I like to think that if I were a youth in the 50s and 60s, I would have marched with Dr. King in Washington, or cheered on those first black students who broke the color barrier in Mobile, voted for politicians who campaigned against segregation, or had class like Peter Norman, but I forget that there were many popular and powerful forces pushing against the movement and most white folks were apathetic; I too would have sat on the sidelines and went about my day. Thirty years from now, I would like to say that although I was straight, I stood beside those who were not as they forged difficult ground towards civil rights. Today, I voted for domestic partner rights, I’m sure that isn’t enough.

A perfectly spun comedy that had me laughing like a little boy. I imagine this will wear well with repeated viewings as Black’s performance is nuanced genius–much how I felt with Colin Farrell’s performance in ‘In Bruges’. The script tackles theology and calling, humility, pride, and hospitality… amongst the fantastic setting of Mexican semi-pro wrestling. The cast is spot on, and whoever found Jiménez as Black’s sidekick should be the opposite of euthanized. The director’s dedication to setting and style is commendable and had me engrossed in every detail. Odd, I remember hating the trailer which featured Black blowing tortillas onto a salad and flexing his ass in white trousers (not the funniest bits). Thanks to the Broweleits for kindly pestering me to watch this for the last three years. A fan.

Pretty good sound effects.

I was not surprised that a film based on a twelve sentence picture book had a fairly thin plot, but I was surprised how quickly things went dull. The visuals were certainly ace–but only held attention for a few minutes. I did my best to search out deeper subject matter: communism, war, religion, despotism. In the end, I think the film is about a kid with a great imagination, the end. This would make a great trailer; and it did.

As con films go, the audience is meant to get caught up in the guess work, wondering what is real and what is fake. The classic, ‘Dirty Rotten Scoundrels’ rides the line perfectly, and by the very last flip, you are still hoping to figure out the con but most likely leave the theater surprised at the resolution (con is short for confidence, I learned). In ‘The Brothers Bloom’ though, I found myself tired by the last reel and not interested in what was real. Though ‘Vanilla Sky’ was not a con film, I felt the same disinterest in discerning reality as this film. I was, however, engrossed in the remarkable costumes, sets, photography, and charming work from a favorite actress (Rachel Weisz). Adrien Brody was a bit too mumpish and did not carry the film as the script required. I was compelled to listen to the commentary, as I am a fan of the director, and along with the deleted scenes, which revealed a lot of the back-story, I learned to love the film. I can’t believe it cost $20m and only make $5m. Depressing.

This open source documentary had more than a few interesting arguments on the history and direction of copyright law, but too often digressed into a ‘Girl Talk’ biography, and didn’t seem to understand the difference between Napster culture (massive copying and distributing of film and music) and fair use of portions of these works towards new creativity. I am most certainly a believer in remixing, mashing up, sampling, parody, satire, and the like. I also think the statute for entering the public domain is absurdly too long–’Happy Birthday’ was written over a century ago and is still not public domain (we will have to endure ‘Red Robins’ homemade version for another twenty years). But who am I–a small beans artist who can’t make a living.

Tyson is a very conflicted person as one would suspect. His bi-polar nature is impossible to miss–he hates women, himself, boxing, money, and then two moments later he swears he can’t live without them. I think I pity him more than anything. This film is 90% interview with the aging boxer, and makes great use of clever editing and camera work to keep it visually interesting. It is refreshing–as I seem to often point out–when a star such as this is willing to speak honestly about his shortcomings, his venereal diseases, his opinion of others (King and Washington are given very choice words), and how he performed fellatio on a woman (sic). Finishing school is for Nashville recording artists (my words). He’ll eat your children (his words). Like Chaplin, this film gave clear evidence that the gifted can often become obsessive, and lose sight of life’s priorities.

It is quite difficult to fairly rate a bio-pic as you must differentiate between the quality of the story-telling and the quality of the historical figure. Chaplin was a womanizer, married often and married young, was neurotically committed to his craft and was tragically haunted by Hoover’s FBI to the point of being exiled from the States when he shipped off to holiday in England. Being a great artist is not enough. I often forget this as I pursue my own artistic goals; sadly mistreating those whom I love most. My priorities have been skewed for most of my adult life and I have paid dearly for it, leaving a wake of dysfunction. Sad. This film reminded me of such reality… I’m also really annoyed that Downey lost Best Actor to Pacino in ‘Scent Of A Woman‘. A make-up Oscar if there ever was one.

This breakthrough documentary by leftist, low-hanging-fruit, charlatan, Michael Moore was simply ridiculous. The narrative arc that drives the film is Moore attempting to get an interview with Roger Smith, CEO of GM, who at the time were laying off a lot of Flintons. Moore schemes his way into the corporate office with a film crew, or gets word that Roger will be at his elitist, private club, all without any sort of appointment or reasonable communication, and then acts surprised that they turn him away. Oooh, Roger must have something to hide if he won’t see some jeans-and-cap hack with a camera roaming around the lobby. For the majority of the other content he interviews Miss Michigan who–shockingly–doesn’t have any good economic advice on the matter, and, cartoon Flintons who are out of work and struggling to make ends meet. It comes across as demeaning, pointless snubbing of those below the poverty line (see the scene with “the crazy rabbit eating lady”). As usual, I find Moore’s sensationalism and fuzzy execution sadly distract from otherwise good arguments.

Despite having one very sad title, and dipping into the very tarnished ‘Die Hard’ franchise once again, this film was quick, cocky, and enjoyable to the final scene. I was rather distracted by the ‘Apple’ commercial guy playing co-lead, and a villain who had diminishing returns. Sequel franchising is a tricky business that rarely goes well, actors get desperate, studios make good money dragging things out as long as the brand has a name. ‘Terminator’, ‘Aliens’, ‘Predator’, ‘Batman’ (1989), ‘Lethal Weapon’, ‘Raiders’, ‘POTC’ are all examples of brilliant action/adventure films that got driven into the ground by lamer directors/screenwriters and bloated budgets (or as ‘AVP’ proved, not enough of a budget). The ‘Bourne’ and ‘LOTR’ trilogies stand as the only series’ that somehow avoided the problem–perhaps they were approached as single, seamless productions with a comprehensive narrative and not just a cash cow that got thrown up the flagpole every few years.