Babe ****1/2

I wouldn't have watched Babe, if it weren't on the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die" list. And what a miss that would have been.

I am sure many others make the same mistake. It is a children's movie, from a children's book. The idea of cute, furry animals teaching morals doesn't sound very attractive at first, but Babe's Capra-like innocence gets you at the end. (And don't you think there might be a hidden meaning to this? In 1940s Capra still believed George Bailey was real. 50 years later, George Bailey can only exist as a stupid pig!).

This article from NY Times is a good after reading.

Crazy Buddies

I finally started to watch first season of Saturday Night Live. I have been putting it off for a while mainly because of the size (Season 1 has 8 discs and there are how many seasons, again?). Also, my dislike of the current SNL (I know, the old ones are better!) was effective.

Anyway, episode 6 of the first season was hosted by Lily Tomlin (accompanied by an all-nurse band. And guess who was the leader of the band? Howard Shore. Turns out, the guy who created the "Lord Of The Rings symphony" started out as the leader of the house band.). As usual, Tomlin does a monologue and at the end of the monologue she suggests:

Wouldn't it be nice if all those people roaming the streets of NY, talking to themselves, were paired off, so that they could walk around in couples and look like they are having an actual conversation.

This reminded me of another sketch I had seen. Dana Carvey, in his funny yet short-lived Dana Carvey Show (which can be seen on Hulu. By the way, I noticed the show after Stephen Colbert mentioned in his interview with Charlie Kaufman that they worked together) had a sketch called "Crazy Buddies", which exactly does what Tomlin suggested, pair off the crazy people.

So, how do you explain this? Dana Carvey is an SNL alum, but there are about 20 years between the two episodes. Is it recycling? Long distance plagiarism? Remake? Or do great minds think alike?

New Year's Resolution

Here it is. My resolution for the new year is to blog more and write about every movie I see (and saw).

I used to do that before, because I believed if I did not comment (think, reflect) on what I saw, it was just a waste of time (and considering how much time I spend watching movies, it is quite a landfill). Then, somehow I felt I every review had to be a well-structured essay (I think the book "How to become a film critic", even though a good one, is the culprit here), which of course meant spending more time for each post and that led to an aversion to the whole thing. And quite honestly, not every movie deserves that much attention.

So, from here on I will try to put down all my thoughts, structured or unstructured. I came to understand that is the way the blog world works (Is is a good thing? I don't know). That of course only applies to the writing, I don't intend to post nonsense just to have something.

I hope my movie-logs will be of interest to some. I stay out of the mainstream and try to catch unusual and unknown titles. Once again, sorry about the grammar. I am not a native speaker and am trying to do my best. Finally, if you have something to say (negative or positive), please comment. Like every blogger, I like comments.

Happy new year!

Milk ****

I remember having a conversation with a friend of mine. We were talking about people around us and trying to decide who is "normal" and who is "weird". At the end, we decided that no one around us was qualified to be in the "normal" list (including ourselves). The moral of the story is, unless you are willing to live on an island in isolation (which in itself is quite weird, if I might add), you have to accept people as they are and let them live their lives the way they want.

Harvey Milk was one of many people, who just wanted to be left alone. Only, he did something about it.

Director Gus Van Sant and writer Dustin Lance Black chose a documentary-like approach by using Harvey Milk as his own life's narrator and cutting some footage from the era into the movie. This behind the scenes effort combined with another one of Sean Penn's method powered character creations (and a strong supporting cast), makes Milk disturbingly authentic.

It is disturbing, because it is hard to believe all this happened less than 50 years ago. Homosexuals being beaten up by the police, discriminated against by the public. And then Prop 6... Oh, wait, didn't we have something like that this year?

The biggest irony surrounding Milk is its end of November (almost December) release date. I don't know whether a movie could have stopped Prop 8, but (paraphrasing Harvey) "We at least would have known one of them". The movie might be mentioned for a number of Oscars in a month or so, but I don't think Harvey will be happy.

Synecdoche, New York ****?

So... Here we are again. You, the big writer; me, the geek who likes to play the critic.

I started with "Being John Malkovich". That was my first Charlie Kaufman "experience" and frankly I didn't get much out of it. I was young and cinema was just a fascination, not love. However, I never thought about seeing the world through someone else's eyes (literally) until that day and was therefore, let's say, intrigued. What was the next one? Human Nature? A probe into the laws of society. Once again, it was entertaining and different, but didn't make a permanent mark.

Adaptation was the real clincher for me. Some called it "weak" back then, but the way you twisted and turned a simple book adaptation, poked fun at the mainstream, while professing your love of cinema was quite refreshing. I saw it twice in the movie theater (which is something you don't do often, when you are on a tight college student budget) and then again later on DVD.

Although wildly original, "Eternal Sunshine of The Spotless Mind" seemed weak at first compared to "Adaptation". However, a second visit, years later, proved I just wasn't ready, when I first saw it. Apparently, one has to suffer from love to fully appreciate it.

So, what is this last one about Charlie? Is it about death? You sure talk about death a lot. It doesn't feel like a movie about death though. Could death be just a vehicle to talk about life? Just a catalyst to get the ball rolling.

Or is it about love? You go around it long enough with your Hazel and Caden. Are you invading Woody Allen's territory while he is in Europe? New York, love. This is how he started, you know. Wasn't "What's Up Tiger Lily" at least as weird as Being John Malkovich, if not more so? Then, the autobiographic love stories came along. Annie Hall, Manhattan. (I know, I know, both of you are writing about "fictional" characters, none of these people are related to your life.)

Even if you are not running in Allen's domain, you are using quite a bit of his gang. Jerry Adler is doing cameo work, but Dianne Wiest and Samantha Morton are front and center. Maybe you should start your own posse, now that you are a bona fide "auteur". (loved the pacing by the way. This is how it should be. Forget about the plot connections, just give us the story!) You already have Catherine Keener and wouldn't every director love to work with Philip Seymour Hoffman day after day? (I am curious though, did he follow you around, to get you completely? And who do you like better as you? Nicholas Cage or Hoffman? (I know, fictitious characters, right))

Some will call this a masterpiece, while others will say you are arrogant and write too smart, because your film won't let its secrets out right away (This is very popular lately, isn't it? Especially on TV. "Your show is canceled, because it is too smart". Tell that to Sid Caesar, who was parodying "The Bicycle Thief" 60 years ago).

Me? I am holding my judgement for now. I laughed at your jokes, I enjoyed superb acting, I fired a few neurons trying to solve your puzzles. More or less what I expect from the first pass of a Kaufman movie (much like a Kubrick or Lynch). I will watch "Synecdoche, New York" again, in months, maybe in years. And as I hit the life stops you hit, it will make more sense.

Thank you for letting us into your brain once again. It is as fun as it is messy.

Let The Right One In **1/2

I was fortunate enough to see this Swedish (wait for it, artsy types)... vampire movie (what the hell, right? That's what I thought) in an early screening.

It is the tale of the friendship between a nerdy, outcast junior high kid, Oskar and a real outcast, a vampire girl, Eli. Oskar is being bullied by other kids in the school; Eli is being bullied, well, by the sunlight and lack of human blood. An old man brings the girl the much needed blood, so that she doesn't go out and bite people. She goes out to talk to her new friend at night, life is good. However, the system breaks down eventually.

If you are familiar with the vampire genre, Let The Right One In will not present anything new (and if you can figure out the title before seeing the movie, you are familiar with the genre). It goes through the expected bloody, violent scenes and emotional tension; but fails to hold the viewer's attention (at least mine).

I see the movie has gotten some following so far. So, if the subject matter sounds interesting you might actually like it, but you have been warned.

Burn After Reading ****

First minutes of Burn After Reading; three bit players and one star (John Malkovich) are in a room. At the end of the scene, a frustrated Malkovich leaves, slamming the door. You would expect a cut to the next scene at this moment, but camera stays on the bit player sitting next to the door. One, two seconds, nothing. On the third he raises his eyebrows with a "Wow!" expression. No punchline, no complicated gag, yet it puts a smile on your face. These few seconds exemplify Coen Bros. brand of comedy.

Coens, as always, rely heavily on character comedy, which requires detailed introductions. In the red corner, ladies and gentlemen, we have the heavyweights of Washington. A CIA analyst Osborne Cox (John Malkovich), his doctor wife Katie (Tilda Swinton) and her lover Harry Pfarer (George Clooney). And, in the blue corner, we see the staff of Hardbodies Gym, self-conscious Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand), not so bright Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt) and the manager Ted (Richard Jenkins). None of the characters is as eccentric as those of The Big Lebowski, which makes the opening half a little slow, but warmup jokes, like the one mentioned above, keep the audience connected. When the two worlds finally collide, the increasingly stupid spy story gets underway.

Coen regulars Clooney, McDormand and Jenkins are joined by newcomers Malkovich, Pitt and Swinton in BAR. Great comedic performances all around. Pitt on the silly side, Swinton somewhat reserved. McDormand, Clooney, Malkovich all out as usual. JK Simmons also makes a short appearance towards the end.

Take it as a spy movie parody, a satire on CIA or on the stupidity of human beings. I don't care. Chances are, Coens don't either. Bottom line: Burn After Reading is the most entertaining movie so far this season.