Days of Heaven

I watched this last night.  I’m trying to figure Terrance Malick out.  This didn’t help.

I haven’t seen “Tree of Life” yet – I”ll catch it on DVD.  But I thought this – Malick’s second of only five movies he’s directed over 38 years – might help provide some context as to why his work incites such a variety of opinions.  It probably would have, if I wasn’t such a doofus.  It didn’t help at all.

Amy Poehler’s Harvard speech

Movie-a-Week: 18 to go

Hereafter (imdb.com)

Might need a ruling on this one. The setup is fantasy, maybe even sci-fi, but the payoff is a subtle, sweet love story…kinda. Not really a story. Two hours of setup leading up to a pleasant (but rushed) moment at the end. The pacing of the entire movie was off, actually. It plodded along until the three story lines finally converged, and then, almost immediately – credits rolled. I appreciate that Eastwood didn’t force much on the viewer, but at some point he didn’t seem to care about the movie’s topic at all. Answering “that’s not important” to the biggest questions the movie raises (whether we conclude spiritual, scientific or hogwash)…well, I didn’t bring it up! Kind of a strange way to get to the point where Matt Damon kisses a girl.

Music was good, though. I have to think about this one more.

Dinner for Schmucks (imdb.com)

A thoroughly unfunny movie, which had me laughing occasionally. A credit to my affection for the two leads, and the complete loss of expectation that I’ve developed for these movies. By the way, when you read “based on the French comedy…” in the synopsis, you probably know what you’re getting.

Speaking of movies and brackets…

I wasted some time during the first half of the Butler game by putting together the bracket below. Basically, a tourney version of the ongoing flickchart.com experiment. Why am I posting it and what does it mean? Seriously, I really was bored during that first half.

Flickchart is fun, but it’s never really current or accurate. I mean, I see new movies often enough, and I think of old movies they haven’t mentioned before. Actually, it’s off enough to bug the crap out of me. I rank tons of flicks and then go, “wait, where’s Bad News Bears? Why is it not even on the list?!!!”

It’s also hard to decide, when judging the head-to-heads, whether I’m choosing the better movie or the movie I’d rather watch. They’re often not the same flick.

After having flickchart seed the movies, I quickly played out the tournament. If I did it again right now, it’d probably be different. But that Final 4 – that’s solid. (click on the image for bigger view)

What would your Final Four be? Sorry in advance for leaving “Spaceballs” out of the running.

The next Tarantino

I’d say Spielberg or Cameron, but it appears Gabe’s style runs a little more gritty. More raw. (More violent.)

Gabe and I had loads of idle time this last week over Spring Break, so he decided to make a movie. Although the shooting schedule was rigorous (13 takes in 10 minutes), I really enjoyed the pre-production meetings:

Me: So what would you like the movie to be about?

Gabe: Pow.

(Note: “Pow” is his word for anything crashing together. Two of his matchbox cars, his toy hammer and his work bench, his toy hammer and my head… anything banging together, he yells “POW, POW!”)

Me: Well, what should go pow?

Gabe: (looking at the toy closest to him) this bus!

Me: And why would it go pow? Does it crash for a reason? Was there ice on the road? Did someone get angry and crash the bus? Who’s in the bus? Where were they going when they crashed? What’s their motivation?

Gabe: They go POW!

And with that, I give you the World Premiere of Gabe’s first movie…

Movie-a-week: 22 to go

Haven’t been keeping up the pace in recent weeks. Instead, I watched the season of “Boardwalk Empire” and the three seasons of “Breaking Bad.” If you’re bored, ask me about those some time. You’ll be shocked to know I have opinions.

Cyrus(imdb.com)

Funny in spots. Has a certain charm and sweetness. Oh, and I have no idea why the movie was made. Seemed to try to build to some spot where there’d be some sort of revelation, whether it be darkly comedic, tragic or happily romantic – I would have taken anything. But the credits started rolling and I was talking to an empty room: “wait, huh?… but…”

Inception(imdb.com)

Great movie. Smart. Complicated. I think I hung in okay, though it would probably be worth seeing again just to get everything straight. But I won’t. Cause here’s the thing – it’s a movie about dreams. Which is only 3% better than listening to someone at work tell me a story about their dream last night. I really struggle with this. It’s not that I’m uninterested in the mechanics of dreaming. I like dreams. You know, my own dreams.

But comparing and analyzing and hearing every detail about someone else’s subconscious and their imagination? That really doesn’t do much for me. “And then Matt Damon walked into the room. But it wasn’t really Matt Damon, cause he took off his Damon mask and it was actually a giant piranha, but one that could sing. Weird, though, because the piranha’s voice sounded just like my dad’s voice. And then the piranha started doing this bad Jerry Lewis impersonation, you know ‘HEY LAAAADEE!,’ but I could still hear my dad’s voice. And that’s when the transvestite walked into the room…” If there’s no limits to what can happen, then is anything that happens actually interesting?

Which brings me to the movie. Because I feel like some of the best action and special effects we’ve ever seen in a film were put to waste here. Even though Nolan did a fine job of providing rules and structure to how the dream-manipulation worked, it was still all imaginary. So all the flying-bodies-fighting, amazing car wrecks and shoot-outs – they all seemed SO MUCH less exciting simply because – they weren’t real! Even if there were consequences to the action, they weren’t immediate or natural. Which never allowed me to get into it.

Again, great movie. But I couldn’t get completely immersed. That’s probably on me.