Deliverance - 1972

Movie #176

4 stars

Four friends from the suburbs take a canoeing trip down a Georgia River but the locals start to turn on them.

Cast: Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox, Bill McKinney

Director:  John Boorman

Screenplay/Novel: James Dickey




I wanted to watch this movie after reading about FULL METAL JACKET.  Stanley Kubrick wanted Bill McKinney to play Sgt Hartman but Kubrick said that he was so unsettled after watching him in DELIVERANCE that he didn't even want to meet McKinney....wow.

For some movies it is especially important to put them in context.  DELIVERANCE, which was made in 1972, would have scared the living daylights out of me if I watched in the theatre.  The movie just gives you the creeps...the location, the characters, and especially the music...all creepy.

"Dueling Banjos" is an integral part of the film.  We first hear it when the 4 men arrive in a small town (could you even call that a town?).  Every time I heard the song in the rest of the film, all I could think about was that creepy boys face.  See the video below.  In 1973, the song was #2 for four weeks on the U.S. pop chart.  I sure as he** know that I would never want to listen to that in my car.  Then again...the next time I'm driving through a rural part of somewhere, I'm going to play it....I'll let you know the effect.

Even though the film was a little slow paced...the shots of the river made it bearable.  It was actually pretty....but it made me never, ever, want to canoe down a river.

I have to give best actor to Jon Voight.  It's not that I didn't like Burt Reynolds performance it's just that the role didn't require a lot of acting.  The runner up would definitely be Ned Beatty.  His role required a lottttt.

****spoiler alert**** Don't read if you haven't watched it

The ending could have been a lot more effective if the hand came out of the water and Voight jumped up in bed...then immediately cut to black.  The whole thing with his wife comforting him was just irritating.  It would have had a better shock effect on the audience...because seriously...that had to have been what they were going for.  I mean...that rape scene could go down in movie history as one of the most disturbing...a man raping another man...in 1972!

****end of spoiler alert****

Overall Recommendation: Squeal like a pig...and watch this movie!!! 

And if you don't feel like watching the movie then at least watch the clip of the dueling banjos

Jar City - 2006

Movie #175

4 stars

After a man is found murdered, an old case is reopened by the lead detective (Sigurðsson).  It appears that the crime is linked to a little girls death many years ago.  In this Icelandic thriller, a small town can be more connected then it seems.

 Cast: Ingvar Eggert Sigurðsson, Ólafía Hrönn Jónsdóttir, Atli Rafn Sigurðsson, Erlendur Eiríksson, Elma Lísa Gunnarsdóttir, Rafnhildur Rósa Atladótir, Úlfur Ísfeld Rögnvaldsson, Sólon Ísfeld Rögnvaldsson, Þorsteinn Gunnarsson

Writer/Director: Baltasar Kormákur

Novel: Arnaldur Indriðason

What makes for a good crime thriller?  Well obviously there needs to be a crime...a suspected wrongdoer, a mysterious family past, exhumed bodies, and plenty of twists and turns make it a great thriller.  But what makes JAR CITY a cut above the rest is that it is about the people just as much as it is about the crime...maybe even a little more.

I have learned this about Iceland after watching the film, it is always cold and windy, eating sheeps head with an army knife is a regular dining experience, and people's organ are kept in jars...hence JAR CITY.  The film gives an interesting look at a small city.  People are not trusted, fear is always a motivator, and it is possible for a group of people to be too close.

I don't want to give too much away about the plot but know this, you may be a little confused at times but you will definitely be entertained.  JAR CITY is an excellent thriller.

Overall Recommendation: If you are into this genre then definitely check it out.  If not, you should still give it a try.

This film definately makes me want to see Kormakur's first film: 101 Reykjavík

Remake: Overture Films have brought the rights to remake JAR CITY.  Kormákur will produce the film, which will be based in a small Louisiana town.  Tod Williams (PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2) will direct and Michael Ross (TURISTAS) wrote the screenplay.  I greatly greatly dislike remakes....but I guess I have a little hope for the American version.

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work - 2010

Movie #173

4 stars

Documentarians Ricki Stern and Annie Sundberg provide an uncompromising glimpse into the personal and professional life of comedian and red-carpet mainstay Joan Rivers, a woman clinging stubbornly and steadfastly to the pop-culture bandwagon.

Cast: Joan Rivers, Melissa Rivers, Larry A. Thompson, Bari Pearlman, Edgar Rosenberg, Kathy Griffin, Don Rickles

Directors:  Ricki Stern, Annie Sundberg



 I didn't really know a lot about Joan Rivers before the movie and I guess I still don't.  I did learn this, she is a workaholic that should be taken more seriously.  No seriously, no one has the right to rag on her without watching this documentary.  She is a very funny comedian who deserves more respect.  This is more to her than just the red carpet.

As far as the documentary goes, it is entertaning.  Which is sometimes a hard feat for documentaries.  On the other hand, it wasn't entertaining because of the approach that the directors took, it was entertaining because of Joan Rivers herself.  So I guess if you are interested in making successful documentaries, don't use this one as a model.

Joan Rivers is hilarious.  But what makes her even more hilarious is the fact that it is natural, no one writes her jokes.  Combined with her perfect timing, her writing abilities are remarkable.  She even addresses this subject when she is at an event with a bunch of comedians.  She says that she did an ok job, not great but everyone else has writers on their staff.

The one downside of this documentary is that it doesn't really address Joan Rivers' personal life.  The viewer doesn't get any insight into her marriage with Edgar Rosenberg.  It is probably because she doesn't want to discuss such a touchy subject.  She did however go into how her and Melissa dealt with it.

I began this review praising her but i'll end it being skeptical of Joan Rivers for the very same reason.  She is 75 years old, and she doesn't give any indication of giving up showbiz, which left me with a depressed feeling.  In 90 minutes I got to know Joan, laugh with her, but I also started to feel sorry for her.

Overall Recommendation:  If you have any interest in Joan Rivers then see this.  And by all means, don't hate on her until you have seen it.

I Am Dina - 2002

Movie #170

3 stars


Dina's father accuses her of killing her mother but in reality it was just a childhood accident.  Dina's childhood is filled with loneliness and rage but when a tutor is hired, her love of music emerges.  When the tutor is forced to leave, Dina marries Jacob and the rest of her life is still haunted by death.

Cast: Maria Bonnevie, Gérard Depardieu, Christopher Eccleston, Mads Mikkelsen, Pernilla August, Bjørn Floberg, Hans Matheson, Amanda Jean Kvakland, Jorgen Langhelle, Anette Hoff

Director/Writer: Ole Bornedal

NR (but I would say it's a R), 125 minutes

Filming Location: Nordland, Norway

Tagline: This is my story

Normally I go through all of my likes and then my dislikes...but this time I am just going to start with the most noticeable and go on from there...

Dislike: The first major drawback of this film is that it's in English.  The film is already filled with overacting...but would it have been so noticeable if the viewer was forced to read subtitles?  Dina's voice was so strange...there are some cheesy lines and when they are combined with her strange accent it almost makes you want to laugh.  I'm sure that's not what they were going for.

Like: The film was visually compelling.  The beginning of the film is overrun with the color white...the color of purity.  But in no way is Dina's life pure.  Was this a coincidence?  I don't think so...Bornedal probably wanted the viewer to think that Dina was innocent but as time goes by nothing can trick the audience into thinking that she is innocent.  As far as the scenery goes, looking at the film as a foreigner who has never been to Norway but wants to, the shots are very pretty.  In fact, it might be one of the reasons why I kept watching it.

Dislike: The pace was very strange.  At times it was very hard to understand how much time had gone by.  Which in the end, doesn't really matter I guess but it was a little frustrating while I was watching it. 

Dislike:  My emotional connection with Dina (pretty much feeling sorry for her) disappeared when her adulthood emerged.  It wasn't caused by a lack of resemblence between the two actors playing Dina it was more like the ridiculousness of her character was impossible to ignore.

Like:  The story was interesting and the characters were interesting.  Yes, there was some overacting but it did hold my attention.  Mads Mikkelson, the son of Dina's husband, did a fabulous job...as always.  He was the reason I watched it.  I don't think I would have watched it otherwise.

Overall Recommendation:  You can skip this one...but if you like Mads Mikkelson then it's worth it.

How could this film have been better?: Subtitles...subtitles...subtitles.  Not only would it have hidden the ridiculous accent but it would have forced the audience to read...hiding the overacting.  The kind of audience (US audience) that this film would most likely attract is the kind of audience that doesn't mind reading subtitles.

Analysis (Spoilers):
Dina's life changes when the tutor, played by Depardieu, comes into her life.  Instead of being obsessed with her mother's death, she becomes obsessed with music...and her mothers death.  In an attempt to force Dina to move on, he takes her to her grave and explains that she is in heaven.  In her eyes, Depardieu has told her that when Dina accidentally caused her death she was setting her free...along with all of her pain.  In a way this shifts Dina's obsession with the death of her mother to death in the large scheme of things.

After getting married, Dina and her husband witness a hanging.  As the man in about to die Dina says "Look at me. Look at me. Let all the cares and sorrows of this world fall away from you."  She thinks that death is the answer.  Death can make all of your pain go away.

So what does she do when her husband has an infected leg and she is taking him to a doctor in the cold winter weather...she pushes him off the cliff...because she is setting him free.  Dina thinks she can help everyone but she really just needs to help herself.  She is psychotic.  If this film didn't take place in the mid 1800's then she was surely be locked up in the loony bin.

Dina is haunted by her mother and her husband.  No matter what, it seems like Dina is forced to remember what she did.  If she was really helping them, would they have haunted her.  This especially true of her husband.

This film is an interesting look at death and the many views that people have of death.  In Dina's eyes no one should be afraid of death.  This is a tough subject to conquer...I know that I am very scared of death and I always have been.  But can this film change your life?  nah...but it's a little thought provoking I guess.

Trivia: Courtesy of iMDB

• With a budget totaling 144 million Norwegian kroner (about US$21 million) this was the most expensive movie to date in Norway. 
• Co-star Gérard Depardieu brought 500 bottles of wine from his own farm and winery to the location in Kjerringøy (northern Norway) "to keep the spirits up", as he himself put it.

Red Road - 2006

Movie #169

4 stars

Jackie's job as a security surveillance monitor in Glasgow allows her to journey into the lives of others...as well as her own.  Zooming from one camera to another, she sees someone from her past.  Jackie tries to understand the past but her future is just as perplexing.

Cast: Kate Dickie, Tony Curran, Martin Compston, Nathalie Press, Paul Higgins, Andrew Armour

Director: Andrea Arnold



This is the first film in the Advance Party series, a concept by Lars Von Trier (Antichrist), Lone Scherfig and Anders Thomas Jensen.  I am already excited.  I love Jensen...writer of Adam's Apples and After the Wedding.  The three films in this series have certain rules--  they must take place in Scotland, filmed within 6 weeks, have a budget of less than 1 million pounds and use the same characters.  This sounds pretty cool but I do have one concern...are 2 more movies going to be just as good as this one using the same characters.  They have big shoes to fill.


Like:  The concept is very interesting.  What would it be like to be able to see every single street...every single person walking in the US.  First of all, it would be creepy.  Second of all, it might be a whole lot safer.  Or more unsafe?  It all depends on the person in charge of keeping the people safe I suppose.

Like:  The shots of Glasgow were really cool.  But at the same time we only saw a couple of different places...mostly Red Road.

Dislike:  I thought I was pretty good at understanding people's accent but this movie was unbearable at times.  Some of the characters I could barely understand.  The main character, Jackie, was very easy to understand though.

Caution:  The sex scenes in this film were very very explicit...maybe even a little bit gross...but they were not in there just to have sex. It did add to the film.

Overall Recommendation:  Check it out...its one of those films that may seem a little slow moving but I assure you..everything is important.

The one thing to take away from this film:  Jackie was just trying to get along with her life...but in order to do so she had to confront her past.  When she had her head near the open window in the apartment it was as if she was breathing...really living...for the first time in a long time.

Altered States - 1980

Movie #165

4 stars

Harvard scientist Eddie Jessup's (William Hurt) mind-altering experiments on himself, involving a hallucinatory drug and an isolation chamber, get out of control when his handiwork shuttles him back and forth on the evolutionary spectrum -- from human to ape-man. Equal parts sci-fi actioner, 1960s psychedelic trip and farce, the film was based on a Paddy Chayefsky novel and received Oscar nominations for music and sound. Blair Brown co-stars.

Cast: William Hurt, Blair Brown, Bob Balaban, Charles Haid, Thaao Penghlis, Miguel Godreau, Dori Brenner, Peter Brandon, Drew Barrymore

Director: Ken Russell

Like: The very beginning of the film was amazing.  You see a man upright in a tank and hear clinky clanky noises.  The music is very unsettling.  This sets a perfect tone for the whole film...the feeling of just being uncomfortable.  [dislike:] I didn't like the credits though.  You could still see William Hurt's face in the tank but there were big white letters...intruding the scene.  The title slowly appears one letter at a time...huge letters...taking over the screen.  This interrupted the whole mood.  Not a fan.

Like:  The music was amazing!  Throughout the film it actually made me feel uncomfortable.  There was a scene where William Hurt was drinking some type of ritual blood mix and there were these really disturbing drum beats...think King Kong but way better.  The three men were walking into the cave and you see the sunset behind them.  The music then switches from the drums to this really weird swarming bug noise.  The music made the scene.  Instead of just feeling uncomfortable while he was drinking the blood you felt uncomfortable before, during, and after.  amazing.

There was also a party scene with Indian music.  My theory is that in 1980 that would be a little uncomfortable.  But I'm really guessing on that one..I wasn't even born yet.  Did people think Indian music was kinda strange in 1980?

Like:  Not only does the music make the viewer uncomfortable but the cinematography does too.  There is this really crazy sex scene towards the beginning of the film that is a close up, upward shot of William Hurt's sweaty face.  I'm sure this made the men feel uncomfortable. 

Like:  I was never bored during the film.  How could you be bored when a man turns into an ape. 

Overall Recommendation:  you have to watch this...maybe not alone though...pretty creepy.

Trivia:

• In his autobiography, director Ken Russell said he tried mushrooms during the making of the film, which resulted in a bad trip. 
• In a 1981 interview with the New York Times, Blair Brown said many of the actors and crew tried out the isolation tank. William Hurt actually hallucinated, while Blair Brown found it very peaceful. 
• Film debuts of both William Hurt and Drew Barrymore.

Gross: $19.8 million
Rank: #34 in 1980

Good Dick - 2008

Movie #155

4 stars

Habitually isolated in her quiet apartment, a vulnerable girl (Marianna Palka) with a penchant for soft-core porn ventures out to a local video store, where she meets a store clerk (Jason Ritter) who vows to break down her emotional walls and win her affections. But as he pursues her in bizarre fashion, it's clear that their budding relationship will be anything but conventional.

Cast: Marianna Palka, Jason Ritter, Eric Edelstein, Martin Starr, Mark Webber, Tom Arnold, Charles Durning, Jesse Garcia, Josh Holt, Katherine Waterston, Elisabeth Waterston

Writer and Director: Marianna Palka

Tagline: What do you REALLY want?

Like: The one part that made this film is definitely the acting.  Jason Ritter did a FABULOUS job.  (and yes he's John Ritter's son)  This goes for both  Marianna Palka and Jason Ritter...it would be easy to think that they are creepy and need lots and lots of therapy.  However, these two play their role perfectly.  The viewer kinda feels sorry for them without thinking they are pathetic. 

Like:  the fact that the two main characters were not given names...but somehow the viewer can still become attached to them.  The credits simply state "Woman" and "Man"  Even though the viewer may connect with the two, being a little creeped out is still possible, which makes the viewer still intrigued by their lives.

Like: This film was daring.  On top of not giving them names, the ending is what most filmmakers avoid...confusion.  The viewer is not told directly what happens...it is left up to the imagination.  Whenever I watch films where it ends on a more open-ended note, at first I feel unsatisfied a bit.  Later, I come up with my own story to the ending...and these are often the films that I'll think about weeks, months, years later.

The only dislike that I have is that towards the end it's almost like it feels rushed.  Music joins the two characters' lives, cutting back and forth.  It is an ok technique, if the music is not terrible...and this music was prettty terrible.

Overall Recommendation: It's entertaining and fun...just don't let any young ones watch it.

Avatar - 2009

#154

4 stars

Disabled Marine Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) travels to planet Pandora to become an avatar, ingratiate himself with the natives and help Americans mine lucrative unobtainium. But he finds himself in an interstellar conflict after falling for Na'vi warrior Neytiri (Zoe Saldana).

Cast: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver, Michelle Rodriguez, Stephen Lang, Joel Moore, Giovanni Ribisi, CCH Pounder, Laz Alonso, Wes Studi

Director: James Cameron

Ok...so pretty much everyone and their brother has seen Avatar....and there are a lot more people out there that have given in-depth reviews of it.  So I am just going to justify my 4 star rating...

The acting was sub-par...the script was lacking...BUT....

Watching it on Blu-ray was fabulous!!!!  Technology has come such a long way...which brings up my main argument...or question...

If this movie was made 10 years ago, when the technology was not available...would we all think so highly of this movie?

Yes, it was entertaining and I wasn't bored...but should it go down as one of the best films ever?  No.

That is all.

Please Give - 2010

Movie #153

4 stars

Life gets knotty when successful Manhattan couple Alex (Oliver Platt) and Kate (Catherine Keener) develop a relationship with the granddaughters of Andra (Ann Morgan Guilbert), the cantankerous elderly woman who owns the apartment next to theirs -- and who must die so they can expand their home.

Cast: Catherine Keener, Oliver Platt, Amanda Peet, Rebecca Hall, Sarah Steele, Ann Morgan Guilbert, Thomas Ian Nicholas, Lois Smith, Josh Pais, Kevin Corrigan, Rebecca Budig

Director: Nicole Holofcener

My main observation about this film is that it can be clearly divided into two separate films.  The first half features downright hilarity and conveys a sense of fun. The film opens with a montage of women getting mammograms.  The opening credits are introduced on a black background, temporarily interrupting the multiple shots of boobies.  I say boobies because it's funny..and boobies is a funny word.  I don't think that the only purpose was comedic.  The scene allowed the viewer to connect with Rebecca (Rebecca Hall), the nurse technician.  Otherwise, I don't think that an emotional connection would have been established just by the script...or not a connection as great.

Catherine Keener played a wonderful Kate.  Kate is a very relatable character and when you are watching a film with a somewhat simple storyline, that is the most important characteristic.  My favorite character was definitely Andra, the grandmother of Amanda Peet and Rebecca Hall.  Just like pretty much all old people, she's not afraid to say what is on her mind. 

All of a sudden the plot becomes very depressing.  It's not that one single event is depressing but the tone of the film changes.  Some major issues are tackled: infidelity, old age, teen angst, and feelings of not being important.  Its awesome that the film could address all of these topics but there was NOO comic relief the second half of the film.  I spent 45 minutes laughing and then 45 minutes entertained but by no means laughing.  It's hard to explain.

Overall Recommendation:  It is definitely worth watching

note: Amanda Peet was just wayy too tan

Prague - 2006

Movie #152

4 stars

When unhappily married Christoffer and Maja travel to Prague to retrieve the remains of Christoffer's recently deceased father, their misadventures expose both a cultural gap and the cracks in their own relationship in this Danish drama. From doctors who sprint through the morgue to hotel workers who misunderstand simple requests, the bickering couple finds that every interaction in this foreign land leads to confusion and conflict.

Cast: Mads Mikkelsen, Stine Stengade, Borivoj Navrátil, Jana Plodková, Josef Vajnar

Director: Ole Christian Madsen

Filming Location: Prague, Czech Republic  (duh)

So many things about this film are excellent.  But at the same time, there are a few little things that are not so good that seem to overshadow the good parts.

Like:  The way the film really lets the viewer experience a piece of Prague.  The combination of wide angle shots and different shooting locations is fabulous.  It made me almost feel as though I have actually been to be Prague and would recognize it again.  Compared to Good Evening Mr. Wallenberg, this film does a much better job of taking advantage of the location.

Like: I am normally not a fan of films shot with a hand held camera but this film is the exception.  The main reason I usually don't like it is because it makes me dizzy.  I guess it worked for PRAGUE because there were a lot of close up shot...sometimes there were long stretches where all you see are the actors' faces.  It just worked...which is also related to my next....

Like:  The acting was wonderful!  Mads Mikkelsen has impressed me yet again.  The whole cast did an excellent job though.  When there are a lot of close ups of faces, then it is really easy to pinpoint bad performances.  But its also easy to spot great performances.  If I'm not mistaken, I think Mads was in every scene....such an awesome performance.

Like:  The script itself contributed to much of the success of this film.  It gave the viewer an in depth look at a failing marriage without going overboard or being cheesy.  There was also enough comic relief for the plot to not be too depressing.

But now for my major dislike:  The Music and even just the audio in general was very distracting.  There was just too much music for my taste.  I guess I understand the role of the music (of course its trying to affect the viewer emotionally) but it seemed as though music played every time Mads' character didn't want to hear what people were telling him...which isn't necessarily a bad thing but in my opinion this could be have been much better achieved with muting the voices a little bit.

The other problem was that I was constantly having to adjust the volume...which doesn't allow for the best viewing experience.  It would go from loud music to the characters speaking English very very softly.  This wasn't a problem when they were speaking another language because there were of course subtitles.  The editing could have just been much much better.

Overall Recommendation:  It's a good little film...only about 90 minutes.  Check it out!

Some of my favorite quotes:

"Life is hard.  You can't have everything."  (spoken by 2 different characters)

"Life is hard.  You either bend or you break."

"We are always ashamed and never good enough for the world."  (which was spoken in Czech by the housekeeper to Mads who didn't understand what she was saying.  This was by far the best scene of the movie.  The two were pouring each others heart out...yet the other one didn't have a clue what the other one was saying)

Reprise - 2006

Movie #148

4 stars

Close friends Erik (Espen Klouman-Høiner) and Phillip (Anders Danielsen Lie) each await news on their first novels. But when Phillip's book is published before Erik's, he's unprepared for fame and the obsessions and temptations it brings along with it. He eventually emerges from a nervous breakdown, only to discover that Erik has found literary success of his own.

Cast: Anders Danielsen Lie, Espen Klouman-Høiner, Viktoria Winge, Henrik Elvestad, Christian Rubeck, Odd Magnus Williamson, Rebekka Karijord, Henrik Mestad, Pål Stokka, Sigmund Sæverud

Director: Joachim Trier

Filming Location: Norway...mostly Oslo and some Paris

Like: The technique of flashbacks --- Within the first 5 minutes we learn that only Philip's book has been published and he is about to do a book reading. Then it cuts to 6 months later and Erik along with 4 other guys are driving. As Erik is walking through a building it is apparent that it is a mental institution. They all get in the car and start to drive off. The camera cuts from their faces to scenery shots. The camera shows a close up of what appears to be a scar on Philip's hand. Piece by piece we get a look into how those scars got there.

Like: Narrator --- not only his voice but the fact that he is unknown to the viewer. When we hear his voice it's not followed by irritation...it is followed by intrigue. The viewer wants to know who this narrator is.

Like: The lack of music --- or should I there was no fear of silence. I think that so many times films overuse music. Silence is such a big part of this movie. I think that there are only 2 times in this film that there is non diagetic music. When there is silence, it not only forces the director to come up with good shots but it forces the actor to...act. Without music during high emotion scenes, the viewer focuses more on the actual film to produce an emotional effect.

Major Like: The song Deceptacon by Le Tigre that played during a party scene.



Dislike: I never really felt connected to the characters. I wanted to like Erik and I wanted to feel a little sorry for Philip but it never happened. It wasn't that the acting was bad...I actually think the actors did a pretty good job...it's just that the script didn't allow for any connection.

Dislike: The flashbacks....flash forwards....and what-ifs reminded me a lot of lost. The only difference was that Lost was exciting and you don't want it to end. I was waiting for this film to end 45 minutes into it.

Trivia:

• Sten Egil Dahl, the old writer in the movie, is based on Norwegian writer Tor Ulven. Ulven gave only one interview in his career, but is regarded as one of the most important writers in Norway during the eighties and nineties.
• Anders Danielsen Lie (Philip) is the drummer in the Oslo band Virgo.

Overall Recommendation: It's worth watching...even if it's only for the cinematography