Movies Since Last Post: 

St. Elmo’s Fire
Stop Making Sense
True Stories
The Night Before
Wonder Woman
All Good Things
Nightmare on Elm Street (orig.)
Children of Men
Live Free or Die Hard
Dear Mr. Watterson
Stories We Tell
Outatime: Saving The Delorean Time Machine

That may look like a lot of movies, but a couple of them were shorty documentaries (That last one, about restoring the Delorean, was probably more suited as a DVD Extra, but there was still effort. I still had to pay attention.) I’m really having a hard time finding stuff that fits in with my goal here. A couple of these were things I always wanted to see, but mostly I’m just watching these so that I can say I’ve watched a lot of movies.  I also watched Children of Men because I got it confused with Children of God. At least Stop Making Sense was awesome!

giphy

Same as it ever was

I wanted to talk a little about Wonder Woman in this post, and the world’s reaction to it, but as can be the case with most of pop culture these days, a lot of people have already forgotten about it by now. All I’ll say is that I’m glad people enjoyed it, and it was really entertaining until the last 20 minutes or so, and then I completely lost interest. Why do movies have to be so damn long these days? Especially when the climax was so overblown and ridiculous? Just kill the pasty, old white British dude and be done with it. And before people think that I’m just some DC-hating misogynist, I said the same thing about Guardians Vol 2. You’re making great movies, guys. I just need about twenty minutes less at the end.

What I really want to cover this week is a completely different aspect of movie consumption, which is not seeing the movie at all. Obviously, thousands of movies don’t get seen, for various reasons, but the main reasons I don’t watch a given movie is because it doesn’t appeal to me for one reason or another. Sometimes, though, even if the movie itself should appeal to me, I don’t see it, because it looks like it would be a horrible waste of my time. And so, I give you: Tom Cruise’s The Mummy.

The-Mummy-2017-Tom-Cruise-Wallpaper-04-1024x768

That’s about as excited as I was about this movie

If you think calling it “Tom Cruise’s The Mummy” is a snide, you’re right. It’s an old joke from my movie theater days when we used to refer to the movie Sister Act as “Harvey Keitel’s Sister Act,” especially amusing since it came out the same year as Reservoir Dogs.  Nobody deserves to have their name above a movie’s title, but if you’re going to do it, do it with some sass. Plus, in this case, it makes perfect sense, because casting Tom Cruise in this movie suddenly turns it from a monster movie into a Tom Cruise movie (a different kind of monster, I suppose.)

In a recent podcast interview I conducted with avid monster movie fan, Sam Furst, I was asked why I didn’t want to see the movie, and I said Tom Cruise was the main reason, which was true. Tom Cruise, Mark Wahlburg, Johnny Depp are names that instantly give me pause when it comes to movies, because the movies instantly become “star vehicles,” and whatever characters these guys are playing automatically take a back seat to the characters these guys play in real life. It’s not necessarily a story that they fit an actor into, but rather an actor that they fit into the role. In this case in particular, however, Tom Cruise seemed like a really bad choice, and not just because the movie’s gross has been incredibly disappointing. Although, it is falling about as fast as this chick:

cruise-zero-g.jpg

Universal, in their attempt to keep up with Disney and Warner Brothers, was using The Mummy to jumpstart their Dark Universe, which will apparently be comprised of all their old monster characters, like The Mummy, The Wolf-man, Frankenstein, etc. By casting Tom Cruise, you have already taken the focus off of the actual Mummy and put it on the star, and nobody had even seen a minute of the movie. I mean, does anyone go to see a Mission: Impossible movie because they were fans of the TV show? And to make matters worse, they also have Johnny Depp on tap to play The Invisible Man.

All that aside, I maybe would have suffered through Tom Cruise and watched The Mummy if I thought it looked like a good movie. Unfortunately, it did not. In fact, it looked horrible (and I’m not even talking about the trailer that they mistakenly released that had no sound effects. Just Tom Cruise screaming a lot.) The actual trailers looked pretty bad, and then there were even these really annoying vignettes that played in the theaters where Nick Miller and the girl with the knife legs from Kingsmen: Secret Service would not only talk about how great the movie was, but how great Tom was. I was really excited that the movie was finally coming out just so I wouldn’t have to watch those anymore. It’s hard to say for sure, but I’m willing to bet that even with a different actor, I would have been a little nervous after seeing these trailers. But, I admit, I prejudged this movie based on Tom Cruise and some bad trailers.

Now, good movies can have bad trailers, and a bad trailer doesn’t necessarily mean the movie is bad, so sometimes you have to resort to other means to gauge a movie. Fortunately, we live in the Internet Age, and we have Rotten Tomatoes, right? Well, yes, but that may not be the most accurate method. When I pointed out to my podcast guest that The Mummy had a rather poor 17% rating, he said that that was merely the critics score (which has since fallen to 16%), and the audience scored it at 43%, which is still not amazing but much better than those dastardly, snarky, jerkface critics, right?

Not so fast! Because I was slightly suspicious of this score (call me crazy), I did some digging. While there are a lot of positive reviews, as well as a lot of people who said it was crap, there was also a disturbing amount of reviews from people who said, “I haven’t seen it yet, but I’m giving it five starts to counteract all the people who are giving it bad reviews who haven’t seen it yet.” Wha-wha-whhaaa?

Ok, while it is strange that someone would go on Rotten Tomatoes to leave a bad review for a movie they haven’t seen, it may be even stranger to leave a five-star “review” for that same movie because you feel bad for it somehow. When did movies get feelings? There are also a lot of people (Like Daniel T) who seem to want to post good reviews simply because so many other people are posting bad ones (“Don’t care what anyone says, I thought it was really good” Daniel spouts. And good on ya, I say! Take that stand!) And, as I alluded to in my last post, we’re not talking about some small indie flick that could really use the good publicity. We’re talking about a Tom Cruise movie. (Sadly, the audience review section for The Mummy on RT only goes back a couple weeks, so those reviews appear to be gone, even though there were supposedly 71 pages of them, I could only read up to page 51. Just take my word for it.)

The point is, all the good will I was feeling after my Manchester by the Sea review has been undone by people who leave good reviews simply because other people have left bad ones (and the one guy who said that all the critics are just “Trump supporting morons.”)  It seems that, no matter how many avenues we have to watch and review movies, there’s no real way to tell if a movie is worth watching unless you actually watch it, which kind of defeats the purpose of reviewing it, huh? In the end, I really have no idea what to think of The Mummy. I guess what it all boils down to is that I don’t think I will ever watch it, until I do.

What say you, Brie?

maxresdefault

RUN!

Movies Since Last Post:

Don’t Breathe
Starring Adam West
Tanner Hall
I Am Heath Ledger
Manchester by the Sea
Logan Noir
Ex Machina
Blade Runner: The Final Cut
Becoming Bond
Baywatch
The Meaning of Life

I’m going to give myself a pass for two of the above movies. I Am Heath Ledger was a pretty short documentary made by Spike TV, but since I never specified anything about how long these things have to be, I’m giving myself that one. I’m also giving myself a pass for Logan Noir, even though I had seen Logan already (twice), because the black-and-white version really does change the tone that much. So, if you want to dock me two movies, go right ahead, but I’m counting them.

But at pretty much the half-way point, and I’m at 65 movies. I actually had envisioned being a little farther ahead by this point, but honestly, even with all the streaming services available, movies aren’t as easy to come by as I thought. Well, good ones, anyway. There are 35,250 movies available to stream on Amazon that are free with my Prime membership, but really, how many could I actually sit through? 4 or 5%, maybe?

Speaking of Amazon, however, I did encounter something interesting that I wanted to touch upon here after viewing the Amazon original Manchester by the Sea. After viewing it, Amazon sent me their obligatory email asking me how I liked it (which they do with all my purchases. Even cat litter and toilet paper.) Even though I don’t always respond, this time I decided I wanted to voice my opinion. I do this with movies sometimes, especially if it’s a movie that a lot of people seem to like and I myself do not. It’s probably an actual mental illness.

C1_wDy_VIAAGQbL

Courtesy of Billy Eichner

In case you’re curious, you can read my review here, but the gist of it was that the movie was really not structured well because there was no real story arc. Spoiler warning here, (literally skip to the next paragraph if you care what happens) but the big moment at the end turns out to be Casey Affleck saying that he “Just can’t beat it.” He goes back to his shitty life and his now-adopted son or whatever lives with someone else. And neither of them are seemingly better off for it. I have no idea what the point of the movie was if the end result is nothing happens to either of the main characters.

After my one paragraph review had been up for a couple days, I got another email from Amazon saying people had reacted to it. One person said that it was an “insightful review,” which I wasn’t sure was sincere, and they also wrote that even though the movie was “overrated,” they liked it. No problem, there, right? The second person, though, said that I missed it, that it was a human story about healing, and “the love of his nephew was winning him over,” and so on. I didn’t see any love between them at all, because all they did was swear at each other, but okay, this person saw something different. They then said they agreed with me about the script and that it didn’t need that much swearing, and when will Hollywood get that you don’t need to use bad words to tell a story.

Now, I never said anything about the script being bad because there were a lot of F-bombs. I didn’t even notice them, in fact. And while we’re on the subject, I have something to say to you, Amazon reviewer:

larson free fire

Just kidding. I just needed to get Brie in here somewhere.

I replied to that person, thanking them for their response, and saying that it wasn’t the language that I didn’t like, but the structure. And I quote (myself): “Not every movie has to end with the Death Star exploding, but there should be something, some reason to make me go ‘Ah, now I see.'”

So I thought that was it, but then I got another response from a different person, saying that everything I thought was lacking in the movie, they found. They claimed that the movie was “subtle, and not suitably pop-zing enough apparently for the ADHD millennial crowd.” This I found completely hilarious, because I’m 41. Maybe I should take it as a compliment? They went on to say that the movie was “Not your typical Hollywood empty calorie fare. The very good stuff in life is often an acquired taste.”

Ok, I get that. But that’s two reviewers who used the term “Hollywood” in a negative light, indicating, I suppose, that Manchester by the Sea was not made by some big studio who is only out to make a buck. No, of course not. it was made by Amazon.download.

All yucks aside, I wanted to bring all this up because I actually enjoyed this little back-and-forth (despite my disagreements with these people), and was kind of encouraged when I saw that 8 out of 11 people found my review helpful. I don’t know if that means they didn’t watch the movie or what, but in general, these conversations reminded me a little of my video store days, when a customer would ask for my opinion on what to rent. The owner of my store would always encourage his employees to engage the customers, feeling that’s what separated him from the Blockbusters of the world. I kind of hated it at the time, but looking back, I actually miss it. And he was totally right, because a person could wander around a Blockbuster for days looking for anything worth renting (similar to how I scroll through Amazon’s 35,250 crappy movies looking for one to watch these days.)

I’m sure if I kept writing reviews I would eventually encounter someone who disagrees so harshly that they would start a whole flame war, much like I would encounter video store customers who didn’t give a damn what movies I would recommend. But for those brief moments, and I guess for those 8 people who supposedly found my review helpful, I feel like I made a difference. I don’t know if I’ll be reviewing more, but who knows? I’ve also heard that if you write enough reviews, Amazon will start giving you free stuff. And God knows, I have a lot to say, and about six more months of movies to go.

Movies Since Last Post: 

Short Term 12
Cabin Fever (2002)
Hunt for the Wilderpeople
All Things Must Pass
The Founder
The Girl on the Train
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Collosal
Batman & Bill
The Trouble with Bliss
Into the Wild

It’s been a couple weeks since I’ve posted, and a big crop of movies, which is great, because it puts me at 53 for the year so far. So, on average, that puts me on a good pace, but the average may be skewed a little, since I did watch three in one day last Friday. I admit it’s a bit of a cheat, because my job required me to babysit an event, so I was asked to sit in an AV booth all day, and it was suggested I bring my laptop, so I watched two movies, and then went to see Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 that night. So, banner day for me, but there probably won’t be a lot of triple-features for the rest of the year.

The cool thing about that day was that I broke new ground by trying out Google Play, which allows you to rent or buy movies, same as Amazon or whatever. So, I paid $4.99 to watch The Founder, the movie about Ray Kroc, and the discovered that I got a second one for $.99, so I rented The Girl on the Train, the movie about drunk Emily Blunt (Thank God it was only $.99, because it was a basic Lifetime movie with a slightly better cast.)  For some reason, I was more willing to pay Google for a movie than some of these other companies. Maybe I just feel like I’ve given Amazon enough money, but also that whole 24-hour watching period debacle put a bad taste in my mouth. There also seems t be a slightly better quality of movie on Google Play, so there’s not as much sifting through as there is on some of these other sights.

ST12-25

Speaking of other sites, I started my 30-Day free trial on Hulu, so that I could see what they had and compare them to the other venues. Despite what I wrote about in my last post, Hulu’s movie selection was not as abundant as I hoped. I basically opened an account because they had Brie Larson’s breakout role in Short Term 12 for free, while other sites were charging, but despite the fact that I have watched five movies on there this month, I kind of have to call it a failed experiment. Although, they are the only site that has the very cool documentary Batman & Bill, based on one writer’s quest to get Bill Finger credit for being a creator of Batman, because it’s a Hulu Original, something that I didn’t know existed. It’s been good to nail down a few of the ones I was hoping to watch this year for free, but mostly it’s like that junky old video store that you would goimages to as a last resort when you were dying to watch something. They also have a very weird way of categorizing movies, as they list Thomas the Tank Engine: Muddy Matters under Action/Adventure. I’m sure it’s a wild adventure for Thomas, but there’s no way in the world that his movie should be in the same section as The Hateful Eight.

The real problem I’m running into is the variety of movies. I was hoping Hulu would open up a whole new world of free movie (for a month, anyway), but in fact, all I found were the same movies that Amazon has listed in their “Included with Prime” section. For example, all the Indiana Jones, James Bond, and Hunger Games movies seem to be available on both platforms, plus a lot of really bad action and horror movies. I scroll through and keep coming across the same stupid B-movies over and over, and eventually I’ll probably be worn down enough that I’ll just watch one of them (It’s like my days of Internet Dating, only with movies).  I’m sure that this is some studio marketing thing, where you just put them in  front of as many eyeballs as possible, but in the context of my experiment, it’s not working. All is not lost, though, as I did unearth this hopefully helpful article on Paste Magazine’s website.

We all know that the business model of TV is changing constantly (I’m now hearing rumors of Facebook getting into it with 5-10 minute original shows, or full-length shows with one commercial in the middle), but what does it all mean for movies? Hollywood just avoided a writer’s strike which was primarily about royalties for streaming content (among other things). Obviously, Netflix and Hulu survive purely on their subscriptions, so you don’t have to pay extra for their movies, but that’s all they got. Amazon can charge for Prime, and then have a lot more movies available that are included, because they can make money on everything else they sell (which is everything else.) They weird thing is, I definitely don’t consider Amazon Prime a rip-off, because I get free two day shipping and all that, but I pay for Netflix every month and almost never use it unless there’s a new Marvel show on (and I haven’t watch any of Iron Fist yet. Heard it stinks!) So, I can imagine that the same could be said for Hulu if I was thinking about staying around when my free month expires (which I’m not.) I could see if I got rid of cable, which a lot of people are doing, then it might be worth it. But I really like my sports, so I’m sticking with cable.

103366060-GettyImages-166041530.600x400

Totally my house every Sunday, man!

Speaking of cable. I pay an obscene amount of money forcable, internet and phone (which I don’t even have), plus the DVR, HD channels, the remote that you can talk to, and everything else they offer, but out of the 53 movies I’ve watched this year, only 11 have come from Xfinity. Now, they also offer the ability to rent movies, but I already pay a crapload of money for cable, why should I pay $6 more just to watch something that maybe-kinda came out sorta recently? Especially when it will probably be available in a couple months on one of the many movie channels I subscribe to?

Because we’re consumers, that’s why. So, if I have to pay Google to watch something, I guess I will. At least I’ve given them less money so far than all these other websites. I mean, my Pixel was a lot, but, whatever. Still better than an iPhone.

Movies Since Last Post: 

Fate of the Furious
The Gift (2015)
Planet Hulk
Lincoln
Neighbors 2: Sorority Rising
Free Fire
Nasty Baby
The Deerhunter
The Hurt Locker

The 2017 movie tally now stands at 41 (Hey, one for every year of my life), and while that’s not horrible for 4 months, I have a small fear that things may start to slow down. For one, baseball season is in full swing, but that’s a minor problem. Here is what I may think will be the issue, and it’s not something I could have predicted; We really like TV shows.

Between Netflix and Amazon, the perception was that I could find basically any movie I wanted. I was only limited by my imagination. I mentioned in a previous post that I was a video store jockey, and when I started this quest, I figured it would be similar to going to a video store back in the day. Aisles and aisles of movies, divided up by genre and usually even alphabetized for you, all for the renting. Really, your only nemesis was if another customer was thinking the same way you were. And if you happened to be at a Blockbuster, that was not always an issue because, if your choice was a popular new release, they would literally order a billion copies of it. So, as long as you didn’t have super-eclectic tastes, you would probably go home happy.

IMG_1508

Did anyone actually rent my staff picks?

But the game has changed. Now, if I am just trying to spend an evening watching a movie, I can go to Amazon, click on Prime Video, and the very top bar is a scrolling ad for Amazon’s original series’. Below that, I get Recommended Movies and then Recently Added Movies. Fair enough. I’m sure they’ve done their research and determined that people like to watch shows, and hey, it’s not like it’s a lot of work to scroll down an inch to see what movies they have. So I’ll stop whining.

Heh, no I won’t. I’m making a point here. Similarly, Netflix, a site where you can’t even buy other cool stuff like cat litter and toilet paper, has a lovely scrolling ad promoting their original series, and a whole lot of comedy specials, which I find interesting. Again, Netflix and Amazon have tons of customer data that says that we like shows (and I guess people like comedy specials). So that’s what they give us. I don’t blame them for not catering to some weirdo who wants to watch a lot of movies in a year and has a thing for Brie Larson.

The interesting part, though, is that the number of movies on Netflix is around 4500, and dropping. And according to Variety, Amazon Prime Video has “four times as many films available for streaming.” Funny thing is that Hulu has jumped ahead of Netflix, “with 3,588 shows and 6,656 movies,” as of last March. Netflix has apparently not disputed the fact that they are moving away a little from obtaining the rights to existing titles, instead choosing to invest in original content, estimating spending “more than $6 billion [in 2017], investing about 5% of its cash content budget in original films.” Original films doesn’t sound that bad, but it doesn’t exactly replace the video store. I’m actually wondering where the Hell they get $6 billion in the first place. I know everyone has it nowadays, but that’s a lot of lettuce.

Back to that stat about Amazon, though. it’s all well and good to say that they have 4 times as many movies as Netflix, but what does it matter of most of those movies are shit? A quick glance at the first few comedy movies they suggest to me shows Daddy’s Home, Dirty Grampa and… Classic TV Bloopers? Hey, I get that we all need a a laugh once in awhile, but if I go to Amazon because I want to spend an evening watching a movie, I’m probably not interested in watching Classic TV Bloopers. Call me crazy.

So, they have a lot of crap, and I spend a lot of time scrolling and searching for something that I can watch. In fact, I am limited to my imagination, but I’m also kind of limited to what they happen to be highlighting at a certain point (I’m probably going to end up watching The Purge: Election Year at some point, just because it’s there.) This is what lead me to Nasty Baby, which was a pretty nasty movie starring Kristen Wiig as a straight woman who has agreed to be a surrogate mother to a gay couple. Maybe if they had played it a different, that would have made for a good premise, but instead the thing just took a turn and went straight to Crazy Town. I love Kristen Wiig, but this was not one of her better moments (especially the actual moment when they actually showed her injecting herself with the guy’s… stuff. I know it’s a visual medium, but, damn.)

There’s still the old tried-and-true movie theater, though, right? And with summer here, I’ll sure to be hitting the reclining seats more often. Why, yes, however, there’s a little hook there, too. And it coincides with this posts’ Brie Larson pick: the indie shoot-’em-up comedy Free Fire (which I highly recommend)I saw this at the Assembly Row theater in Somerville, which still kind of has the “new theater smell” going on. First of all, the young woman next to me was completely shocked when the first guy got shot (I’m not sure what movie she thought she was seeing, but even if you have no idea what it’s about, it started out with a bunch of dudes buying a bunch of guns, so there’s a good chance somebody is going to get shot.) She kept talking to her boyfriend, even after I told them to quiet down, in so many words. After the gun play really got going, she got up and left and never came back. So, no harm done, I guess.

movie-ninja

In so many words…

But here’s the real kicker: with about five minutes left in the movie, three people come in, phones out, voices loud, and start searching for their seats. Again, I tell them to please keep it down (in so many words), but they don;t seem to understand that they are either very late or very early. Finally, someone else in the theater tells them that there’s only a few minutes left, and they need to get out. Of course, a few minuets later when we are all exiting the theater, these three idiots are standing at the door. I checked the next showtime, and it turns out, it didn’t start for another forty minutes. First of all, these dummies walked in to a dark theater 45 minutes before their show and don;t seem to notice that there’s a movie going on. And what’s even more annoying is that the theater employees obviously let them in and didn’t tell them that their show wasn’t seating yet. Unless they were trying to “double feature” it, but there was only five minutes left, anyway, so they deserved to get yelled at.

I could (and maybe will) do a whole post on how little patience I have for people who don’t know how to behave in a movie theater, but at the moment, suffice it to say:

larson free fire.gif

So, I guess the point of all this is that this experiment might be a little harder going forward. The solution might just be to get a Hulu account.

Movies Since Last Post:

Digging for Fire
Everything Must Go
Nightcrawler
Ghost in the Shell (2017)
Bridge of Spies
Almost Famous
The End of the Tour

 

I had been trying to come up with a cool name for this silly project that previously had the exhilarating title of “2017 – A Year of Movies.” I thought it was a funny title seeing as how I happened upon several Brie Larson movies, and I also was hoping it would maybe get me a few more hits if some people were Googling “Brie Larson.” Or even “Brie Larson side boob.”

brie-larson-sideboob-look

Yep. I Googled it.

Speaking of Larson, the selection for this post was intentional: the little-seen indie Digging for Fire, where she plays a small role as a young co-ed who is kinda-sorta courted by Jake Johnson. I can’t really say I didn’t like this movie, but I didn’t hate it. The story is that young parents Johnson and Rosemarie Dewitt are hitting all kinds of ruts, financially, romantically and just in general feeling old and grumpy as they house-sit for a much-richer couple. She and their young son go to spend a weekend with her mother so they can have some Me time. He spends it by inviting some of his crazy party-animal friends over and doing some drugs, and she spends it getting seduced by Orlando Bloom. One of Jake’s druggie friends had invited some girls over, one of whom was played by Brie Larson. Now, of course, because young screenwriters are really doughy-eyed, Johnson and Dewitt resist all urges and realize that all they really want is each other, and to raise their child as they see fit and to Hell with the pressures of the world (Yay!). The problem is the movie presents them both as such depressed (and depressing) losers that I was kind of rooting for them to cheat, if for no other reason than to make the hour-and-a-half I just spent watching it seem worthwhile.

orlando-bloom-is-digging-for-fire

I mean, you gotta nail that down

And the fact that they cast Orlando Bloom as Dewitt’s suitor? Come on. After that romantic walk on the beach they took, even I wanted to jump him. The note I made in my spreadsheet next to this movie was, ” I love when Hollywood people try to pretend they’re real people.”

But these posts aren’t supposed to just be about the movies themselves. They are about my observations with regards to how they are consumed, and in some instances, why they are consumed. One thing I noticed about most of this crop of movies is that they seemed like vanity projects. I know for a fact that Ghost in the Shell was something that has been in the works for years. Everything Must Go (based on a story by Raymond Carver) struck me as one of those movies that Will Farrell does once in a while to show people that he is a “real actor.” Bridge of Spies was one of those Spielberg/Hanks collaborations that was designed to make you think, which is pretty much all Spielberg does these days (and after the reviews for B.F.G, maybe he should stick to historical drama.) And Almost Famous was a sometimes funny take on Cameron Crowe’s days as a reporter for Rolling Stone, obviously a movie that he wanted to make, and after the success of Jerry Maguire, had the power to do so. Not that these were not good movies on a certain level, but the only one that had any real teeth to it was Nightcrawler, Jake Gyllenhaal’s frightening portrayal of a freelance news cameraman who ends up making the news that he’s attempting to capture. Definitely an eye-opening movie, if for no other reason than to remind the world that Jake Gyllenhaal can actually act.

In the vein of vanity projects, I want to talk about The End of the Tour, based on David Lipsky’s book, Although Of Course, You End Up Becoming Yourself: My Road Trip with David Foster Wallace, which is a pretty cool title, but I understand why a movie studio wouldn’t think it very marketable. It is a very interesting take on Wallace (Jason Seagal) and how he dealt with fame and success after the release of his book Infinite Jest. Seeing that he committed suicide, it seems not so well, but there’s definitely layers to this movie (and more than just “the Cold War was bad,” like Bridge of Spies.)

Anyway, the basic premise is that Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg), a writer for Rolling Stone, hears that this Infinite Jest book is basically Shakespeare, and is rather annoyed at the praise (basically because he just released a book to mild apathy.) Lipsky then reads the book and discovers that it is that damn good, and asks his boss if he can interview Wallace for Rolling Stone, and follows him for a few days as Wallace is wrapping up his book tour.(Side-note: after watching this and Almost Famous back-to-back, it was weird to think that Rolling Stone, and magazines in general, were actually relevant not too long ago.) Lipsky has this sort of puppy-love for Wallace, even before meeting him, basically because he wants that level of success and respect, only to realize that even David Foster Wallace doesn’t actually want to be David Foster Wallace. Wallace is very self-conscious about how he will come across in Lipsky’s article, mostly because he is afraid of sounding like a self-righteous douche. He is, in fact, anything but, as he generally is portrayed as a kind of lonely guy who lives in the middle of Nowhere, Illinois with his dogs and likes to write, but isn’t really all that concerned if anyone likes his books. Obviously, Lipsky is the complete opposite, and can’t wrap his head around why this beatnick doesn’t care about anything.

There’s a funny scene where Lipsky asks Wallace why he wears a bandanna all the time. Wallace’s answer is that he used to sweat a lot, and it kept the sweat out of his eyes, and it eventually just became a type of security blanket. It’s a perfectly reasonable (if not very sexy for readers of Rolling Stone) response, but Wallace is nervous that he will come off as being a little high-and-mighty, like some super-genius who is too good to even comb, let alone wash, his hair. Again, that is not even close to being true, but Wallace is so worried about being perceived as pretentious that he is completely neurotic about it. He is not too worried about his writing being accepted by the public, but he definitely doesn’t want the public to think he’s a prick.

There’s another layer when Lipsky, after being pressured by his boss, asks Wallace about the time he was institutionalized years earlier, because the common belief was that it was because of a heroin addiction. Wallace is incredibly insulted by this, citing that the only addiction he’s ever had was television (which is depicted very clearly and hilariously in the movie). He tells Lipsky that he was just incredibly unhappy, so unhappy that people assumed he turned to heroin to make himself feel better (The movie does gloss over Wallace’s many foibles, like sleeping with his students, excessive drinking, and even stalking women that he was attracted to. I guess being a TV addict just made him more likable.) Wallace compares his depression to a person jumping out the window of a burning building because the perception that burning to your death is worse than falling to it. The real reason he was so unhappy, at least, the way I read it, was because he had broken up with his girlfriend. It’s never made explicit, but Wallace gets very angry at Lipsky for hitting on his ex right in front of him, so yeah, I made that jump. Truly, that’s probably the best reason to be unhappy that’s ever been. Loneliness is certainly a more plausible reason for depression than, “Fame was too much for me, man.” (I’m looking at you, Cobain!)

I could go on, but the reason this movie spoke to me was because I could see both sides of the coin. As a schlub who has written comic books that I wish sold better (which can be purchased here!), I could identify with Lipsky. You put your heart and soul into something you really love, you want people to like it as much as you do, and maybe make a little salad at the same time. However, as my life has gone on, and I’ve met some comic book professionals, I can also see a little bit of Wallace’s point. He’s a regular guy suffering from depression who happens to be blessed with great intelligence, but all he wants is to be regular, and have someone to talk about his day with when he gets home. I admit that I don’t know much about the real David Foster Wallace (although he apparently taught at Emerson for a little while in 1991, so I guess I just missed him.), but if he’s anything like the comic book professionals I have met, I do understand him. No one gets into comics because they want to become rich. They just have some creativity to spare and a need to express themselves, one way or another. I doubt that Wallace wrote a 1,000-plus page novel figuring that it would be The One. You could say he just got lucky, although considering how it ended up for him, you would probably be wrong.

As I said, however, I do understand Wallace on some level. I have enjoyed writing comics, but one thing I really do not enjoy is trying to get people to read them. He really didn’t like his book tour. He didn’t seem too happy to be featured in Rolling Stone. But he did seem to like having Lipsky around to talk to, and that’s pretty much all anyone could ask for.

Movies Watched Since Last Post: 

Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation
Dark Harbor
Kedi
I Am Big Bird
Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai
Spotlight
The Gambler
Nintendo Quest

It’s been almost three weeks now, and a rather sad number of movies. Eight in eighteen days is not the kind of run I was hoping for when i started this, especially since the last one, the mind-boggling Nintendo Quest (more on that in a minute) was finished on the 26th of March, and I am now on the 30th.  I will say that I had to study for a certification exam for my actual job, which I ended up barely not passing, which I guess means that I am not qualified for a job that I’ve had for about 18 years, and I’ve just been fooling everyone all this time.

Before I get into the nuances of movie-watching these days, the Brie Larson sighting for this post was in Mark Wahlberg’s The Gambler, It was not horrible, despite Brie having a kind of small role, and Mark Wahlberg being in it. I should have hated it, but something about it was strangely compelling, and not just Brie Larson in glasses:

el-jugador-2014-imagen-23

Rowr!

So, anyway, a little break was necessary, but also, I am running into my first problem with my quest. That problem is that I am running out of available movies to watch (Remember, these movies have to be ones I have never seen, so part of the problem is I’ve seen a lot.) When you break it down, these are the major platforms I am using: Amazon Prime, Netflix, Xfinity OnDemand and actually going out to the movies (with the occasional DVD thrown in). Weirdly enough, despite the fact that 11 out of 26 movies I have watched have been via Amazon, that may be the worst platform of them all because they have sooooo many bad movies on there, and in the time I have spent sifting through the refuse, I could probably have watched a couple of them. Part of this is on me, I realize, because I simply have no desire to watch Dirty Granpa, I’d feel a little gross watching Chain Gang Women, and I won’t watch anything starring Jason Statham, so that cuts out a good chunk of their library right there.  (Call me a film snob, but…) That’s just for the free movies, of course. You can pay to “rent” them digitally, but the real kick in the nuts about that is that you have 30 days to start it after you pay, but only 24 hours to finish it after you start. So, read the fine print, kids. I paid $3.99 to watch King of Kong, the documentary about the guy who has the highest score ever on Donkey Kong. I got about 40 minutes in and then life happened and I had to wait a couple days, only to realize that my window had closed.  Man, can you imagine if video store employees could come to your house and take back the movie if you started it and didn’t finish within 24 hours? Because that’s what Amazon has digitally done to me.

It’s funny, but I am only just getting used to paying to rent something that you don’t actually possess (and will only have for a day once you start it), and having it just disappear from your “digital library” like it never was. As I said, I worked in a video store for years, and a movie theater before that, so seeing movies for free was a regular occurrence, but that’s not the real hang-up for me. Something about renting it and never holding it in your hand makes you think that you’re just throwing money away (and in the case of King of Kong, I was.)  As a child, I would feed quarter after quarter into video games that seemingly had no point, other than the pleasure of it, but now, as an adult, I won’t spend $.99 on an app for my phone because that just seems like a waste. Is there some psychological theory about touching the things you are using that is lost now, or am I just cheap?

Along those lines, I wanted to talk about Nintendo Quest a little. This documentary (I went a little documentary crazy these last couple weeks) is about a young man, Jay, who loves video games, especially the original Nintendo Entertainment System. He loves it so much that his friend dared him to acquire all 678 games in 30 days, not using the internet for any of the purchases. So, this sounded like a fun little adventure to me. There are apparently some extremely rare games out there, so a big part of the movie was finding someone who had them and bartering with that person, and part of the story thread of the movie (and docs do have stories) is that Jay isn’t very good at bartering, so the point of the quest was really to get him out of his shell a little. Sounds fun, right?

Nintendo_600

Not so fast. There were a lot of holes here (and this is where my film school snobbery really comes out). My first big problem was that Day 1 of the quest consisted of him going to his friend’s houses and just taking any games that they own. So, the quest doesn’t actually involve “buying” all the games, as much as “acquiring” them. I guess it’s cheaper this way, but kind of a cop-out. The movie does mention that part of the quest was staying under budget, which I get. These are just a couple dudes, after all, with jobs and bills and stuff (and a sick dog, which even factors into the story). The problem is that they never mention what their budget actually is. They just have a Price is Right-style counter on the side whenever Jay buys a game that tells you how close he is getting to maxing out. The film does sometimes mention that he got a good deal, or that $5 was too much for a certain game, but I don’t know what $5 means to this guy. If his budget was a few hundred dollars,  OK, $5 a game is a lot when you have to buy 678 of them. But if you have thousands, for the sake of the movie, buy the damn thing (They do mention briefly at the end that he “spent his life savings,” which sort of seems like a waste in retrospect.) They also spend a really long portion of the movie showing Jay negotiating a deal with a collector in Florida who wants to sell him Stadium Events, apparently the Holy Grail of Nintendo games, for $4000, which the filmmakers tell us is a good deal. The hang-up is that Jay doesn’t like to fly, and doesn’t have the time (or inclination) to drive to Florida, and the guy doesn’t want to just give him the game without getting paid first. As I’m watching this, I’m thinking that the big finale of the movie is that, for the good of the quest, he gets on a plane and flies down and gets his Holy Grail.

Nope. That deal falls apart, and doesn’t factor into the movie at all after that. In fact, Jay doesn’t actually complete the quest in the allotted 30 days. He actually ends up way off, and Stadium Events was one of the games he missed. He ends up getting it from a different dealer, who is only to happy to part with it. They show Jay buying it, and act like it’s a big deal because he finally got it, but they also tell us that he bought the rest of the ones he needed on eBay, and they show him buying Stadium Events from that guy 8 months later. It’s kind of a nice point to make when he says how it felt impersonal to buy them on eBay (which is kind of what I was saying earlier), because he connected with a lot of people on his way to buying the 678 654 games. But by this point, who cares? The point was to do it in 30 days and not use the internet.

I suppose it’s an interesting case-study of what happens when two guys set out to make a documentary about something, and then that something doesn’t take place. I mean, you’re kind of stuck, amiright? I was trying to put myself in their shoes and think about what I would do. You have to finish it, since you went through all the trouble, but could you lie and leave out the “8 months later” part and just say he did it? Who would know? My theory is that they started it, realized it was impossible, and decided to make it about finding this one game, because they are literally hours away from the deadline and he is still knocking around a store in his hometown, seeing if he could find anything. And they weren’t too concerned about having more than twenty games left to get. I also feel like something personal may have happened that they didn’t want to include (there’s some weird side story about what a dick Jay’s Dad was, and then how bad he felt when he died), but definitely got in the way.

I do remember when I was younger, maybe even a little younger than Jay and his friends, and I wanted to make a doc about my friends’ band. It was only a few months later when the band kind of broke up because that’s what your friends’ bands do. I then thought it would be funny to call the doc “The Band That Never Was,” and just make it about how friends’ bands almost always end (often badly), but realized there’s not much of a movie there. This was, of course, before there was a Youtube or any place where people could ever watch anything online, but if there was, maybe I would have continued and been an internet sensation. As it was, my interest waned, probably the same way that these guys’ interest in Nintendo games should have, maybe 30 years or so ago.

I know I sound kind of cynical, especially when you consider the whole “It’s about the journey” rationale, but something about this film, as annoying as it was at times to my grumpy mind, that struck a chord with me. Here I am, trying to watch as many movies as possible in a year. Will I get bored in June and simply drop it? Will I hate most movies by then? Will I realize it’s all kind of pointless, like “acquiring” every Nintendo game is to most people? Or will Matt Dursin, like Jay, discover something about himself along the way?

We shall see. Until then…

Brie Larson

I may have to watch Scott Pilgrim again. And again.

 

Movies Since Last Post:  It Follows, Hidden Figures, Kong: Skull Island, Life of Brian, Central Intelligence

I don’t know if I’ll be posting every week, but I had an interesting movie week, and it’s 23 degrees outside, so I figured, what the Hell? Also, my memory isn’t that great, so if I don’t do it now, I may not remember what I wanted to say about them.

Weirdly enough, it took me two months to remember that I could watch movies on Netflix (I guess I thought it was just for cool shows). So, I started going through and adding movies to my queue, or whatever they call it now. I started with the creepy It Follows, which I remember hearing good things about when it was released in 2014. It was creepy, but a little disappointing when you think about how it really has no point and it kind of just ends. Similarly to Room and Sicario, which I watched earlier this year. Maybe it’s just me, but a lot of these movies seem to be ending just when I think the story is ramping up. I also think I chose this one because the running time was acceptable at 1 hour and 40 minutes. I’m starting to sound like my mother here, who basically dislikes any movie over 90 minutes, but I have a life, too, and so I don’t have a lot of spare time to commit to a movie that I think could possibly maybe be not all that horrible.

Although, speaking of spare time, I took a couple vacation days last week, so I ended up going to the movies (I also had a free pass that expired soon. Time and money are probably the two most important things to consider in this movie-watching year.) First, I saw Hidden Figures, which was enjoyable, and the performances Oscar-worthy, but I was not blown away. Maybe I’m just a grumpy, old bastard, but I felt like this movie was basically just like every other movie that depicts “How far we’ve come” as far as racism. Of course, the stories of these women needed to be told, and I love space exploration stories, I just wish that the most compelling part wasn’t Taraju P. Henson having to run a half-mile to the bathroom because her building didn’t have “colored restrooms.” What does that say about a movie when its most memorable aspect is a woman running to the bathroom?

The next day I saw Kong: Skull Island, in 3-D IMAX. Not real IMAX, but what they call Lie-MAX, because it was just on a big movie screen and probably wasn’t shown on one of those big projectors. I did experience a first here as the movie froze at one point, and we could hear it but the image was not moving. Naturally, I was the first person in the theater to get up and go tell the usher, because while I don’t know a lot about the science of movie projection, I do know that someone isn’t just sitting in that little booth watching the movie to see if something goes wrong. When it came back, it went right to where the sound was instead of going back to where it froze. Obviously, I missed some big story point while I was in the lobby, because one minute they were escaping the island, and the next Tom Hiddleston was saying, “We’re going to rescue Kong!” It could be argued that I could have asked for a refund or a free pass or something, but really, it was a King Kong movie, so I didn’t really see it for the story, anyway. Also, I’m not sure I would want to go back to that theater anytime soon, anyway. It seems as though the Loew’s Boston Common has definitely fallen upon hard times. They need some sort of Jon Taffer-esque Theater Rescue to come give it a make-over.

As a side note, I should also point out that I chose this movie with no knowledge that it featured Brie Larson. She was a major character and yet was not featured in any of the trailers or commercials. I guess we needed to hear Samuel L. Jackson scream a lot. Anyway, this marks the fourth Brie Larson movie this year. I’ll probably just watch the rest now just so I can say I did.

maxresdefault

Perhaps the most interesting movie-watching experience of the last week was Monty Python’s Life of Brian, on DVD. First of all, yes, I had never seen this movie. I’m pretty sure I had been lying about that for 25 years. I obviously had seen Holy Grail a million times, as well as a lot of their bits online over the years, but somehow, Life of Brian had eluded me.  And the interesting thing is that, unless I bought it used somewhere, or there was a special screening at a local movie house, it probably would have eluded me forever. Thankfully, Rachel had it on DVD, so I dug it out and put it in. And I know that putting a DVD in my Xbox is not all that interesting, but the very fact that it would have been really hard to see this movie otherwise is the interesting part. As a former video store jockey, I was surrounded by movies all the time, and I myself have a very large DVD collection (that mostly sits there nowadays), but at this point in human history, if you don’t already have a physical copy of a movie, it’s hard to justify buying one. Especially if you live in a one bedroom apartment with not much storage. I went on a little selling spree of some of my CD’s and DVD’s last year, just to make some room, and none of them sold for more than a few bucks, so I kind of gave that up. Point is, it’s just not really important to me to have a DVD collection anymore (and this is coming from a guy who has a comic book collection of well over 1000. I know. It makes little sense.) But the point is, without a DVD, it’s hard to find a movie like Life of Brian on any of the streaming services, so I guess there’s your justification right there. So, remember:

tumblr_meuadalei91qfzgyio1_500

So, having watched 18 movies in 2017 so far, with only two on DVD and 4 in theaters, I think it’s pretty obvious so far how people consume movies these days (and I guess, by people, I mean me.) But it’s pretty easy to stay home and watch movies when it’s this cold out. Let’s see what happens when things heat up around here.

 

As a film student at Emerson in 1997 (which I realize was now 20 years ago), I was taking Film Writing & Design with a horrible professor who told me that all people in Hollywood watch movies constantly, like literally that’s all they do. I think he actually said, “hundreds a year.” So I thought I would make a list of all the movies I watched that year and see if I matched up. I worked in a video store and got free rentals, so I thought it would be easy to make a decent number. This list only included movies that were new to me, so even though, for example, I saw Star Wars in a theater that year, that didn’t count because, even though it was the Special Edition, I had seen it before (many, many times). I made it to about 100 movies, I think, which kind of surprised me being that it was so low, and probably wouldn’t have gotten into any Hall of Fame in Hollywood.

Back in 1997, though, you didn’t have too many opportunities to see new movies. You either saw them in a theater or rented them in a video store. I know there were movies channels on cable, but my parents didn’t subscribe to them because my mother was convinced that they just showed the same movies over and over. She wasn’t entirely wrong, but it wasn’t until I became a functional adult that I made up for lost time by subscribing to every movie channel I could. I know this may be snobbish, but I don’t really count watching them on a regular channel, like TBS or something. Something about the commercials just ruins the experience for me.

But in 2017, there are many ways to watch movies, so I decided to try again. Obviously, the method would be a little different this time around. Sadly, video stores are no more, although there are many uses for those old VHS tapes, as you can see:

09bdbff5b4790ed0ac831bcafe532e60.jpg

Anyway, I would try to watch as many new (to me) movies as possible, and catalog them. And not in a spiral notebook like in 1997. This time, I could use a spreadsheet on Google Drive, with the date I watched it and also how I watched it. I thought that by the end of the year, it could be a cool way to examine how we watch movies nowadays (or it could just be a whole lot of nothing).

So, as of this writing (March 5th), I have watched 13 movies. Again, not breaking any records, but I was already a few weeks into January when I decided to do this, so I probably would have watched a couple more if I was actually trying. February was a big month, with 8 movies watched, with half of them being watched on Amazon Prime video. March promises to be even bigger, as I’ve already watched 3 movies (Don Jon, The Spectacular Now, and Logan), and it’s only the 5th. I also somehow managed to watch three Brie Larson movies in a row. I honestly didn’t even know she had made that many movies. She is a great actress, though, and I’m definitely looking forward to her as Captain Marvel.

captain_marvel_

The one observation I can make now, and it’s a pretty obvious one, is that watching movies on a computer has changed the game completely. It’s a really interesting way to consume them, in fact, because as a younger, snobbier man, I didn’t really like watching a movie, stopping it at some point, going to do something else, and then coming back to it (even though you could certainly do that with a VCR tape, and I did, but it always felt like cheating somehow). I always thought that movies were meant to be enjoyed in a single sitting. Now, either because I’m just older and I just don’t care, or because of the technology, I feel like it’s cool to just pause it on your computer and go back when you want. In fact, most of the movies that I’ve watched on Amazon and Xfinity OnDemand have taken me days to watch, and I don’t think it diminished my enjoyment of them (if I indeed enjoyed them at all.) Maybe it was because video store rentals had to be returned after a couple days, but my Amazon Prime movies don’t need to be returned, as long as I pay that bill.

Speaking of paying, another interesting aspect of this experiment thus far is that out of 13 movies, I have only paid for four of them, being The LEGO Batman movie, Get Out, Logan and The Spectacular Now (yeah, I spent money to rent that one on Amazon, and that was a bit of a mistake.) Now, I do pay for Amazon Prime and I pay a cable bill that allows me to watch movies on the Xfinity website, but I don’t know if I’m contributing to a film’s gross by doing that. I will say, though, that it makes it easier to watch a lot of movies when you don’t have to directly pay for them (Or leave the house! Even getting free video rentals in 1997 didn’t make it this easy.)

My one fear? That the math will catch up to me. I know myself, and even though there are thousands of movies available to me, right at my fingertips no less, there are also thousands of them that I literally have no desire to see. So, after 13 movies in just over two months, I’m on pace to watch a couple hundred, and my concern is that there aren’t actually that many movies that I want to see. I mean, I may not be paying directly for them, but, time is money. So, do I want to spend my time on them?

We shall see. I’ll update my progress periodically, so stay tuned.

This is another one that has been making the rounds on HBO lately, and I happen to catch it at the same part every time: the horrible ice skate root canal scene. Ugh.

Back in 2000, the world was aghast at the prospect of one of Hollywood’s most beloved actors spending two-and-a-half hours on an island with a volleyball. Could even Robert Zemekis pull this off? Is Tom Hanks that good that we would sit through such a movie that sounds like an intriguing disaster-in-the-making?

Apparently the answer was a resounding “Yes!” To the tune of $233 million worldwide gross, and a Best Acting Oscar nom for Hanks. Impressive feat, seeing as how Hanks didn’t interact with anyone but a volleyball the entire movie. Right?

Or so they would like us to believe. In fact, whoever came up with the marketing plan for this movie should get some award nominations, too, because there is a little bit of Hollywood magic at play here.

First, the quick poop on Cast Away, the pretty much universally-loved tale of a Fedex executive who takes on a last-minute assignment and is stranded on a deserted island when his plane crashes. He told his girlfriend at the time, played by Helen Hunt, that he would “be right back” – which is always a good sign in any movie – and was gone for four years, presumed dead. However, he was alive and living off the land for four years, until some weird port-a-potty siding or whatever it was washes up on his beach one day, giving him the means to build a raft that will get him past the powerful surf and off the island. He is found in the middle of the ocean and brought back to civilization, only to discover that Hunt has married a dentist and had a child. Total bummer, but at least you’ve got your health, right?

At its most basic roots, this is a movie about a person surviving with nothing but his wits and some stuff that crash-landed with him, literal man vs. environment stuff. Other than Hanks and Hunt (a little bit), there isn’t a whole lot of character development, so it’s basically, “How do we pass the time imaginatively with one guy on an island by himself?” Which was a pretty novel and cool concept, I’ll admit. But I will say that they probably didn’t have to pay Tarantino to take a pass at the dialogue on this one. But there was a lot more at play here than just your basic movie, and this is what I’ve decided as time has gone on and the movie has settled.

The run time of Cast Away is listed at 144 minutes (2 h, 24 minutes, for the people who hate math, which I do). Using basic Screenwriting 101 principles, the plane crash that maroons him on the uncharted island comes around 25 minutes in, and he wakes up on the island at just about 30 minutes. Interestingly enough, he wanders around looking for food and salvation for another half-hour before opening the package that contains the other major character in the movie; Wilson the Volleyball, which he was delivering on that plane. Wilson obviously doesn’t speak, but Hanks does draw a face on him, which instantly makes him slightly more expressive than Helen Hunt.

castaway533

 

We then get about ten minutes of him trying to make fire, which he eventually does. At about 1:18, we get the awful root canal scene, and then the time jump to four years later, and now he has a huge beard and is an experienced spear-wielder. At about 1:45, after escaping the island and floating aimlessly through the ocean for days, Wilson slips off the raft and floats away, and is never seen again, and we feel horrible.

tumblr_mvwk3h6krh1rhmne4o1_500

However, despite the clever marketing, Wilson was only in the movie for about forty minutes. Granted, people have won Oscars with much less screen time than that, but no one ever described Elizabeth as, “Cate Blanchett talks to an old lady for two-and-a-half hours.”

Hanks is discovered floating a couple minutes later (call it 1:47), but there is still almost forty minutes of movie left, while we learn about him rejoining the world, reconnecting with Hunt, and delivering the one package that he kept on the island, never opening it because it had cool angel wings drawn on the outside of the box. To me, this last forty minutes is the real crux of the movie, because not a whole lot happens while he’s on the island. He makes fire, bashes out one of his teeth and talks to a volleyball. We did learn while he was planning his escape that he contemplated suicide by hanging himself off of a cliff, and the only reason he didn’t do it was because the branch he wanted to use wouldn’t have held and he would have smashed on the rocks below and possibly not died, but been in immense pain for awhile. Good character development there.

But the real character stuff comes in those last forty minutes, and that’s what makes it a good movie that settled pretty well. In a very understated way, Hanks plays this guy trying to be normal again. After the Fedex gala celebrating his return, he picks up the claw of the half-eaten lobster that they served, and stares at it, no doubt thinking that he used to catch stuff like that with his bare hands so he could live, and now it’s a delicacy. When he goes to bed that night, he lays on the floor, his body not used to sleeping on a comfortable bed yet, and flicks the light on and off so he can look at his locket containing a picture of Helen Hunt, just like he used to do with his flashlight while trying to fall asleep in the caves of his island.

Which brings us to his reunion with Hunt. She was supposed to meet him at the airport, after a brief Fedex press conference. Instead, her douchebag husband (played by Sex in the City‘s Mr. Big, another d-bag) comes in to tell Hanks that she’s not ready yet, and it’s all been a big shock to her. My instant reaction was, “Her? What about him?”

But it’s not true. Perhaps realizing that is not the reaction his girl would have, after the husband leaves, Hanks goes to the window and sees Hunt arguing with him, wanting to come inside to see her lost-and-now-found ex, but Mr. Big leads her to their car and drives away. This convinces Hanks to take the initiative and go to her late that night. Don’t ask me how he knows where she lives. Maybe he used his Fedex connections? Creepy.

They have awkward coffee, discuss football, her daughter, and other mundane stuff. Then she shows him the map that she kept showing where his plane went down, where his island was, and how far he drifted until he was rescued. Despite everyone telling her to let go because he was surely dead, she saved everything relating to him. She even gave him back his car. She saved everything but Wilson.

As she watches him start to drive away, she begins to run after him. Simultaneously, he throws it in reverse and goes back. They share a passionate kiss in the rain. She tells him, “You are the love of my life.” They get in the car and are about to drive away, when they both realize the truth: she is married to someone else, and it cannot happen. She returns to her home and her stupid husband. And there’s still fifteen minutes left in the movie!

Hanks goes to his friend’s house to drink Scotch. He admits that he never thought he would get off the island, that he thought about killing himself, that he had power over nothing. But he kept breathing, kept surviving, and miracle of miracles, the tide gave him his sail (port-a-potty thing), and here he is, alive, and yet, he still lost her. And he admits, “I’m so sad I don’t have Kelly.” But he has to keep breathing, because tomorrow will come, and “who knows what the tide will bring.”

And there’s still 12 minutes left of running time! (OK, including credits)

Next we see Hanks delivering the package that he never opened, the one with the angel wings drawn on it. He drives to the the address, in the middle of nowhere, and finds no one is home, although there are similar angel wing sculptures all over the yard. He leaves the package with a note, saying, “This package saved my life. Thank you.” He then drives back to a four-way intersection, and stops to contemplate his next move. As he stands outside his car, a map laid out on his hood, he is approached by a Samaritan who helps him with some directions, and kind of hits on him. As she drives off in the direction of the house he just left, Hanks sees the same angel wing drawing on the back of her truck, and realizes that she was the angel on his shoulder. He stands in the middle of the intersection, looking in each direction and wondering where to head. Then he looks back in the direction she drove off in, and smiles. FADE OUT. Finally!

I’m not actually complaining about the length of the movie, because it flows very well, but merely commenting on how most of the stuff that actually happens in the movie takes place after he is rescued. The movie itself, to me, isn’t really about a guy stranded on an island, foraging for coconuts. It is actually a tragic love story about a guy who is gone and presumed dead, only to return and find his true love has married someone else. It could just as well have been called “I Thought He Was Dead for Four Years: The Kelly Frears Story,” except that the island stuff made things more interesting.

I know that I’m barely touching on the religious aspect of the angel wings, the bro-mance between Hanks and Wilson, and I didn’t even mention the “divine” whale intervention that awakens Hanks just as his would-be rescue ship is going by what remains of his man-made lifeboat. That is all very cool stuff that adds to this movie, but in the end, it’s just stuff that fills the time until we get to the real story, the story of tragic lovers Chuck and Kelly. The story of a man who never married his girl, and now he never will. But the tragedy makes it all worth it, because let’s face it, if he had come back and she left her family for him, wouldn’t that have been pretty ridiculous? Yeah, for this movie to settle well and not be remembered as simplistic, Hollywood pap, it had to end this way. So, sorry, Chuck. Hope it worked out with the angel chick.

crossroads-castaway2

Unless you went a different way.

I am maybe playing with fire here, because I haven’t actually seen this movie in years. In fact, I think the last time I watched it, it was my VHS copy. Remember that? It was one of those two-tape monsters.

Yes, Michael Mann’s Heat, starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro was long. Or it seemed like it at the time. With a run time of two hours and fifty minutes, it is actually a half-hour shorter than the last Lord of the Rings movie, and about as long as the first Hobbit movie, and yet those movies seemed to go on forever and I would probably never be able to sit through them again, but I’ve seen Heat several times. It’s either a shortening of the collective attention-span or the fact that Heat just had fewer characters to keep track of, but it seems like a quick, little crime movie to kill an afternoon compared to anything Peter Jackson has ever done. Maybe the whole two-tape VHS thing just seemed daunting in retrospect.

Or maybe Heat just seems long because not a whole lot happens in it. Basically, the movie is one long acting duel between two of the greats just before their total descent into the land of Phoning It In.

(In fact, I think they made that skit based on this movie. And it’s hilariously on target.)

The funny thing is that Heat was actually marketed on being a Pacino-DeNiro slugfest, but which is enough for most people, but when you strip that away, it’s a very basic heist movie. Like, extremely basic. We are told that DeNiro and his crew are super-thieves, and Pacino is a super-cop, but other than that, it’s basically an over-acted episode of Law and Order. The logline on IMDB says that it’s about , “A group of professional bank robbers start to feel the heat from police when they unknowingly leave a clue at their latest heist.” Now, I don’t doubt that happened, but it seems like a minor plot detail to me, and yet that quick synopsis makes it seem like that’s the driving action. Maybe this is just my faulty memory again and that was the big moment, but I suppose that the people at IMDB have to say something that describes it better than, “Two aging legends ham it up one more time!”

Basically, there’s a whole lot of talking for two hours of the two hours and fifty minutes, but what it boils down to is that Pacino knows that DeNiro is pulling a heist (because they sit down and have a little chat. Standard police procedure for all super-cops), but DeNiro has to pull it anyway, because this is, of course, the big “retirement” score. DeNiro has also gone against his Jedi training by falling in love with Judging Amy (Amy Brenneman), and therein lies the rub. DeNiro’s mentor told him,”Never have anything in your life that you can’t walk out on in thirty seconds flat if you spot the heat coming around the corner.” Not only does it make for a great title for the movie, but some prisoner somewhere probably has that tattooed on his back.

In the movie’s one great scene, DeNiro and his crew pull off the heist, sort of. There is all sorts of ratting out and stuff, but basically, it’s DeNiro and Pacino and their various colleagues shooting at each other, and eventually DeNiro gets away with some of the money, and Val Kilmer, and Pacino kills everyone else in DeNiro’s crew. So, it’s win-win.

After wasting all the rats, DeNiro asks Judging Amy if she’s down to make a getaway to New Zealand with his stolen money. They plan to meet, but acting on another tip (these are the worst criminals ever), Pacino shows up, as well. DeNiro spots him and decides that it’s time to invoke his 30-Second Rule, but it’s too late. Pacino spots him and the chase is on. Well, “chase” may be exaggerating a little. Both of these guys were in their fifties, so they kind of waddled.

The big finale comes on an airport runway, just for dramatic effect, and Pacino shoots DeNiro in the chest multiple times after seeing his shadow in the in the bright lights of an oncoming plane. DeNiro is happy to not have to go back to prison, and Pacino is happy because, well, he got paid to do this. The two men share a nice moment as DeNiro  lay dying, holding each other’s di- uh, I mean, hands.

I guess we’re supposed to understand that the two were more alike than they seemed to be. That they both had struggles in their personal lives that made them eerily similar, but their professional lives kept them from being pals. I think in the end, though, you’re kind of happy that it’s over, and that you got to see this:

3515

I do love my gifs.

The thing that struck me as I was looking around the interwebs for information about this movie, was that it actually has a pretty good/famous supporting cast. Other than Kilmer (who is completely crazy but will always have a special place in my heart for his role in Kiss, Kiss, Bang, Bang), we have Jon Voight, Tom Sizemore, Ashley Judd, Dennis Haysbert, Natalie Portman, Hank Azaria, Henry Rollins, Jeremy Piven and the great Danny Trejo, who actually plays “Trejo.” And yet, all of them play second fiddle to the two aging stars who basically just mumbled for 90% of the movie.

The real problem with this movie, though, was that it was incredibly slow and bland. You’ve heard people use the saying “All sizzle and no steak,” right? Well, this movie was just steak. And slightly over-cooked, if you ask me. I know it seems strange to say this, given the two mega-stars known for chewing the scenery, but that’s what I think. I would have expected Mann, the creator of Miami Vice, to have something with a little more pop than this. Yes, the heist scene is amazing, and there’s a little bit of drama with the two guys leading similar lives, and Kilmer as the guy that DeNiro sees as the son he never had, but mostly it’s a lot of talking leading up to one cool gunfight, and then some more talking, and then the good guys win. And maybe in the hands of younger, hungrier actors, and a filmmaker who was a little more daring, that would be enough (In fact, See The Town for a similar movie done way better.). But here, we’re stuck with this:

giphy

Never gets old.