635. Muppet Christmas Carol

or...Never Send a Michael Caine to do a Muppet's Job

This is among my favorite holiday movies and my favorite version of Dicken's classic though horrendously overdone tale of a cranky old guy and his slow trek towards not being a douche. So, what makes this version a Christmas Carol better than the others? It's most likely the Muppets and a little Michael Caine for good measure, but mostly the Muppets.

Gonzo and Rizzo the Rat are great as the narrators. They work with a lot of the original Dickensian text and put a decidedly Muppetatic (I'll make this a word) spin on it. Also, I love Rizzo. This is especially surprising considering the latter of the Muppet's was a recent addition to the cast who aside from Bean have failed miserably at new additions into the Muppet cast (Pepe, need I say more?). Yes, this was probably the last movie the Muppets made before they became relegated to horrible TV movie-style schmaltz and obnoxious featured guests (as seen in the painful exercise of the Muppet Wizard of Oz). This movie was ALMOST ruined by the sappiness for sure. The songs are mostly an exercise in futility though Michael Caine can surprisingly, carry a tune.

This song i kinda like (though there is no Michael Caine singing)

i hate this frickin song. so sappy

Kermit and Piggy are naturals at depicted the Kratchit family and Fozzy was born, well, made to play Fezziwinks (or Fozziwinks). Sometimes, the Muppet roles are forced but in the case of Muppet Christmas Carol, the integrations are seamless. There is heart and some genuine laughs which recent Muppet movies have been devoid of.

My in-law's family watches this every Christmas eve and though I need a break every few years I continually find this a cute and enjoyable film. There aren't many contemporary Christmas movies that I can stand but this one stands out though apparently, I can't think of anything remotely inciteful or interesting to say about it. hmm...um...the ghost of christmas present is funny. he is big and eats a lot. Um...Merry Christmas?

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted toThe Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

778. Requiem for a Dream: An Exercise in Morbidity

...Or How a “Favorite” Film Can Also Be a Painful, Enjoyable Trial

I don’t know anyone out there who would admit to have “enjoyed” watching Daron Aronofsky’s bleak addiction drama. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find someone who can watch this a second time. However, anyone that has seen it can probably vividly recall it. A film like Requiem teaches us a lesson that sometimes, movies aren’t fun to watch and that is not necessarily a bad thing. If movies are meant to move and make us feel, then we must take the painful with the inspiring.

What impressed me about Requiem was that it unflinchingly covered different types of addiction with the same passive voice. There was Jared Leto and an unrecognizable Marlon Wayans (of White Chicks fame) as heroin addicts, Ellen Burstyn as Leto’s mother, who becomes addicted to pills, and Jennifer Connelly, another drug addict/future prostitute and Leto’s girlfriend. The film covers their downward spiral into their addiction and doesn’t end well for any character.

::SPOILERS::

Leto ends up in a prison hospital with his arm amputated, Wayans ends up in a racist prison for drug possession, Burstyn winds up in a mental hospital getting electroshock therapy, and Connelly is the featured star of an anal sex show.

::SPOILERS::

It is safe to say that none of the characters end up in a terribly good place. All of them begin the film with hopes, dreams, and aspirations, and becoming slaves to their addiction which inevitably leads to their major major downfalls. They attempt to use drugs to achieve their dreams, to sell drugs or sex to open a store, or weight loss and sleeping pills to achieve game show success, and it overpowers them and enslaves the characters.

Requiem is really as dark it comes. The last scene is a fantasy vision of what could be had drugs not entered into their lives and somehow it makes the film even more depressing. That vision conflicted with the harsh and painful reality of their lives makes the tragedy of the character’s downfall even more powerful. In short, the movie ends without even the faintest glimmer of hope or redemption for ANY of the characters. A bum out ending is one thing, though usually there is slight hint that the worst is over for the characters. In Requiem, there is a distinct feeling that things will probably get WORSE for them. Aronofsky basically ends the film at what could be the characters rock bottom but with painful YEARS of ordeals in front of them.

Note: Puppy video included to perk readers up.

I can’t watch this movie again. This is really no way I can ever sit through it. I wanted to turn off the damned thing at a bunch of points throughout but I didn’t. Somehow, I kept watched and while I didn’t enjoy the film in the least, I appreciated it a great deal for its honesty and darkness. I have seen a few films that were more depressing (which will be discussed later on in the list) which also fall into this category and they all deserve special mention. Though by the time Requiem for a Dream ended, all I wanted to do is watch cartoons, cuddle my cats, and ponder if I would want to see Jennifer Connelly in an anal sex show (answer was yes).

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 8800 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted to The Top 800 Master List, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

788. Two Lovers and the Strange Journey of Joaquin Phoenix

...Or How to Sabotage Your Own Film

This is a tough ten in which to choose one to discuss. There are two excellent documentaries (Dieter and Control Room), some great golden age screwball comedies (Ruggles and Major), a twisted classic (Freaks), and a VERY nerdy-emphasis –on-science-science fiction flick (Cube) to name just a couple. Though for today, I am going to focus on Two Lovers, a forgotten and unfairly overlooked film from last year.

Perhaps things would have gone better for this understated drama if the star hadn’t sabotaged the opening. Starring Joaquin Phoenix, it was during the press tour for Two Lovers that he began his “career transition” to aspiring rapper. Showing up on Letterman incoherent and with a giant beard, the film took a backseat to the filming of what would become key plot points in I’m Still Here, Casey Affleck’s worthy directorial effort in the genre of gonzo filmmaking. Though without a doubt, I approve of the satirical nature of I’m Still Here, I wished he instead would have done this during press for the bland Departed knock-off “We Own the Night.”

The plot of Two Lovers is pretty simple. Phoenix plays a man recovering from a major mental breakdown and is slowly beginning to date and become a functioning member of society. He is in the midst of falling for a plain, though stable girl, when he meets Gwyneth Paltrow, a mysterious ingénue with a similarly dark past. She is a whole basket of crazy and poor Phoenix doesn’t know happened as he falls in love with her. Their story progresses, things happen, and resolve somberly though faint rays hope, as all good indies do. It’s a pretty simple story but one of the best character studies over the past couple years.

I am not a Gwyneth Paltrow fan. I consider her Sylvia Plath biopic (creatively called Sylvia— ::begin rant:: enough with the biopics that only use the characters first name as a title! I am waiting for a Hitler biopic simply called Adolf. I get the simplicity but at this point, it’s horribly clichéd. Enough! ::end rant::) to be a cinematic crime, and I’m not even a Plath fan. Though in Two Lovers, she brings her Royal Tanenbaums-best. She even received an Independent Spirit Award nom for her efforts and the film itself garnered a few nominations for film and direction. Phoenix also delivers out an amazingly understated yet emotionally powerful performance. It begs the question of why, if he was so good, would he chose to completely wreck the integrity of the picture by having an emotional breakdown (albeit, a fake one) during the press tour?

He became the story and press focus rather than the film itself which it too bad. The indie film loving audience was scared away from seeing the film in theatres and it disappeared without a trace and only finally received some positive word of mouth when the ISA nominations came out. Still, Two Lovers is back to being an underappreciated, obscure film and given that I’m Still Here underwhelmed, I wonder what the fate of the film would be had I’m Still Here not been a factor.

781-790

781 Ruggles of Red Gap LeoMcCarey

782 I Was a Male War Bride Howard Hawks

783 Cube

784 Angel Face Otto Preminger

785 Little Dieter Needs to Fly Werner Herzog

786 Freaks Todd Browning

787 Traffic [2000] Steven Soderbergh

788 Two Lovers James Gray

789 The Major and the Minor Billy Wilder

790 Control Room

About the Top 800 Project:

Using the They Shoot Pictures Starting List of 7700 films (LINK) and my Netflix ratings, I sifted through the list and of the 4500 films I’d seen, I selected a random number of films I liked more than the others. The list was about 812 films. I kicked off 12 to get an even 800. The list chronologically goes up to 2009. Each blog entry will list ten films, one of which will be discussed in detail. The ten films will then be posted to HERE, a Google docs file compiling them. When the countdown finishes in what will be probably be a really a long time, I will begin discussing random films that I didn’t get to before.

Tremors and the Subtle Art of the Horror Comedy

...or How a Movie About Giant Slugs Erupting form the Ground and Eating People Can Ever Be Considered Subtle

Tremors is a silly silly film. No one is going to argue that the premise is silly, the dialogue is silly, and the acting is even sillier. You can practically see the tongue in Kevin Bacon’s cheek throughout the course of the movie. In fact, Tremors is knowingly terrible. So why is this one of my favorite movies of all time if it’s so bad? Simple. It’s a benchmark in one of the most difficult film genres to pull off in existence, the horror comedy.

This oft underappreciated and under-grossing style is pretty rare given the number of both horror and comedy films that are released into theatres into every year. The ones that do get released often underperform and either find a cult following on video, like Tremors, or get lost to the ages, like Eight Legged Freaks. There is something inherently difficult about making death, gore, and mutilation funny and even harder to connect with an audience wanting to see it. The keys are to up the fantastical elements of the story, downplay the abject terror of the situation in itself, and to be careful of who to kill off. In all of these aspects, Tremors succeeds.

In a nutshell, the plot concerns a small town in the South in which giant underground snake/slug-like monsters invade the town and begin eating random citizens. The survivors who don’t get eaten take to the roofs to escape them and 90 minutes of slug shooting and perilious journeys to the ground ensue.

Tremors is basically Snakes on a Plane years prior to the blogosphere and when distilled down, both movies have a similar premise – giant slithery things trapping a motley group of colorful characters in a centralized location. The narrative order on these two films are practically! I rewatched Tremors recently and could practically hear Kevin Bacon yelling about he was getting pretty fucking tired about of all these motherfucking slugs in motherfucking small Southern town (note: If I continued my list farther, Snakes on a Plane would undoubtedly make an appearance).

Both films play on broad stereotypes. In Tremors, it was in the form of Michael Gross (the dad on Family Ties) and Reba McIntire (Reba on Reba) who play a couple of gun loving Southern people who just want to shoot the damned things. Between their trigger happy antics and Kevin Bacon pole vaulting from one house to another, the premise settles in nicely between sillier than silly dialogue, generally likeable characters that are fun to watch, and often humourous / horrific deaths of people getting eaten by giant Earthworms.

We can ignore the countless sequels that can be viewed on SyFy on any random weekend—when the “writers” of the movies kept trying to top the efforts of the previous film. Tremors on its own is a masterpiece of comic horror glory; a completely ridiculous effort that is a continual joy to behold. It also contains a lot of useful information to survive when the giant worms take back the Earth.

Here is the google docs link to the first ten films: #791-800

Welcome Back Blogger - Have some Chaplin

I've been trying to think of an adequate topic in which to resurrect my blog. I tired myself out in the process of writing my 'Favorite Films of the Aught's' series and wanted to get back to just writing about misc movies. With the release of Criterion's 'Modern Times' on blu-ray, I feel like I've a found a suitable topic to do this.

Released in 1936, Charlie Chaplin's Modern Times was a “silent” film in a time where sound films had completely taken over theaters. The film is a powerful socialism fueled comedy with healthy doses of pathos, slapstick, politicizing, and romance. In what Chaplin envisioned to be his final adventure with his “Tramp” character, we find that indelible man working in a factory at the film's onset. In this blog entry, I will discuss the factory scenes only.

In a set that echoes the great dystopian factories of Lang's Metropolis and Clair's A Nous a Liberte (more on this film and the controversy with Modern Times later), we see large grizzled workers pulling knobs and turning levers. Instructions are broadcasted from an angry be suited man in an office via a large video screen. During this part of the film is most of the dialogue is spoken and given the futurist setting, this is apt.

We see the Tramp, one or two feet shorter than the other workers, mindlessly using a couple wrenches to turn two screws on a random piece of machinery on a neverending assembly line. He often gets distracted, misses a few pieces, and then has to scramble to catch up. As always, Chaplin's amazing ability to perform natural slapstick is clever and humorous. The man next to him on the assembly line clearly isn't happy with the tramps performance and takes his job very seriously whereas the Tramp realizes the ridiculousness of the scenario.

Chaplin invented the tramp in the mid 1910's and described him as a free thinker and sophisticated gentlemen, despite his clownish appearance. His cane is his only piece of his normal wardrobe that suggests his “nobility” and in the factory, there is no cane or usual bowler hat. His factory attire is black pants a white shirt, similar to the other workers though his costume is markedly baggier than that of his more burly coworkers. In all of the factory exploits, the point is driven home that Chaplin does not belong in this world and serves as a nuisance to those who do.

In a particularly amusing sequence of factory dystopia, a man arrives with a machine to feed employees while they work. The machine drives up to the worker and via a series of bulky levers and inaccurate movements shoves food into the faces of the workers thus allowing them to remain on the station. Yeah, it doesn't work. In fact, it malfunctions and Chaplin ends up with food all his face and clothing. Again, the “suits” get angry with Chaplin himself rather the ridiculous machine.

Though anyone who sees any pictures from or the cover art to Modern Times DVD cover notices Chaplin in the gears of the machine spinning around. While helping an engineer fix machines he gets caught in the gears and embarks on a daft journey spinning around a seemingly never ending series of gears and circuits. Surely this sort of machine would have crushed a normal man and even the normally unflappable Tramp looks panicked. Through his multiple experiences in the gears compounded with the other various machines, he cracks, grabs his wrenches and begins a whimsical dance around the factory turning any two things that look like screws; nipples, mustaches, it's all fair game. The factory becomes a dance and the workers an elaborate set, making this place a bastion of art.

What I love about the factory of Modern Times is the scathing indictment of the this culture. This is a time in society after the robber barons where workers were beginning to develop rights and unions were transforming the work spectrum. Still, many workers were forced to thrive in these mundane and repetitive jobs. Lunch machines probably weren't so far off from ideal, as many bosses did want their workers to be robots. Even the workers themselves seem to have no repoire with each other suggesting more robotic sentiments.

Throughout the film, there are sly signs of worker unrest, the most notable being when the tramp inadvertently becomes the leader of a workers rights protest. Worker unrest is a timeless theme and there will always be conflict between worker-boss. Especially in this economic climate the idea of scaring a worker into dutifully remaining placid on the job is especially relevant.

Earlier in the post, I mentioned 'A Nous A Liberte,' a 1931 film by french director Rene Clair. Modern Times at points is remarkably similar to this film, especially during Chaplin's gear adventures. During the time, Chaplin swore up and down he had never seen the film though later in life, he back-peddled a bit and reportedly even said that Claire's film was better. I've seen both and while the Clair film is a classic in its own right, Modern Times is far superior and a lot funnier. Chaplin probably did steal ideas from Clair, but he improved on them immensely. I personally find Liberte a bit boring, mostly unfunny, and while that film is factory-centric, Modern Times really becomes a masterpiece in the second half with the integration of an incredibly sweet and inspiring love story. Conveniently, on the DVD, there is a nice little featureless on this.

Modern Times is unquestionably a masterpiece and a fitting retirement for the Tramp. At the close of the film, during his usual walk down the road into the sunset away from society, he finds a mate and presumably, will go and continue to make his way. What I love most about the Tramp is his spirit and his indelible optimism despite living a world not designed for him. Despite his poverty and continual rejection from society, he remains cheerful and hopeful as he literally walks down the road of life.

Modern Times is currently out on DVD via the Criterion Collection on standard and blu-ray. BUY

Quick Sidetrip into Songwriting...

ok, this is not in usual MO on this here bloggey blog but i feel like posting it anyway. back story: about 5 years ago, i watched francois truffaut's landmark film, Jules et Jim and was BLOWN AWAY by the story and particularly the pacing. the film went from breakneck speed-->slow crawl-->breakneck speed all in the course of two hours. i love the idealism and the emotion in the film and its continued to amaze upon repeat viewings.

when i first saw the movie, i felt the need to write a song about it. over the course of 4 or 5 years, ive been gradually adding to this song and i finally completed it. i include the lyrics here with the disclaimer that this isnt based on a true story perse. its based on the feeling of an uncontrollable love spiraling out of control but doing so in a emotionally gratifying way. the movie and the song is about a love that was not meant to exist but somehow survived, perservered, evolved, and died in the most unlikely means necessary.

in case youre wondering what the sounds like, picture ben folds five. oh yeah, i do have a band. we are called Pleasant Sweaters (click here for our website) You can download our debut EP for FREE by going HERE

jules et jim


intro
this is the story of jules and jim
and a tale of a love that was yet to begin
skipped on the church and went straight to the sin
just like me and you and him

verse
they fell in love with a mystery girl
whose name was catherine
she wasnt that pretty or even sincere
in fact she was always severe
but that didnt stop them from falling in love
and forming a band of three
after the war jules had catherines baby
and so the three men then lived
as commune of four and then three
when jim felt he had to leave
catherine loved one and then loved the other
switching seamlessly

chorus
but as sure as the trains run from london to paris
theres was a love beautiful and tragic
moving through life at a breakneck speed
so when jules and jim

bridge
now im not henri senne
and youre not jeanne moreau
were not being directed
by francois truffaut
but i see us in a car
heading towards a cliff
and down
down
down
we
go

but as sure as the trains run from london to paris* [*or cardiff]
ours is a love beautiful and tragic
moving through life at a breakneck speed
so go you and me

MURDER! CRIME! MYSTERY! an entire day of american film noir!

american film noir of the 40s and 50s is one of my favorite genres of film. everyone wears suits, derbys, and there is always a murder most foul or a heist to full off. these are great movies to flip on and get lost in an america that is long gone. TCM and FXM recently show six classic film noirs i have never seen and were all included on they shoot pictures list of top 250 film noirs ever made. i am going to watch all of them and blog it.

the first thing on the bill for today is 'the street with no name,' a 1948 fox production starring noir stalwarts mark stevens and richard widmark. the sheer appearance of richard widmark in anything is going to make for an interesting film. he is apparently a bad guy in this one and sees like he is in kiss me deadly mode. this is one of those, 'ripped from the pages' films with a lot of vocal narration over the first part of the film and a note indicating its real nature. much like phenix city story and kansas city confidential, these films pride themselves on a set up of lots of names and intercut scenes of police work. the feel is to make it like a newsreel eventually leading into the action of the plot. in terms of film noir, im really not a fan of these types of real life noir. the editing is a bit too jumpy and the dizzying amount of names, faces, details, makes the plot profoundly difficult for long periods of time. with this in particular, i have faith in william kneighly as a director (his film pandora and the flying dutchman is a masterpiece) and his directorial style is valliant but in the end, this is a sub-par noir. finally, widmark comes into the scene. he could have been bogart if he had the right agent. he commanded the screen like few did. he makes a medicore film worth watching. as i watch this, he slapped a woman a couple times. widmark did clearly girl slapping well though the best use of physical abuse towards in a film noir still belongs to pick-up on south street. ***** ****** sure did know how to take a slap right to the kisser. actually, i changed my mind, this is a pretty decent film. gotta love widmark

next up; richard thorpe's the unknown man with walter pidgeon and ann harding. the movie begins with a first person narration introducing you to the plot. its about a attorney that may have acquited a murderer. gettin' excited. i like the feel of this one. this one clearly has a low budget and the direction is decidedly lazy. while thorpe was a capable director, he clearly is "less than meets the eye." when it comes to noir, siodmak, fuller, and ulmer all had their distinct styles but a lot of noir directors had a very similar mise en scene. at least the lighting and shadows in the unknown man is quite well done. there was just a great OH SNAP moment...where the killer reveals himself by including a detail where only the killer and the lawyer would have known. and now he ended up dead. oooooh!

Scandal Sheet, directed by phil karlson and written by sam fuller. yup, right off the bat, this off has the gritty dialogue of fuller. there is a newspaper editor who has been implicated in a murder and the paper's star reporter investigates. this one also stars donna reed (who was a huge star even before her eponymous show) and broderick crawford fresh off his brilliant performance in all the king's men. there is a really great pivotal scene that takes place in a lonely hearts club, which were places where single people went to find spouses. for some reason, this seemed like a good idea...to force lonely people to meet other lonely people and one couple is given a free wedding at the end of the dance. yes, i firmly believe true love can form at a forced social event over the course of a few hours. -- fast forward an hour. i realize ive seen this movie before. sometimes when one watches a dizzying amount of the same kind of movie, the names escape me. however, it was the looming and panicked performance of broderick crawford that jogged my memory. i cant help but remember now how different this performance was from all the kings men. also, i remember john derek's great nice acting.

ok, halftime. quick bikeride out to go to whole foods, pick up some yogurt and kombucha. head over to the north andover sheep sheering festival, get locked out of my house, kick in third kitchen window dangling from drainpipe and climb into the house.

RIGHT.

the fourth film of the day is eyes in the night, a film about a blind detective. so far there is ann harding (again), donna reed (again!), and a dog (named friday). its directed by fred zinnamin who would late achieve huge success with from here to eternity and a man for all seasons (and some would say a nuns story as well). this is exceptionally low budget and the camera work is excessively shocking and lazy. this guy would win an oscar? these pans are attrocious and even for a noir, the acting is pretty bad. lets see how it progresses. until im going to go back to drinking kombucha. i just did some quick research and this was only his second or third full length film. before this, he was mainly doing hokey shorts in the "crime does not pay" series. he made a decent noir some years later with act of violence but eyes in the night is clearly a director who hadnt hit his stride. also, the dog is the best actor in this by far. he opened a door handle with his mouth. WIN

penutlimate film in this marathon! its armored car robbery and clocking in at a tight 65 minutes, one of the shortest full length features ill ever watch. so far, this movie RULES. four guys rob an armored car (DUH) and a chase ensues. this has everything so far, a car non starting and tension ensuing. a perfect plan slowly unravelling and a host of a bush league actors from the 40s and 50s (charles macgraw!). directed oddly enough by richard fleischer, who went onto direct such shlocky and largely medicore big budgeters fantastic voyage and doctor doolittle, the filmmaking is very capable. maybe he should have stuck with noir, as his follow up to this, the narrow margin, is a great movie. yeah, cool flick.

LAST ONE! DESTINATION MURDER! ok, this was a crazy idea in retrospect. every actor is starting to look the same. so far today, ive seen a million white dude in hats and suits, a few choice dames, one black person, and one dog (who had a bigger role than said black person). im a big fan of this genre but it definitely does remind you how far cinema has come in terms of integration of not just white people. alright, nevermind that. we got the usual stuff. murder, off to a cop to find the killer on barely any clues. meh. im going to post this and try to live with the fact that i watched six film noirs today.