to have missed in the theater last summer. I had heard mostly negative reviews on the movie but I was still excited to see it.

I thought the movie started off pretty cool and was very engrossing and interesting. I like the idea of Superman leaving for personal reasons. I would have liked to see more of what it was like when he was away and more of how his return affected the people of Metropolis. So, I liked the idea and I thought that I was going to be one of the few who wouldn’t provide a negative review. However, pretty soon the movie completely fell apart. The promising storyline disappeared and pretty much NOTHING happened or developed. It started to go downhill for me (minor spoiler ahead) when Lois Lane and HER SON end up at the bad guy’s liar. What? Lois I know you didn’t know you were going to end up with the enemy when you took your kid along on an assignment but why would you ever take your child in the first place? From here on out, I completely checked out of what I think was suppose to be the most exciting part. In fact, I have to admit that I fell asleep – that is how much I gave up and how bored I truly was. I woke up right as the battle seemed to have ended and although the ending was probably suppose to move me in some way it didn’t. I think the story was never fully realized and if it was, then the story was very poorly executed.

I thought Brandon Routh actually made a good Superman and Clark Kent and he was the one bright spot in the movie for me. I thought he did a great job. Kate Bosworth was woefully miscast and it appeared to me that a 16 year old cheerleader in a brown wig was playing Lois Lane. And then there is Kevin Spacey. I love Spacey, I do but he was just really bad. His Lex Luthor made no sense at all to me and he never fully developed a villain that I could figure out and that shouldn’t be too hard. Parker Posey was wasted in another role that made no sense and really didn’t need to be there. I guess they wanted her to be there for comic relief or something but she wasn’t funny and she and Spacey have no chemistry at all.

Since I know many of you saw this in the theater I am really curious now to hear what others thought and if I am in the minority on this one.

Josh Says:

I didn't hear much good about this movie so my expectations were pretty much as low as they could get. Somehow, this movie still managed to disappoint.

For starters, I didn't like Brandon Routh as Superman, his voice while in a way very similar to Christopher Reeves' never seemed to change from geeky uncomfortable Clark Kent which I think was a pretty big blunder. It's a subtle change that Reeves' made and it's lacking made a huge difference. He also just lacks the screen presence to pull off such a huge character.

I didn't like Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. She wasn't strong enough for this character and worse yet, she was.........bland.

I didn't like Spacey as Lex Luthor. I actually thought he made some really bad choices with this character and overall seemed confused at times as to whom it was he was trying to portray. He had a terrible story to work with, however so perhaps his bad decisions were just a form of protest.

Being a big fan of Parker Posey, I was disappointed that even she couldn't impress me here......two words for the casting director with regards to Parker though...........LOIS LANE

I liked Brando though, that was pretty neat and Jack Larsen as Bo the Bartender was top notch!!

Next we have the "story". Yes, that's right quotations cause there really isn't one here. Superman returns, that's a story, I guess. Of course it'd be less of a story had Superman told one person of his plans before leaving which apparently he didn't?

Then there's the Superman/Lois Lane love thing, which is a story I guess, though it manifests itself more in the Superman the Stalker vein than in the traditional love story way. I mean, when he flies over and hovers outside her window to spy on her it's downright creepy and in my mind degrades the whole idea of Superman.

Luthor's 'evil master plan' isn't even a story save for the fact that it's so completely ludicrous and worse yet totally senseless. I guess the sheer ridculousness of it is a story in itself. I'd expect so much more from Lex. In Spacey's defense, even Gene Hackman would have had trouble pulling this one off.

The CGI was pretty good I guess, right down to Routh's eyes, which I later found out were CGI'd(?) in as opposed to simply using contacts............on overly complicated solution to a very simple problem which might be symbolic of every decision made in this film.

I know this review isn't very well done, but I'm so disappointed that I'm having a hard time gathering my senses here. If you're going to bring back something like the Superman saga, YOU.NEED.TO.DO.IT.BETTER!!!! See Christopher Nolan's Batman Begins for an example.............

I guess if you give Parker Posey the Lois Lane role, give the Superman role to anyone better, give Spacey a good story or at least a good 'evil master plan' so that he CAN be evil and we might have a winner...

Movie Reveiw: M*A*S*H

Tania Says:

I remember my Dad watching this television show all the time and me hating it. I thought it was dark, dirty and not funny. Probably all good things for a 5 year old to think. I don’t think I was the target audience on this show. But, because of that – I have carried a life long hatred of all things MASH with me to this day. So – it showed up on the list and I was determined to keep an open mind. I haven’t see a ton of Robert Altman films but what I have seen (Gossford Park, Prairie Home Companion) I really liked. I put my hatred of MASH aside and was actually a little excited to watch this after all the subtitled movies we have been watching and my ill-fated On Demand rental of the movie American Dreamz (brutal). After watching MASH, I thought it was okay.

I think most people know the plot or really lack of plot (it is more like a series of scenes then an actual storyline). A Medical unit in Korea deals with the war. Elliot Gould and Donald Sutherland are the main characters in the movie (it is an ensemble piece but they are certainly the featured actors). They play Hawkeye and Trapper John and are the leaders of all the hijinks and mayhem that ensues. I realize this makes me sound like a 12 year old girl but I didn’t really find all their pranks and antics funny, instead I found them kind of mean and unlikable. Before I say anymore, I do get the point of it all. These people are trying to find a diversion from all the horrors (and absurdity) of war going on around them so they are just trying to have a good time. I totally get the point of that. I still thought they were just bullies. I did find some parts of the movie funny and I thought everyone did a good job in their respective roles – I just thought they were mean.

So, war takes a horrible toll on everyone and how they choose to deal with it all kind of determines how well they will fare while they are over there. That is what I got out of the movie but it doesn’t mean I have to find the characters likeable. But like I said, I thought the movie was still ok. I just don’t think the movie was meant for me. Maybe I was right when I was 5 and I never will be MASH’s target audience.

Josh Says:

I was never a fan of the TV show and for good reason. I wasn’t the target audience or even the target generation. I have grown to love Alan Alda since but that’s another story completely. I’ve always loved the idea of Robert Altman however, and occasionally, I’ve even loved his movies (I’m looking at you Short Cuts) so I went into this expecting the best but completely prepared for the worst. I got something in between I guess rather than either one of those extremes.

The movie has a pretty neat cast with Donald Sutherland as Dr. Jack Bauer and Elliot Gould playing his wacky sidekick probably giving the most memorable performances. I quite liked Odo as Father what’s his name and it’s always neat to see these guys years before you realized they ever got work.

I think the big story in this movie is Tom Skerrit. He starts out with a bang almost seeming like a leading man, then much like his career, he’s quickly overshadowed by Gould, Sutherland and even Duvall such that it seems he went off to make a USA feature movie or guest star on the latest West Wing or Law and Order or whatever after the first 20 minutes. Much like in real life, I wanted more Skerritt and was saddened by his being obscured by the bigger names in the film.

The movie itself is ok I guess. It seems to almost aimlessly wander around between something resembling the sitcom, something resembling Apocolypse Now and something that’s not quite but almost Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas. Sometimes that’s confusing, sometimes it’s entertaining and sometimes, you just don’t care.

Pyaasa - 1957

Tania says:

Oh my God. I don’t even know where to begin with this one. The Netflix blurb says it is about a poet and a prostitute and the rare friendship that they have. It is so not about that! It is really about this poet and how he wants to be all holier then thou and annoying. Ok, maybe it isn’t about that but that is what I got out of this movie. This 2 ½ hour long movie. In hindi. In black and white with a horrible transfer. With subtitles that rarely made sense. AND – the kicker – this movie is all about this poet and how his poems are so amazing and can change the world, and blah, blah, blah – well his poems are sung (bollywood!) and they ARE NOT SUBTITLED. These songs seem to be some very climactic moments but I would never know because I do not speak hindi so much.

Seriously, this movie was brutal. I understand if this movie started the Bollywood revolution but I have never seen another Bollywood movie so why do I have to watch this one? Nothing against Bollywood, you know me, I am all about people breaking into song but I do like to understand what they are singing about. The main guy, the poet, Vijay is just an annoying, idealistic punk. Again, nothing wrong with being idealistic but this guy takes it to a new level. I am totally going to spoil this movie now because I don’t think you should watch it. So the main guy is believed to be dead so the prostitute who is in love with him has his poems published. The poet isn’t really dead but in a crazy house because he keeps saying he is this poet and people keep saying “No. The poet is dead.” So – once he finally gets out and gets identified and could be super rich he says, “No, I’m really not that poet.” Apparently he prefers to be poor and suffer for his art. Then he and the prostitute with whom he is suppose to have a rare friendship with walk into the sunset. I think he takes her along because he wants her money since he doesn’t have any.

Seriously, I wanted to be all hip and pretentious and love this movie. Well, I really just wanted to enjoy it. I didn’t. I didn’t at all. The one part I liked was when they showed the poet in the crazy house and the crazy people around him were doing handstands and things. Apparently crazy = doing handstands. That made me laugh. Josh told me I could turn it off (he fell asleep, had a cigarette, went to the store and made dinner while I suffered.) but I was determined. Towards the end I decided I could fast forward through the songs since I couldn’t understand them. But I triumphed! I finished the damn thing! I watched it so the readers don’t have to. I saved you.

Josh Says:
I wish I could say more about this movie, but I can't. Because I didn't really see it. I fell asleep after the fourth song, apparently critical to the story arc, was sung in some non-subtitled, non-English language that I'm not familiar with. I only slept for about half an hour, but woke up to what I imagine was about the 15th song, apparently critical to the story arc, being sung in some non-subtitled, non-English language that I'm not familiar with. Then I did the dishes, made dinner and went to the grocery store while Tania perservered.

When I signed up for this project, I figured I'd get to watch a bunch of movies that I'd otherwise not watch. I didn't sign up to completely ruin my Sunday evening by watching a movie, that I can barely see (see B&W w/bad transfer above) and can only understand enough to know it's not very good. I get it, it was a huge breakthrough fo Indian film-making, but I just couldn't force myself to sit through the entire thing and hopefully I can save you from even trying.

Movie Review: Les Diaboliques (1955)

Tania Says:
We ran into a pack of foreign films and it was hard to get motivated to watch them. It isn't that I hate subtitled films - they just take a little more concentration. So we decided on Les Diaboliques first since it was the shortest film. Although it took awhile to get into it (for me at least) I ended up really liking this movie.

It is about the wife and the mistress of a really horrible school headmaster teaming up to kill him off. So they get him out of town and off him and then weird things start happening to them and around the school and the two women freak out and wonder if he is still alive, if someone knows what they did or if they are just paranoid and a little crazy. There are some twists and turns (that I will not spoil for you but were spoiled for me mid-movie when Josh admitted to seeing the Sharon Stone remake of this movie and told me what was going to happen.) The twists aren't all that crazy or surprising though as they probably were back in 1955. We seem a bit more jaded now as to what is actually a twist. But those twists are entertaining and make for a very interesting story.

The end of the reveals the biggest twist and then at the very end it actually says on the screen - "If your friends want to see this movie DON'T tell them what happens." I thought that was hilarious - maybe the first spoiler warning?

The performances by the wife and mistress are both very good. I really liked Véra Clouzot as the wife. She was suppose to be a sickly, frail women and the actress really captured that. She was skittish and weak and easily manipulated by the mistress. The mistress, played by Simone Signoret, was strong and confident and knew exactly how to manipulate the wimpy wife. The husband though wasn't so great. Paul Meurisse didn't play the husband nearly as mean and evil as I would have liked. I mean he is horrible and I certainly wouldn't want him around but I would have liked to see more evil.

Overall though I would recommend this movie even to people who are scared of or intimidated by subtitled movies (which I am to a certain extent). This story is engaging enough to make you forget you don't understand the language.

Josh Says:
I remember, after seeing the remake of this movie, hearing a tremendous amount of buzz for this, the original version. As is generally the case, the buzz consisted mostly of purists, or braggarts trumpeting the genius of the original and decrying the poor choices that degraded the idea of the film in the remake .

I'd say that there was a bit of hyperbole involved in the romantic descriptions that people had to offer for this movie after the horrendous Sharon Stone remake. While I don't think it was a bad movie, it wasn't quite a masterpiece, I don't think. I enjoyed most of the performances, but Simone Signoret, for example, I felt gave a little bit too much away in her portrayal of the mistress. Her choices for this character seem to fortell what is to come at nearly every turn. While I agree that Meurisee could have come off a little bit more bastardly, I think his performance within the confines of the 50's and what was acceptable was pretty darn good.

Of the three though, Vera Clouzot does the finest job in portraying an ailing woman who has seemingly decided that she's had enough and will not remain in this abusive relationship for the rest of her short life (she has a heart condition).

The supporting cast is somewhat unnoticeable, save for the commisiare, played by Charles Vanel (one of two actors whose career lasted over 80 years). I'm fairly certain that Peter Faulk stole the character Columbo directly from this film.

The story is pretty sound, and somewhat 'Hitchcockesque', however for me, something was just not quite there, and perhaps it's exactly Hitchcock that was missing. Bring him in to direct this one and it's probably a 10 out of 10 instead of say, a 6 or 7.

Movie Review: In A Lonely Place (1950)

Tania Says:

This movie is the reason I wanted to do this project. I haven’t seen nearly enough old movies and I really did want to see more. This is the perfect example of an old movie that I never would have seen without this list and I am glad that we got to watch it.

In A Lonely Place is about a washed up Hollywood screen writer played by Humphrey Bogart who is accused of a murder. In the process he meets his new neighbor and they fall in love in like 2 weeks and she stands by him and believes in him and what not. Then she sees some behavior that concerns her and she starts to question whether he is guilty or innocent.

Humphrey Bogart is good as the screenwriter (and it is fine to do imitations of him while watching the movie!) He reminded me of Dr. House but more like Dr. House with paranoid schizophrenia. He is a seriously messed up dude with anger management issues so it is hard to sympathize with him when his life gets messed up. Gloria Grahame plays Laurel, his love interest. She starts off as this sassy woman who seems totally ahead of the time in which this was made. However, then she gets all wifey and old school and just starts taking care of Bogey. It’s a weird transition but I guess a common one – where a woman gives it all up for her man.

Like I said, he is messed up but I think that works for the film because you spend it questioning his guilt or innocence along with everyone else in the film. The ending is a little contrived but as a whole I enjoyed the movie and I was glad I watched it. Ah – a much simpler time!

Josh says:

The acting in this movie, from the two leads, Humphrey Bogart and Gloria Grahame is fantastic.

The problem that I had with the movie was that the story was extremely choppy and difficult to navigate.

The last half hour, in particular becomes very convoluted as they (I guess the writer and the director are both guilty here) somewhat frantically attempt to contrive the ending that they're looking for.

Come to think of it, the entire story is pretty contrived, I mean, these two fall in love in like 24 hours after meeting at the police station where Bogey is being quesitoned for murder (what woman could resist an accused murderer). There's like one person in the world that thinks that Bogey could possibly be the killer, until one completely forced and unrealistic road rage scene (who knew they had road rage in the 50's?). Yet the movie essentially revolves around that accusation and they're undying love.

It still manages to say some interesting things about humanity and the fragile self and like I said, the acting is great, overall, if you're a huge Bogey fan it's worth watching for that but the more I think about it the story, while a good one to tell is very poorly executed from start to finish. I'd almost like to see a........'shudders'......remake.

Movie Review: V. For Vendetta

Tania says:
We skipped ahead in our list to watch this movie because we bought it forever ago and never watched it. I never wanted to watch it. It was always thrown out as a – “Hey we still haven’t watched V for Vendetta!” And I always vetoed it. I wish I hadn’t been so deadest against it. It was something completely different then I thought it would be and I LOVED it! Seriously, we have a lot of comic book movies on this list thus far and this was my favorite. It may be because it was such a surprise and so totally different then I thought but whatever the reason it was really good.

The movie is set in England and takes place in the future when the US is in shambles and the government of England is pretty much in control. The government runs England with a scary right-wing religious hand and the population of the country is pretty much a slave to this government. We meet Evey who works for the only tv station in the country. In the beginning of the film she is on the street after curfew and meets V – a radical who wants to take down the oppressive British government. The story goes on from there as Evey gets more entangled with V.

I was not prepared at all for the commentary on government and the Big Brother is watching concept. I had no idea what this movie was about – maybe I should have done some research. This was less of an action film (which is what I thought it would be) and more of a thriller loaded with social commentary. The story is way more interesting then I gave it credit for.

Natalie Portman does a fine job as Evey except her accent blows. Hugo Weaving is awesome as V and all the other supporting cast does a good job. I highly recommend this movie and urge you to go into it with an open mind and maybe it will surprise you in a good way like it did for me!

Josh says:
I'm somewhat familiar with the work of Alan Moore. When I heard that the Wachowski's were going to be working on a movie version of one of his books (I hadn't read this one) I was excited and nervous. I mean, how can you know for sure whether you're going to get The Matrix or one of the lame sequels?

I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised. While it's certainly not The Matrix, it's a very good second best movie by this occasionally visionary team. They didn't direct this one but their fingerprints were all over it and in only the best ways. Sadly, that's about all that I can say about this movie without degenerating into a political diatribe that nobody wants to hear.

Movie Review: Se7en

Tania Says:
Another movie I had seen and remember totally loving it at the time. Josh loved it too and had seemingly watched it 100 times and told me to be on the look out for Brad Pitt stinking up the place. I didn’t remember Brad sucking so much but wow – he does indeed suck. Now, I like Brad Pitt – he has had some great performances (see 12 Monkeys or Snatch) but this is not one of them. Despite his horrible acting, this is still an excellent movie.

I don’t often notice lighting or the way a movie is shot but that is one thing I noticed first about Seven – it is so freaking dark and gloomy. Everything is lit in these yellow lights that creates the perfect mood for the piece. It constantly rains (until the end when the big stuff happens which I will not reveal) and the locations are amazing (my favorite is the library that Morgan Freeman visits) and it all fits together to create a mood. That mood ends up being a super important character in the film (and a better actor then Pitt!) So kudos Seven for making me notice things I never notice.

The story is very clever – if you don’t know it – it pairs grizzly veteran detective Morgan Freeman with hotheaded rookie Pitt on a serial murder case. The serial killer is killing based on the seven deadly sins and of course, Freeman is days from retirement. Despite the clichés in the characters the movie manages to be fresh and interesting. Some clunky dialogue and the aforementioned crappiness of the Pitt combined can’t ruin the film because of all the good things about it!

Paltrow does show up in a rather worthless role that is merely there as a device for the big incident at the end. Freeman is Freeman (in a rare non-narrating role!) and Spacey, who is the killer (minor spoiler) rules, which is never a surprise.

Josh Says:
I first saw this movie in the theater back in Seattle. I really disliked it.

I couldn't get past the clucky dialogue, the hack job by Brad Pitt or the weaksauce cop-out Paltrow scenes, only there as set up for something that I thought would have been a lot more powerful had there been more exposure to the relationship between she and Brad.

Fast forward a couple of years and I'm living in Vancouver. My good friend and roommate can't stop raving about this movie. He ends up buying the movie, I watch it again with an open mind intent on getting past it's obvious flaws and I loved it. I ended up watching this movie about a gazillion times and I still enjoyed it this time.

Part of me believes that Pitt's bad acting, the clucky dialogue, and other cheesy b-grade features (take Freeman's outfit) were conscious decisions somehow symbolic in the way that they so starkly contrast with the ultra-modern, tasteful and artistic way in which this is shot and the incredibly A-grade story itself.

The rest of me still just thinks that Pitt sucked and the dialogue sucks too, but the rest of the movie is/was so groundbreaking that the movie itself is still an enormous accomplishment in fim-making. I highly recommend it.

Dr. Scrubs was pretty sweet to uttering one of my all time favorite lines (cause in any emergency situation, I'm sure I'd react with equal incompetence) "Somebody call somebody!!!!"

Freemen, as always did a good job as the grizzled old actor being dragged into making one last movie or something like that.

Lastly, Kevin Spacey ruled in this so much. He used to always rule. Where has that Spacey gone? It's like he went to K-Pax and never came back.

Movie Review: 2001: A Space Odyssey

Tania says:

Oh no. I am dreading writing this. I am suppose to love this movie and be super smart and make it whatever I want it to be. But – I don’t love it. I am not super smart and I want this movie to TELL me what it wants to be. I mean, I love science fiction and I should love this – this movie that is somehow an influence to all science fiction after it.

Again, as with M, I totally get the groundbreaking aspect of this film. The special effects hold up today which is saying a lot with all the CGI and computers that are used nowadays. But – as for the majority of the story – boring. I’m sorry! I really am.

The beginning of the movie is okay. First monkeys find this monolith – then thousands of years later astronauts find it again on the moon. Okay. Intriguing.

The middle of the movie actually rocks. HAL is creepy and super cool which is saying a lot for the computer. Give me a whole movie of HAL owning those astronaut bitches and I am all about it. The movie managed to make a computer sinister and a genuine bad guy. I like this and I get this.

The end of the movie after Dave disconnects HAL. Huh? This is where I just got mad. First we have to see Dave fly through space like he is in some Led Zeppelin laser show at the planetarium. Then he is an old man? Then the monolith is back? Then he is born again as a star child? I don’t get it and I wanted to. So I looked online to see what I was missing and it all said the same thing – it is what you want it to be. I want it explained to me dammit!

So, although I was with the movie through most of it Kubrick ruined it at the end by pissing me off. And yes, I have seen other Kubrick films and I do like them – just not this one. I’m sorry!

Josh says:
I really really wanted to like this movie. If for no other reason, than to save face with the geeky Sci Fi crowd for despising Star Wars (oops, future blog spoiler again).

I tried soooo hard too. There were moments where I was hopeful, where I thought, "Oh yeah, I get it now, this is where it's starting to get good!'.

Then they killed off Hal.

Basically, this movie should shave 30 minutes off of the beginning, 30 minutes off of the end and it should be called Hal. Then I'm pretty sure I'd like it.

Movie Review: 'M'

Tania says:
Okay – I have been completely lax in seeing old movies and totally lax in seeing really old movies. It is something that I have always wanted to do – go back and revisit old movies that made the new movies what they are today. It is really the reason I wanted to do this project. So the first really old movie on our list was M. This movie was made in 1931 and is very highly regarded. This is a German film and one of the earliest “talkies”. The film is about a pedophile that is kidnapping and killing children in a small German town. That kind of subject matter in 1931 is completely crazy to me. I was really eager to see how they would handle it and to see how times have changed since director Fritz Lang decided to tackle this subject. I have to admit though that the first ¾th of this movie are extremely difficult to watch – not because of the disturbing subject matter but because of the complete and total boredom. The majority of the movie is a bunch of talking. A lot of talking heads discussing how to catch the predator and what they should do and blah, blah, blah. It is pretty brutal.

The last 1/4th of the movie is actually really cool. When the movie starts to focus on the angry mob tracking down the predator it is very suspenseful and really quite scary. Once the mob catches him they start to put him on “trial” and that too is very interesting. That is where the movie is truly ahead of its time. The “trial” addresses therapy vs. jail and what is the best course for dealing with a pedophile. The discussion is still very relevant today. Peter Lorre plays the murderer and he is sufficiently creepy.

I wish that I really liked this movie. It isn’t that I need action, action, action – I don’t mind a movie that is all talk but this one just couldn’t grab me. I do completely understand the place it holds in cinema and once I made it through all the blabbing - I saw some really cool stuff that made me amazed it happened in 1931.

Josh says:
Um, wow, this movie was tough. They really didn't know how to make movies back then.

In one sense, it's pretty cool that there was actually a movie with this subject matter in 1931. I can imagine the water cooler discussions that must have taken place. In all of that discussion in 1931, however, I'm fairly certain nobody said "What an exciting and enjoyable movie!!!".

I very nearly fell asleep, and in fact, only stayed awake as a matter of principle. It's long, not much happens, I'd never see it again, and I hope, through this review, I can save you something that I'll never get back, namely, 111 minutes of my life.

****I should note, that the title of this blog is a direct quote taken from this movie. The one bright spot in this insanely boring movie.


*****Did I mention it was boring?

Movie Review - Sin City

Tania Says:

Again with the comic books (excuse me – graphic novels). Same disclaimer as before.

This movie is pretty cool. I remember seeing this in the theater and thinking that it was ok but nothing extremely special but this is a rare movie where I enjoyed it more the second time. It is a collection of 3 stories that all take place in “Sin City” and they all connect in some way or another. The stories themselves are pretty interesting but the movie itself just looks really cool. Josh told me a lot of the frames were direct pictures taken from the comic and I can totally see that. It is very story-boardy in the way it is shot and it completely works. It is mostly filmed in black and white with spots of color thrown in. So if this movie set out to capture that comic book feel on film for a comic book novice it succeeded but I hardly doubt I was the target audience on this one.

The performances are pretty great overall. Clive Owens is awesome as the dark, brooding guy. Mickey Rourke rules as the creepy looking mean dude out for revenge and Bruce Willis plays Bruce Willis. The female performances are less strong and I don’t just say that because they are in skimpy clothing the entire time (side note – I have heard talk of this movie objectifying women and all that jazz and I don’t buy it. The majority of the women kick serious ass! Those hookers? Watch out.) Then there is Brittany Murphy who invented a whole other world of bad in this movie. I think she was going for this stylistic damsel in distress but she failed. However, Benicio as her thug boyfriend is super good.

This isn’t the type of movie that I think I would typically enjoy but I really did. I get turned off by a lot of violence and blood but this is done in such a cartoony way that it never bothered me and it all made sense in the context of the film. So surprisingly, I liked it!

Josh says:
I enjoyed this movie a lot. I've read slightly more than a handful of comic books and this series is one of them. The movie is very true to the book. At times, I think it hurts the film a bit but for the most part, Rodriguez made some very good choices. Speaking of good choices, here's hoping that this movie helps revive Mickey Rourke's career. He plays a bad ass as good as anyone and every movie needs a good bad ass so I say, "Why not Mickey Rourke?"

Movie Review: X-Men 3: The Last Stand

Tania says:
I was sad that Josh and I never got to see this movie in the theater because like I said before – I totally dig these movies. So I wanted to be a part of the theater viewing experience but that didn’t happen because we are lame and never go to the theater. So we netflix’d it and watched it right away after volume two. And I have to say – I didn’t like it as much as the previous 2 installments AND I got a little bored and I believe I fell asleep for like 10 minutes. I don’t want to get bored in an action movie. But then I told Josh – Hey that was a little boring and he said it wasn’t boring but it was trying to cram too many stories into one film. That is true. It is about Jean Grey and he crazy new mutant powers and it is about this mutant vaccine and it is about Kelsey Grammer in some blue makeup.

Again I never read the comics but it is my understanding that each of the stories they tried to tackle were pretty big stand alone stories in the books so I am not sure why they wanted to cram all this stuff in. The movie is unfocused and busy and all of that combines to make me lose interest pretty fast when the movie is whipping around from one story to the next. James Marsden still sucks super bad and where did Nightcrawler go? I want him back! Like I said – they add Kelsey Grammar who did a fine job. Again – don’t know the character but when I heard Kelsey was going to be an X-Man I laughed and laughed but it all seemed to work out. And then they added that freaky girl from “Hard Candy” as Kitty Pryde and she didn’t do much at all and I wondered why they added her now? Is this the last movie in the series? Anyway again I enjoyed Hugh Jackman and Captain Picard and Gandolf. They always bring it. So – I don’t know if I recommend this movie – I guess I do because it is still X-Men which better then a lot of the action crap people are throwing at us nowadays.

Josh Says:
I too was disappointed at not catching this one in the theater (although the plasma is a pretty sweet substitute) then I saw it and wasn't disappointed in anything but the movie itself. It's trying to tell way too much in far to much detail in too little time and loses a lot for that. After hurting my head a little trying to follow the action, I eventually just tuned out.

Quick semi-related side note:
He ruined the Silence of the Lambs series, he's killed the X-Men series but the incredible success of Rush Hour 1, 2 & 3 just keeps hollywood knocking on Brett Ratner's door...........hmmm.....come to think of it, I did just read that Peter Jackson got nixed for the LOTR prequels...........NNOOOOO!!!!!!!!!

Movie Review: X2 - Men United

Tania Says:
I remembered really liking this movie when I saw it in the theater. I liked it enough that I actually decided to buy it for some reason. I think it might have been Hugh Jackman and Alan Cumming that made me purchase the dvd. Two singing and dancing Broadway stars and I am so there. So when we decided to finally watch it (the dvd was still in plastic – oops.) I was pretty excited to revisit it.

And I did like it the second time! It is a fun action movie with cool characters and cool actors. This installment of the series focuses on some crazy dude with a mutant son trying to steal Captain Picard’s cool Ceribro invention and the ongoing story of trying to rid the world of mutants. Hugh Jackman is super cool, so is Alan Cumming. James Marsden is horrible but pretty fun to watch and make fun of. Overall it is exactly what I would expect an X-Men movie to be. I admit I never read the comics or watched the cartoon so maybe the movies aren’t keeping it real but I like them and I enjoy the series. It is mindless entertainment and people with powers. Powers are neat. And all this leads nicely into our next review of X-Men 3!

Josh Says:
Um..................it's X-Men. It's good in most of the the ways it should be. Which I guess is good cause the Matrix sequels weren't good in the ways they should have bee.....oops. Future blog spoiler, sorry about that.

P.S. it was really funny when I got Tania's review which originally read: "James Marsters is horrible but pretty fun to watch and make fun of"

Movie Review: Mr. and Mrs. Smith 2005 Director Doug Liman

Tania says:
Mr. and Mrs. Smith was next on the list (actually first on the list). It is number 81 on the Box Office list. Also, viewing was not as exciting since we watched in on the old TV. I have actually seen this before and really didn’t like it. I have a problem with Angelina Jolie stealing Brad Pitt from Jennifer Aniston. I know this is really none of my business but I like Jennifer Aniston. I always felt like she was the kind of girl I would be friends (HA!) with in high school. We’d be the normal dorky girls and then she would score this cool boyfriend. Angelina is like the cool college chick who takes Philosophy classes and smokes clove cigarettes and how can the normal, dorky girl compete with that? So I am a little protective of Jen but all that aside – the movie isn’t as terrible as I remembered.

It is a popcorn film that is just pretty typical. A married couple, who have been lying about their secret careers for 5 or 6 years, discovers that they are both assassins or spies or something like that. Their new mission is to kill the other one but instead they end up bonding over the careers they have in common. The actions sequences aren’t that exciting or anything but I actually found the film surprisingly funny in parts. Brad Pitt is actually funny and Vince Vaughn (as Brad’s co-worker and friend) steals every scene he is in. He is a little underutilized but then again I could watch Vince Vaughn read the phonebook and bust a gut over it. That funny kid from the O.C. is in it too but he is even more underutilized with is sad because I think he is funny.

So, it was actually the humor in this movie that made it ok for me not all the action. Oh, and the Smith’s house. It rules – I covet that kitchen (minus the guns in the stove.)
Overall – if you are in the mood for something mindless and mildly amusing give it a whirl!

Josh says:
I thought this movie needed more Vince Vaughn. The plot line was completely unrealistic. The suspension of disbelief tactics were really subpar and overall the movie was sort of meh at best. I think if we extend the Vince Vaughn parts to about 90 minutes and cut out the Brad & Angelina stuff to about 20 minutes we might have a winner.

As an aside, I think Angelina Jolie has a lot more going for her than Jennifer Aniston. I doubt she smokes cloves though, they're gross.

Movie Review: Hero (Ying xiong (2002)) Directed by Yimou Zhang

Tania says:

Josh and I delved into our movie watching project for one reason alone – the new TV! The new TV arrived on Friday and we bought the really expensive cables on Saturday and hooked up the new DVD player (for a free TV it became awfully expensive but worth every penny!). We bought two nine dollar chairs from Target (with foot rest!) since we still had no furniture in the new place, bought a frozen pizza and decided that the movie “Hero” should be the first film viewed on the new TV. Coincidently, Hero also happened to be on the list of 482 movies we are watching for your movie watching project. Perfect!

Hero is a movie that we have both seen before (Josh will say I hated it because I feel asleep but I did not hate it at all – I was just tired!) But I thought it would be a great movie to watch on the new TV because it is just so beautiful.

I have to admit that I will be totally biased because it was the first movie on the new TV but I really do like this movie. It is insanely beautiful to watch but it also has a super compelling story. It is about an assassin and his plan to assassinate the leader of Qin. The story itself is then told in three different versions until we reach the truth. Each version is quite interesting and beautifully shot within a central color theme.

Like I said, the story is really interesting and well done but this movie is really about the visuals. Each fight scene is perfectly choreographed and gorgeous to watch. You just can’t take your eyes of some of the martial art battles (unless you are really tired then it is permissible to fall asleep). I am glad I stayed awake this time – it was nice to get the whole story. The other great thing about the beauty of this movie is it makes it easy to recommend to someone who normally doesn’t watch foreign films or hates subtitles.

So the first movie in the project was a success! The new TV is everything we expected and more! Don’t buy the nine dollar chairs from Target – Josh’s broke towards the end of the film!

Josh Says:
If you liked Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, good. So did I. This movie makes Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon look stupid. If you haven't seen it, you may just suck at life.