Day 53 - Midnight in Paris

Midnight in Paris (2011) directed by Woody Allen

If you could go back to any time and place in the world when and where would it be? Personally, I like the present mainly for its modern comfort and technology. Can you imagine a world now without the Internet? Perhaps more importantly though is that present is the accumulation of all the time periods before it. While I would have loved to buy the latest Beatles albums on vinyl during the 1960's, I'm thankful that I have their entire collection on my iPod today. What people are really looking for in their nostalgic time travels has more to do with escaping from the grind of today than it does with a yearning for the past. It is easy to imagine a world better than the one you currently inhabit, a change of pace from your monotonous routines and lack of inspiration, but the sad truth is that you cannot escape who you are by simply running away. Your problems will always find you. Of course this is all hypothetical, but in Woody Allen's latest film Midnight in Paris, this is all a reality.

The answer to the question for Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) is clearly Paris during the 1920's, preferably in the rain. He's a hopeless romantic, a struggling writer who idolizes the great masters that occasionally lived in 1920's Paris; Hemingway, Fitzgerald, Picasso, Dali, TS Elliot, Cole Porter, etc, a who's who of early twentieth century artists. Somehow every night at the stroke of midnight, Gil is able to magically travel back in time to this era, where the city magically transforms to everything that Gil could ever hope for. Here, he gets to meet and befriend his idols and catch a glimpse of how they lived. Scott Fitzgerald is a polite and charming gentleman while his wife Zelda is kind of off her rocker. Earnest Hemingway is hilariously intense. He speaks as if reading from a novel and always with a masculine ruggedness. Interlaced between his poetic musings are challenges to boxing matches and invitations to go hunt lions.

The film is sprinkled with endless cameos by famous writers and artists and thinkers. Woody Allen is obviously an intelligent and cultured guy who must have had great fun jamming all these historical and artistic references. There were some characters I didn't know at all other than that they must have been important and I suspect some people in the theater knew even fewer of the names mentioned as I did. Clearly, you have to be at least somewhat versed in the material otherwise it'll go over your head (as it did for me at times), but that's not Allen's fault for making a smart movie. It is kind of ironic though that the movie appears to be the type of thing that Gil hates, pseudo-intellectualism and pretentiousness, namely in the character of Paul, a man he abhors but whom his fiance Inez (Rachel McAdams) fancies. He is a self proclaimed expert on everything, often getting facts incorrect and sometimes seems to just make stuff up. He is so arrogant that he tries to correct a tour guide on a trivial fact in which he is in fact wrong.

Gil is at a crossroads in his life. He is getting married to Inez, who seems so mismatched for him and is struggling to get his career as a novelist off the ground. He finds solace in his magical time travels, but even those trips have their limitations. He is running away from something, but even in his paradise it will find a way to catch up with him.

Ths film is wonderfully written with Woody Allen's trademark quirky humor and intelligence and Owen Wilson gives a great performance as Gil, who basically sounds and looks like Allen when he acted. It's billed as a romantic comedy but word of warning, it is probably not for all people. But like I said, it's not his fault for making a smart movie.

Grade: A-

Day 52 - Super 8

Super 8 (2011) directed by JJ Abrams

I will attempt to summarize Super 8 in a series of haiku.

The Goonies. E.T.
Nineteen fifties sci-fi films
Film's influences

Mysterious train
Incredible collision
What is on that train?

Strange things around town
People, dogs, things go missing
U.S. Air Force comes

Kids try to solve case
Uncover awesome secret
Dark and foreboding

Okay, that kind of summarizes JJ Abrams' latest film, the much hyped and secretive Super 8, a callback to Steven Spielberg's earlier classics where kids try to be kids in an adult world while something big is happening around them. Young Joe Lamb is trying to cope with the loss of his mother. His relationship with his father has been quietly strained, both are hurting inside. He fills his time by helping out his friend Charlie make an amateur 8mm film for a local film festival. These scenes are delightfully charming. Charlie is a serious film maker always concerned with production value and perfecting his film, a campy zombie movie that brings back nostalgic feelings of the old sci-fi/horror films that Super 8 tries to recapture. In fact, these scenes are so good that a part of me wishes the entire movie was just them trying to make this zombie picture. The two kids are also joined by Carey, a kid obsessed with fireworks, Preston, the lead actor in the zombie flick, and Alice, Joe's crush who is a source of tension between Joe and his father.

While filming on location at a train station, a train passes by and is suddenly and spectacularly derailed. The kids run for their lives as the sky falls around them in one of the best action sequences I've seen in a while. Everything leading up to this moment is so innocent that the violence of the scene is jarring and suddenly these kids have more to worry about than completing their film.

What unfolds can only be described as a mystery sci-fi thriller. Watching it, I couldn't help but be reminded of JJ Abrams' famed show Lost where all sorts of crazy and mysterious stuff was going on and you had no idea what that would eventually be. What are these weird little objects that came from the train? Why is stuff suddenly disappearing? What's on the other side of the island?! Even the revelation of what was on that train is done Lost-style where old black and white footage unveils part of the story. While of course anxious to find out the big mystery, like Lost, I felt like it dragged on a little too long and by the end I was kind of underwhelmed. "Oh that's kind of cool, but that's it?" As is the case with many of these types of movies, when the length and magnitude of the mystery is dragged on too long and made too big, it will inevitably fall short of expectations. Of course, all the fun is in the build up but when you're expecting a new bicycle for Christmas and all you get is a helmet instead, you can't help but be disappointed.

That said, there are wonderful moments. There are great moments of suspense and cheap thrills. The kids are great, which is pretty rare for kids since they're mostly, you know, kids and not actors. And while on the surface Super 8 is a sci-fi mystery, at its core it is really a coming of age story for Joe and if anything it is more well-written for its touching innocence than it is for its generic plot.

Oh, also make sure to stick around during the credits as they show the zombie picture they make which is pretty awesome.

Grade: B

Day 51 - Sisters

Sisters (1973) directed by Brian DePalma

One of the fun things about watching more and more movies is that you will occasionally catch references to other films. The more films you watch, the more you will be able to catch these cross references to each other. It's not that directors are ripping off other people's work per say, it's more of paying homage to the works that inspired them. It's kind of like being able to catch an inside joke that only you and the director get and it's fun trying to be part of that inner circle. Like all people, I used to love The Simpsons as a kid for the obvious reasons, but it is only until I grew older and more familiar with popular culture and history that I was fully able to appreciate the show for how smart it was and how hard it tried to jam stuff in that many of its viewers wouldn't even recognize.

Brian DePalma's Sisters is a fine movie in its own right, but if you're at all familiar with Alfred Hitchcock's films you'd find all sorts of goodies here to make the viewing that much sweeter. But what sets DePalma apart from many directors is that not only is he able to call upon Hitchcock, but is able to retain his own unique style to make the film distinctly his own.

The film begins with an incredibly ominous score accompanied by a shot of an embryo during the opening credits. This film is going to be dark and twisted, but you don't know yet exactly why. Then the movie starts off rather innocently. Two characters Danielle and Phillip meet each other on a game show called Peeping Tom, a fitting reference to Rear Window in which the plot is loosely based on. From there they go on a date, get to know each other and share some romance which leads to Phillip spending the night at Danielle's place. Then inexplicably, Phillip is brutally stabbed to death in a very Psycho-esque moment with the silhouette and a kitchen knife. Grace, a woman who lives in the opposite building, has a plain view to Danielle's apartment and witnesses the murder. She calls the cops, but by the time they arrive the body has been stashed away and nobody believes her. It is up to Grace to solve the murder. If it sounds like the plot to Rear Window, you're absolutely right, it is. This sequence also has a great reference to a lesser known Hitchcock classic, Rope in how the body is hidden in plain sight. Maybe I've given away too much of the plot as it seems like a lot has happened, and it has, but the majority of the film is spent on Grace's attempts to prove that a murder did take place and there is of course the mysterious subplot of Danielle's Siamese twin sister.

Stylistically there is a lot to take in as the film is crafted with Brian DePalma's meticulous detailing. I loved the scene where Phillip is writing Danielle's name in frosting on a birthday cake. Meanwhile Danielle, who hasn't taken the proper dosage of her medication, is writhing in pain on her bathroom floor. The scene cuts back and forth between the frosting tube which eerily resembles a knife and Danielle in pain accompanied by that ominous score in the beginning, contrasting a seemingly innocent task with something violent or foreboding. There is this same juxtaposition when the two have sex and the revelation of Danielle's surgical scar on her hip. There are also other signature DePalma moments such as his use of split screen and his slow long tracking shots.

When they use the phrase psychological thriller, I think they have the last twenty minutes of Sisters in mind as the scene is frightening, revealing, disturbing and takes a turn for the bizarre. As soon as the shocking murder happens, it grabs you by the wrists and won't let go, not that you want to turn away or anything until the crime is solved.

While I was proud to recognize the homage that DePalma paid to Hitchcock, many of the references are obvious. That being said, I'm sure I must have missed more subtle ones, or maybe even equally obvious ones to the ones I did recognize if only I knew where they were from. And who knows about all of the other films I've watched and everything I missed from them. Maybe one day I will look back at these films like I did The Simpsons and rediscover and appreciate them more.

Grade: B

Day 50 - Microcosmos

Microcosmos (1996) directed by Claude Nuridsany and Marie Perennou

I'll admit it. I'm a nerd and enjoy watching the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet whenever it is on. Late at night playing poker in the card room, the TV's will usually be on an endless loop of Sportscenter or some random poker tournament, but often times I find my eye wandering to the other TV with the strange creatures creeping and crawling across the screen.

I remember as a kid in daycare I would often play around in the dirt during playtime, digging for worms and putting them in a little jar, watching the collection grow. They were everything that kids loved, squirmy and slimy, slithery and weird. Now as adults, they are everything that we hate, dirty and disgusting, creepy and gross. But they never cease to be fascinating, which is why those nature shows are awesome. While I would never handle a worm or a snail with my bare hands again, I can still watch them up close and comfortable without having to get down and dirty.

Microcosmos is unlike any documentary I've ever seen. It is not the standard narrated feature where we learn cool or interesting facts. It is not like March of the Penguins which is narrated with a sweet tenderness. Not only is there basically no narration at all (maybe 90 seconds' worth of talking in the whole thing), there is no narrative either. We are simply invited to watch the daily lives of insects up close and personal. Just because there is no story, it doesn't mean there isn't any drama. These insects have to go to work, they have to protect their children, some die while others are born, there is sex, there is violence, there is romance. Basically, their lives are every bit as compelling and interesting as our own.

Remember the movie Honey, I Shrunk The Kids where kids are shrunken down to the size of ants and they are suddenly immersed in a whole new dangerous and exciting world? That is basically what Microcosmos has done. I don't know the technology behind it, but they've developed cameras so detailed with magnifying lenses so sharp that little creatures no bigger than an eyelash look like menacing dinosaurs on screen. A scenic grassy field with small ponds is transformed into wild jungles with rivers and lakes. A splatter of rain looks as if a meteor crashed onto the surface of Mars, devastating the landscape around it. Insects, with all their weird shapes with extra legs and antennae and gigantic eyes, are so interesting to look at. While we are busy wondering what life might look like on alien planets, the strangest and most fascinating creatures live right under our very feet. Sometimes I forgot I was watching a documentary and thought I was watching something out of a sci-fi film.

The cinematography and photography are beautiful to look at. Each scene is like a work of moving art. I was reminded by what critics have said of 2001: A Space Odyssey, which described many sequences in that way. In many ways they share the same attributes. Sometimes you don't know what the hell is going on, but you don't care, because you are so entertained and captivated by what is going on screen. Also, the music composed by Bruno Coulais fits perfectly. It's at times beautiful and magnificent and other times mysterious and ominous. A little bug's feat is magnified by an epic score. Little flying insects hover across screen with a military victory song reminiscent of the famous helicopter scene from Apocalypse Now.

My one minor complaint about Microcosmos is that I wish they didn't use any voice narration at all rather than the 90 seconds or so of talking. It isn't necessary in showing the insects' lives and kind of diminishes the effect of watching this strange alien planet by including the familiarity of a human voice. Otherwise, it is marvelous and one of the most intriguing and beautiful nature documentaries I have ever seen. Even with footage over fifteen years old now, it still looks amazing. More importantly, how it is all put together, from the cinematography to the music, is what separates this film from the standard Discovery Channel fare.

Grade: A-

Day 49 - Kramer vs. Kramer

Kramer vs. Kramer (1979) directed by Robert Benton

How fitting that I would watch Kramer vs. Kramer the day that my girlfriend and I broke up. Luckily, we parted ways on relatively good terms. We both saw it coming and agreed it would be for the best, no shouting or yelling or blaming, just reasonable (though melancholy) conversation. I guess that I'm lucky in that regard as I'd imagine that for most people breaking up is a messy process. Usually at the end, there is a lot of fighting and yelling and just plain spitefulness. We had the rare other kind of break-up. It's not that we didn't care for each other anymore, we just realized we weren't meant for each other.

In Kramer vs. Kramer, Ted (Dustin Hoffman) comes home one day after work to find his wife Joanna (Meryl Streep) waiting for him at the door, nothing unusual there, except that she's got her bags packed and a big speech prepared. She is leaving him. You don't believe it when you first hear it. Ted thinks Joanna is joking. At first, I thought my girlfriend was joking. Then you see the serious expression on her face, the sadness in her eyes and you know she's given it a lot of thought. Ted goes from being slightly annoyed to angry, then to desperate and pleading for Joanna not to go. That wasn't quite how my own conversation went but it could just as easily have.

The main story of the film, however, really isn't about the divorce, but the devastating effects it has on all the people involved, especially on their young son Billy who obviously takes it hard. He doesn't understand why his mom left and clearly he would prefer her over Ted, but he doesn't really realize that she left both of them.

I like how the film sort of flips things around in that it is Ted that is left to be the single parent when that is commonly a "woman's thing". But as Ted points out, why is it automatically assumed that women are better parents than men? Why can't men be just as caring or loving? Given the tone of the film, it is very easy to side with Ted here, except that it isn't so cut and dry. In the beginning of the film, it is evident that Ted wasn't really much of a father. Walking Billy to school, he has to ask him what grade he is in and in a casual conversation, he seems genuinely surprised that Billy likes Boston, despite them living in New York. (Joanna is from Boston.)

The story revolves around the growing relationship between Ted and Billy, so it is easy to sympathize with Ted. He is the protagonist. He is trying the best, all by himself, to take care of his son and he seems to be doing a damn good job at it despite some setbacks. But he's only been doing it for a year and a half, Joanna was Billy's full time mother for over five. She is painted in the film as kind of a cold bitch, but if there was a prequel to Kramer vs. Kramer told from her perspective during the marriage, it would be Ted who is the cold monster. There are no good guys or bad guys in these situations. Everybody is a little to blame, but nobody wants to admit it. The only truly good side is the son caught in the middle.

The film is obviously touching, even if a bit manipulative. The relationship between father and son are endearing and the central plot to the story, but the ending is a little too convenient for reality. Like I mentioned before, it seems like Joanna is the villain here but what else is there to expect when the story is told completely from Ted's side?

Breaking up hasn't fully registered with me yet. I haven't had much time to think about it. I'm sure it will hit me eventually and when it does I'm sure I'll be bummed for a while. This makes me even more glad I have this movie watching challenge going to keep me occupied. I was going to end it with some tie-in to the movie, but the parallel is so obvious I don't even know what to write and I'm literally falling asleep at the computer! (I played poker all night and basically had my worst session ever. Just not my lucky day, huh?) I might come back to edit this post...

Grade: B+


Sidenote: I kind of cringed and laughed when they wake up in the morning to use the toilet and you don't hear the toilet flush or the sink turn on. Gross. Then in a continuous shot out of the bathroom they walk into the kitchen and handle their food, so you know there was no period in time where they could have washed their hands. Double gross.

Day 48 - Eyes Without A Face

Eyes Without A Face (1960) directed by Georges Franju

"I want to take his face.... off."
       - Sean Archer as Castor Troy in Face/Off

I'm pretty sure that Face/Off wouldn't exist without Eyes Without A Face, which is probably this film's greatest contribution to cinema. Just kidding, sort of. This is the second French horror film I've seen in the past month, the other being the deliciously devious Les Diaboliques, so I was expecting something along those lines. While the concept of Eyes Without A Face is creepy as hell, it doesn't really deliver the thrills and chills I expected, but what it does do well is set an eerie atmosphere of part horror and almost fantasy. 


The film opens with a woman driving down a road with a body in the backseat. She dumps the body in the river where it is later found, shockingly without a face...


A doctor who specializes in plastic surgery is desperately trying to fix his daughter's disfigured face. So what does he do? Get his female accomplice to lure young women into his mansion where he subdues them and then perform horrifying face transplants to give his daughter a new face. He hasn't quite perfected the technique yet, so he has to do it over and over again with different girls until he gets it right. Pretty gruesome stuff, except that this isn't a bloody mess like typical horror films. Much of the tension and queasiness comes from wondering what director Georges Franju will actually show. You never get a clear look at the doctor's daughter's disfigured face as Christiane either has her face buried in a pillow sulking or is roaming the house wearing a mask.


Despite the film's morbid nature, there really isn't much to hide your face from (aha) except for one scene that is so remarkably cold and precise it is shocking to watch unfold. As I watched the doctor carefully use the scalpel on his victim's face, it was like watching real footage of surgeries which I've always found way more queasy than film gore. Even though the scene isn't really bloody and is actually probably laughably simple, it works so well because of just how little else Franju shows in the film.

This isn't a horror film in the traditional sense where you are constantly on the edge of your seat. It is more horrifying to think about than anything. The doctor isn't the sadistic mad scientist but rather an obsessed and desperate man trying to help his daughter. There is the body in the beginning of the film and a victim in the middle, but you get the impression there have been dozens of them.

Christiane isn't the helpless daughter either. She knows exactly what is going on and what her father has been doing, but she is also a victim as well trapped in the house and trapped behind her mask. Even when she does get a new face, it's not really hers and must see someone else's face in the mirror. She has one of the strangest screen presences I've ever seen. Part of you feels sorry for her, the other part is completely terrified of the phantom-like aura she gives off. It's almost as if she floats around the house in a dreamlike fantasy.

Despite its great premise and dark ambiance, I couldn't help but wish for more. If only Franju did more of this instead of that or if he changed a scene a little or added this in, etc. It's hard to really put my finger on it, but I feel like this good film could have been GREAT. I'll probably sound totally ignorant saying this, but I wonder what David Fincher could have done with this screenplay today. Or if you want to compare Franju to one of his contemporaries, what would Alfred Hitchcock have done? Could he have done better? Would anything even be markedly different?

Grade: B

Day 47 - The Adventures of Robin Hood

The Adventures of Robin Hood (1938) directed by Michael Curtiz 

The very first film I remember vividly as a child was an old black and white version of Zorro. It was possibly the 1920's silent film Mark of Zorro, starring Douglas Fairbanks who would gain notoriety for his portrayal as Robin Hood, but it was more likely the 1940 remake of the same name starring Tyrone Power. My dad rented it over and over knowing that I loved it, I must have seen it over a dozen times. I imagine I would have used my baby blanket as a cape of some sort and can picture a younger (and chubbier) me fencing along with Zorro on screen. I bought the DVD a couple years ago and watched The Mark of Zorro for the first time in probably twenty years. Unsurprisingly, it wasn't really that good but I didn't care. I was able to recapture a piece of my childhood and those memories and feelings of youth and exuberance. Certain films never really age because of their timelessness and their ability to evoke a sense of child-like wonder. The Wizard of Oz is a film like that. Classic Disney movies are like that. The Adventures of Robin Hood is like that. It's kind of funny that I brought up Zorro because he sort of parallels Robin Hood for being heroes of the poor and also for their swashbuckling adventures.

I'm not going to bother mentioning the plot as we're all familiar with the Robin Hood legend so I'll just talk about aspects of the film. Like The Red Shoes and the aforementioned The Wizard of Oz, The Adventures of Robin Hood shows off just how great Technicolor was, or is. This film is over seventy years old and it looks fantastic and in many ways better than modern films. You just don't see these kinds of colors anymore. Take, for instance, Errol Flynn's green tights that would make Kermit the frog blush with envy. Admittedly, much of the film is unrealistically bright, but it adds to the almost fairy tale effect of the film, representing a time when things were brighter and more innocent.

Technically speaking the film is well shot. My favorite scene is when Robin Hood is dueling with Sir Guy and as they fence off screen we can see their shadows crossing swords on the pillar. Brilliant shot.

One of the film's strengths is its child like charm and simplicity. The acting is pretty over the top, perhaps even borderline bad, but it's done with such exuberance you don't really care. It kind of reminds me of school plays where none of the kids can act, but they're all having so much fun. By the time the plot thickens and the action picks up in the last half of the movie, you basically don't even notice it and are too busy enjoying the movie.

Errol Flynn does a good job as Robin Hood. He is charming and funny and makes the most out of the campy dialogue. I was pretty surprised by how physical his role is. Flynn did all his stunts in the film Jackie Chan style and some of them are pretty demanding including swinging across vines, jumping down from trees and propelling up ropes, not to mention pretty intense sword fighting. The action in this film is actually pretty well choreographed. One of the complaints I frequently hear about older movies is that action sequences are slow and clunky, which is actually a fair point. Even in a heralded action film like Seven Samurai, the sword fighting is pretty tame compared to the modern martial arts films. However, in TAORB they really go after each other and swing their swords hard and fast. Perhaps it isn't as dazzling as Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, but it does look real and exciting.

One thing I found fascinating is how this portrayal of Robin Hood is considered virtuous and wholesome. Certainly, he is heroic and his intentions noble, but do people really not see what an egomaniac he is? Take for example the scene when he first meets Friar Tuck and totally messes with him. He comes across as a douchebag at worst and a mean spirited prankster at best. Also while Batman may be dark and moody, his one rule is that he doesn't kill people. Robin Hood has a body count of over ten in this film! It's kind of funny this movie is rated PG because a lot of people get arrows and swords through their hearts in a pretty indifferent manner. Parents be warned.

The Adventures of Robin Hood, like the Zorro film of my childhood, brought back a little bit of my inner child. Watching the film, I couldn't help but remember how I wanted to be a swashbuckling hero and for a couple hours, I was.

Grade: B+