Angels & Demons

Year 2, Day 365 - 12/31/10 - Movie #730

BEFORE: I brought this DVD up to Massachusetts, and I intended to watch it the day after Christmas, but my mom said that she'd already seen it. That's rare, that my moms watches a film before I do - a sign I've got to step up my game. Anyway, my wife wanted to see it (we both read the book) so I re-scheduled it for tonight.

We don't go out on New Year's Eve, it's a good night to stay in and watch a movie together. I think the last day of the year should be used for either quiet reflection, or something like cleaning out your attic or organizing your comic books (or whatever it is you've got too much of...).

THE PLOT: Harvard symbologist Robert Langdon works to solve a murder and prevent a terrorist act against the Vatican.

AFTER: I have to admit that I was all set to switch my blog posts and make "Nuns on the Run" the last movie of the year - I started the year with "The Commitments", another film set in the U.K. - but that would compromise the integrity of the list. Plus, with the plot of this film concerning a bomb set in the Vatican that's set to detonate at midnight, it actually made for a very appropriate New Year's Eve flick.

Of course, there's a lot of unbelievable outrageousness to this film - how often does a symbologist save the day? Not a secret agent, not a political negotiator, but a symbologist? Come on... Like Harvard's got a symbology department? What the heck are you supposed to do with that degree after you graduate?

But I digress...the framing device here is the death of a pope and the election of a new one - but the kidnapping of four likely candidates suggests that there are sinister elements working within the Vatican hierarchy (say it ain't so!). And somehow only a symbologist with access to the Vatican library can save them...oh yeah, he's got a hot sidekick who is a scientist, but she also seems to be an expert in art, Latin, medicine, and whatever else is needed to advance the plot. (Again, come on!)

Having read the book, I just reviewed the changes made for the movie (conveniently listed on IMDB.com) - and for the most part, I have to say, "Bravo". They took out things that would have slowed the movie down, and corrected some of the wildest improbable occurences, also simplifying the plot at the same time.

The race around Rome following symbols from statues is quite ridiculous, but at least it's good clean action-movie fun. And that's the last film of 2010 - I couldn't really predict where the chain would end, since I only program about a month ahead at a time. But there it is - an update will follow next concerning the future of the Movie Year Blog.

Starring Tom Hanks (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Ewan McGregor (last seen in "The Men Who Stare at Goats"), Armin Mueller-Stahl, Stellan Skarsgard (last seen in "Ronin")

RATING: 7 out of 10 votive candles

Nuns on the Run

Year 2, Day 364 - 12/30/10 - Movie #729

BEFORE: OK, so it's only tangentially related to religion, but topically I'm grasping at straws. You try stringing over 700 movies together, so that each one has something in common with the one before it and the one after it...

THE PLOT: Brian and Charlie work for a gangster. When their boss sets them up to be killed, they steal the money for themselves, but when their escape doesn't go to plan, they have to seek refuge in a Nuns' teacher training school.

AFTER: Essentially it's a revamp of "Some Like It Hot", and I think I'd seen bits of it before, but never the whole thing. Another slapstick farce, with unbelievable bits, like the ability of two men, one extra burly, to disguise themselves as nuns. And of course the plot hinges on a character's near-sightedness and her inability to find her glasses...

Amusing but not really laugh-out-loud funny.

Starring Eric Idle (last seen in "Hollywood Homicide"), Robbie Coltrane (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix").

RATING: 5 out of 10 meat cleavers

Doubt

Year 2, Day 363 - 12/29/10 - Movie #728

BEFORE: Went back to work today, but fortunately it's only a two-day work week. Sweet.

THE PLOT: In a Bronx Catholic school in 1964 a popular priest's ambiguous relationship with a troubled 12 year old black student is questioned by the school's principal.

AFTER: Hmmm. I'm not seeing what all the fuss was about, as far as this movie's plot is concerned. I mean, it seems pretty one-note. I suppose it's a microcosm for the entirety of the priesthood, and all of their foibles where young boys are concerned, but because it's set in 1964, everyone speaks with these veiled references about an "improper relationship", and it seems like everyone's afraid to come out and say what's on their minds.

And essentially it's a game of "He said/she said" between the priest in question, and the school's principal - but because we never saw what happened, there will always be...well, you can see the title.

I did my time as an altar boy in the late 70's, and I emerged (relatively) unscathed. Is it wrong of me to wonder how I got so lucky? Was there something wrong with me, was I not cute enough?

When the big scandals broke in the late 90's, I sort of sat back and waited for Catholicism as a whole to crumble, and I'm still waiting. I'm always quick to point out that celibacy was not originally part of the church, and in fact has no real connection to a person's holiness or divinity. The entire reason that priests are required to be celibate has everything to do with the Catholic Church's ownership of land in the Middle Ages - because if there were no offspring of priests, there could be no claims of inheritance on their land. That's it - there's nothing in the Bible that says priests should be celibate, and in fact if you count Jesus's disciples as the first priests, he even instructed them to "Be fruitful and multiply", so there would be more believers.

So I feel that the whole system is a put-on, and over time this connection has been made between celibacy and divinity, and that connection is nothing more than an imaginary human construct. Asking someone to deny their human natures seems quite unnatural, and somehow (through a process no one really understands very well) this leads to priests who lust after young boys. It's a complex issue, and I'm sure it's not a strict cause/effect relationship, but I've still got my suspicions.

Starring Philip Seymour Hoffman (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Meryl Streep (last seen in "Lions for Lambs"), Amy Adams (also last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), and Viola Davis (last seen in "Kate & Leopold")

RATING: 6 out of 10 free throws

Dear God

Year 2, Day 362 - 12/28/10 - Movie #727

BEFORE: I'm essentially housebound today, thanks to the complete mismanagement of NYC Sanitation services. The city waited until AFTER the snow was done to start plowing, which was a huge mistake. Plus, they simply don't have enough plows and sanders to cover every street, so the people who live on "non-essential" streets or in the outer boroughs found out just where they are in the pecking order. Expect heads to roll at City Hall in the New Year. And to everyone who called for small government and tax cuts, this is the result - fewer city services when they're really needed. I don't care, I was able to spend the day unpacking and catching up on some TV and comic books.

Sticking with the religion theme tonight, and a late Christmas tie-in.

THE PLOT: When letters written to God start getting results, and replies, people everywhere are amazed. The Post Office however is annoyed.

AFTER: There is a (somewhat) heartwarming message in this film - people who are on hard times and write letters to God get the help that they need, but I'm just not sure that it's coming from a genuine good place.

The central character, played by Greg Kinnear (last seen in "Flash of Genius"), is a reformed (?) con-man, who only ends up at the post office because he is ordered by the court to find a job. Even though he signs on as temporary holiday help, I'm not sure that's how the post office works...don't you have to take some kind of exam? So when he sees all the letters to God in the dead letter office, his initial thought is that he can turn this into some kind of scam - although we're never really sure what the angle is, or how answering these letters will lead to some form of profit.

The rest of the staff at the post office wants to jump on board, and they all mean well, they really do - but every single one of them is a screw-up, or is neurotic or damaged in some way. So there's no one to really root for here, my choices are the con man, or the screw-ups, or the desperately needy. It's great that people want to help other people, it's just too bad that they have to violate federal mailing laws to do so.

What's strange is that the Post Office already HAS programs in place to help the needy. Kids in need have been writing letters to "Santa" for years, and though the program was suspended for a few years (something about privacy laws, or the lack of safety in giving out people's addresses...) my understanding was that it was back on. Plus mail carriers already participate in things like canned food drives, and special stamps that raise money for worthy causes. Should they spend time on their evenings and weekends doing pro bono work too? And who should fund all of this?

What bothers me is that the first postal "miracle" happens by accident - so that one doesn't really count, does it? And then the process is continued, largely because the main character is trying to impress a woman - so those don't really come from a pure place, either. Would it have been so wrong to have someone doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds? I can't help but think about Jason Lee's character on "My Name Is Earl" - a former contemptible (yet likeable) lowlife thief, who learns about karma and then straightens out his life and atones for his misdeeds, because he believes this will bring good things back to him in the long run. Nothing wrong with that set-up at all.

The film culminates in the main character put on trial - yes, put on trial for trying to help people in need. Is this Los Angeles or Nottingham? Were the filmmakers trying for a "Miracle on 34th St." vibe? Or like the rest of this film, was the whole idea just sort of misguided?

Also starring Laurie Metcalf, Hector Elizondo (last seen in "Turbulence"), Tim Conway, Roscoe Lee Browne, Donal Logue (last seen in "Blade"), with cameos from Sam McMurray (last seen in "Lucky Numbers"), Larry Miller (last seen in "Chairman of the Board"), Nancy Marchand, Rue McClanahan, Jack Klugman, Coolio, John Pinette, Ellen Cleghorne, director Garry Marshall, Timothy Stack, Tony Danza, David Hasselhoff and Elvira (wow, what a motley bunch...)

RATING: 4 out of 10 blurred addresses

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Year 2, Day 361 - 12/27/10 - Movie #726

BEFORE: We waited out the blizzard at my parents' house and drove back to Queens today - the highway was mostly clear, but it seems that New York City Sanitation gave up and only plowed a portion of the streets, so we had to park four blocks from our house, and had to slog through the snow with our luggage and Christmas gifts - thanks a lot, Mayor Bloomberg! I'm continuing with religion-based documentaries, but tonight's film is sort of the opposite point of view from last night's, with intelligent design standing in for creationism.

THE PLOT: Ben Stein examines the issue of academic freedom and decides that there is none when it comes to the debate over intelligent design.

AFTER: There's a lot of repetition in this film - THIS teacher was fired for teaching intelligent design, and THIS reporter was told not to mention it in an article, and then THIS one, and so on...

But interviewer Ben Stein then makes some large leaps in logic, pointing out the Nazis' use of Darwinism to justify their terrible actions - however, this does not mean that today's believers in evolution have beliefs similar to Nazis. It's a cheap shot, evoking the concentration camps, which also clouds the issue.

It's probably just that most scientists seem to not be very religious people, and vice versa, which is actually quite comforting to me. The most science-oriented people, at least the ones depicted in this film, have found the existence of God to be incompatible with their studies and research - so Ben Stein, here sticking up for the Old Testament God, is not preaching to the choir, but instead doing the opposite.

There are a lot of shots of Stein traveling to interviews, which to me seems like a great metaphor - he's constantly on the road to a point, but never quite gets there. I'm all for academic freedom, but science and religion are more like magnets with opposite charges than, say, peanut butter and chocolate.

Both Bill Maher and Ben Stein want the members of their "silent majorities" to start coming forward and speaking up, which raises the question - which group is bigger, with more potential as a voting bloc - the quiet atheists, or the scientific creationists?

RATING: 3 out of 10 dinosaur skeletons

Religulous

Year 2, Day 360 - 12/26/10 - Movie #725

BEFORE: I'm snowed in at my parents' house, today was originally set aside for post-Christmas visiting with friends, but that was made impossible by a blizzard - as it is, I'll be lucky to leave on schedule tomorrow to drive back to New York. I'll continue with another religion-based documentary.

THE PLOT: Bill Maher's take on the current state of world religion.

AFTER: Bill Maher interviews Christians, Muslims, Jews and Scientologists in an effort to point out the hypocrasies and discrepancies inherent to their faiths. Faith is portrayed here as the opposite of rational thought, a substitute explanation for things that cannot be explained. Like with Rev. Billy, I appreciate Maher's message, but not necessarily all of his methods - though I myself enjoy getting into philosophical arguments with overzealous believers, such as preachers on the subway.

I admit I'm hard-pressed to think of a better way to deal with religious people other than arguing with them - and I also admit that like Maher, I consider most of them misguided, if not ignorant. I'm no longer a practicing Catholic (I figured that I practiced enough, and I wasn't getting any better at it) and I suppose I identify as more of an agnostic than an atheist. I'd like to believe that there is a higher power, but I've seen no direct evidence of it, and I'm not arrogant enough to say for sure how any of it works, or which religion, if any, is correct.

In fact, the very presence of multiple religions was the deal-breaker for me. Why would my religion be right, and the others wrong? Why were the ancient Greeks, the Romans, the Pagans any less correct than today's believers? Maher even points out the similarities between Jesus, Mithra and Horus - all of whom were supposedly born to virgins, had powers to heal the sick and raise the dead, and who all died and were resurrected three days later? When you realize how much of Jesus's story was co-opted from other religions, it all starts to sound like a giant con game. And, just like with Santa Claus, if any part of the story isn't true, then most likely the whole deal isn't true.

Maher suggested that the silent majority of rational non-believers rise up and band together, to counter the smaller but more vocal evangelistic groups that seem to have control over certain elements of our government, even though we're supposed to have a separation of church and state. My only question - where do I sign?

My major complaint is that the documentary is quite unfocused, jumping around from one minor point to another, without ever congealing them into a major, definitive statement. And it didn't really need to poke fun at fringe religions like Scientology, or ones based on things like marijuana - those factions do enough of a job ridiculing themselves.

RATING: 5 out of 10 prophets

What Would Jesus Buy?

Year 2, Day 359 - 12/25/10 - Movie #724

BEFORE: Something perhaps radically different for Christmas -

THE PLOT: An examination of the commercialization of Christmas in America while following Reverend Billy and the Stop Shopping Gospel Choir.

AFTER: Rev. Billy is a phony preacher, in the style of Swaggart or Bakker or Graham, who brings a message of rampant consumerism, what he calls the "Shopocalypse", to shopping centers in a flash-mob gospel style. The film follows him and his choir on a cross-country tour that takes place in the month leading up to Christmas, culminating in a Dec. 25 raid on Disneyland. The "happiest place on Earth" is also earmarked here the epicenter of out-of-control American consumerim.

While I don't agree with the man's methods - he seems to have studied at the Michael Moore school of attention-getting - there is a valid message underneath the trappings of an over-dramatic evangelist. Intermixed with vignettes from the choir's life on the road and stops at the Mall of America and Wal-Mart headquarters are interviews with economic experts that highlight the plight of third-world sweatshop laborers, and a look at an average pre-teen's girl's toy collection, which is about to expand again with the latest Christmas deliveries from "Santa".

Is Christmas out of control? Undoubtedly. Will American consumers spend themselves into debt, again and again? Probably. With increased American corporate culture, advertising, and overspending, we've come pretty far from the original holiday celebration and the true meaning of the season. The real religious leaders have an uphill battle, trying to get their message across to a congregration that heads straight for the malls after services. But kudos to someone for making a film that dares to suggest that maybe, just maybe, the best Christmas gifts aren't sold in stores and wrapped in paper.

For years I've gone to two family celebrations on Christmas Day - lunch at my parent's house with with my mother's family, and then dinner at my uncle's house with my father's family. Whereas my mother's family celebrates with a full-on turkey dinner followed by an avalanche of gifts, my father's family celebrates with cold cuts and pre-made sandwiches, followed by a Yankee Swap. The second affair is always more laid-back, less stressful, and the focus is more on conversation and catching up with relatives, rather than focusing on holiday excess and fueling the corporate Christmas machine. And the Yankee Swap is a lot like a Christmas game show - everyone who wants to participate brings a good generic gift, and we all draw for numbers. The first person unwraps a gift, which may or may not be to their liking (but everyone is generally respectful, since the gift-giver is also in the room) - the second person unwraps a gift, and has the option to either keep it, or force a trade with the first person. The third recipient can force a trade with person #1 or #2, and so on, with Person #1 is allowed one final trade, since they had the least amount of choice up to that point.

This system was initiated years ago, since my father's family is so large that it was becoming inconvenient for each person to buy gifts for every other person. But it mostly works - OK, some years you might get a "zonk" gift, but it's all part of the fun - and the emphasis is more on friendly competition and trading, and less on overspending, since there is a monetary limit on gifts. This all ties in with the message of this film, since perhaps one tenth of the gifts are exchanged than in the typical Christmas celebration, and the family is no less the worse for wear. So ask yourself - would Christmas be any worse if fewer gifts were bought? And if your answer is "yes", what are the implications of that?

So while I'm not convinced that "Stop Shopping" is the answer, it's good to provoke debate, and at least attempt to make people aware of their actions and what the consequences are. Shop local, shop at smaller stores, shop less frequently, but please don't get all uppity about it.

RATING: 6 out of 10 cans of hairspray - and a shout-out to my buddy Morgan Spurlock, who was a producer of this film and clearly a strong influence.

Miracle on 34th St. (1994)

Year 2, Day 358 - 12/24/10 - Movie #723

BEFORE: We drove up to Massachusetts today, and helped my mother select ornaments and decorate her tree - had pizza and beer instead of the usual Christmas Eve chinese food. Now I thought I had a copy of the original 1947 film, but it looks like I outsmarted myself and got a copy of the remake instead.

THE PLOT: Six-year-old Susan has doubts about childhood's most enduring miracle - Santa Claus.

AFTER: The hook here is that the "real" Santa accidentally ends up working for Cole's department store, instead of the usual hired "fake" Santa - they call the store Cole's here because apparently Macy's wanted too much money, or didn't want free publicity, and it would have been too obvious to call the store "Schmacy's".

The central issue is a child's belief (or disbelief) in Santa - which is a favorite topic of debate between me and parents I know - when should a child be told the truth? What would be the harm in raising a kid to appreciate that Santa is just a symbol, and his or her parents have been working extra hard to deliver something special during the holiday season? For me, at the age of 5 or 6 I approached my grandmother, demanding to know if fairy tales were real or not - I needed to get it straight in my head and separate fantasy from reality.

Of course, Santa is just an allegorical Supreme Being - God Lite, if you will. Both live up above, one at the top of the world and one in the heavens, both can monitor our activities 24/7, both work in "mysterious ways", and both are keeping track of our sins, supposedly. But even though kids eventually figure out the skinny on Santa, many seem to not be able to make the next leap in logic and apply the same principles to the man upstairs. I'll be delving into religion-based films to finish out the year, so this is a good time to transition to that topic.

NITPICK POINT #1: Wouldn't Kriss Kringle need a valid Social Security Number and fill out a W-2 to work for a major department store? Wouldn't listing his legal residence as "North Pole" raise a red flag with the H.R. department?

NITPICK POINT #2: If Kringle is the real Santa, shouldn't he be up at the North Pole supervising his workshop?

NITPICK POINT #3: Santa tells customers in this film that they can shop in other stores to get lower prices than Cole's, and instead of firing him, the store creates a service to get people items from the other stores. But why not just lower their own prices? Wouldn't they make up for the loss in added sales volume?

NITPICK POINT #4: I've seen enough episodes of "Law & Order" to recognize that there is some really bad lawyering going on in this film's trial. The prosecuting attorney rests its case after about 5 seconds, then demands more time once he realizes that he's actually got to work to prove his point. Umm, you had your chance to call witnesses, and you blew it! Later the judge meets with the defense attorney about the case, without the prosecution present. Even I know you can't do that...

Starring Richard Attenborough, Elizabeth Perkins, Dylan McDermott, Mara Wilson, Robert Prosky (last seen in "Rudy"), Jane Leeves, William Windom, and the late great J.T. Walsh as the prosecuting attorney. Cameos from Allison Janney, Jack McGee.

RATING: 4 out of 10 parade balloons

Fred Claus

Year 2, Day 357 - 12/23/10 - Movie #722

BEFORE: I spent last night wrapping gifts, so in a way I'm behind again. I'll knock this one out tonight, then pack for Massachusetts. I should have some more time at my parents' house, except for the partying and the feasting and the gift exchange, and I'll probably want to get together with friends, so actually there goes that idea.

THE PLOT: Fred Claus, Santa's bitter older brother, is forced to move to the North Pole.

AFTER: Vince Vaughn carries over from last night's film - this is an update to the Santa Claus story that adds a shifty big brother character, and then it makes the necessary changes to the Santa mythology to properly tell his story. Sorry, but in order to be a saint, you've got to be dead - people seem inclined to let "St. Nicholas" slide on that one, but I think the church rules are pretty strict on this. According to this film, a saint becomes immortal, and so do all the members of his immediate family. (?)

But, really, the Santa Claus story is always changing, thanks to the same Hollywood jackholes who need to update James Bond or Batman or Spider-Man just to keep them fresh for each new generation of movie-goers. And no one studio "owns" the Santa story, so we get Dudley Moore and Tim Allen and Will Ferrell and Tom Hanks thrown into the Santa/Elf/North Pole matrix every couple years, hoping today's kids have a short attention span, and don't point out all the discrepancies between the Santa films.

Santa Claus is like the Mercedes of characters - changes to the design should be made with great thought and care, and then only when they improve his story, rather than just add to it. This is a film that tells us not to "Drink the Kool-Aid" where Santa is concerned, and then pours us three pitchers of the stuff.

I've now realized that Vince Vaughn is still playing the same chattery wheeler-dealer that he played in "Swingers" - maybe he's like this in all his films? Kevin Spacey (last seen in "The Men Who Stare at Goats") has a nice turn here as an efficiency expert trying to shut the North Pole down (umm...and he was hired by who, exactly?).

Y'know, I hate to be a cynic, but wouldn't it be more efficient for Santa's sleigh to work its way across the globe just once, instead of criss-crossing and backtracking, as seen in this film? Scratch that, I'm proud to be a cynic - and you know who's fault that is? Santa's - because as a kid I never understood how Santa got to every kid's house. It was not physically possible, and don't drop that "elfin magic" crap on me, because that's as bad as saying that "God works in mysterious ways." Like every kid, I was sold a bill of goods on Santa that turned to disappointment.

Still, I did get a dose of the post-modern warm + fuzzies from this film, which is why its rating is not scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Also starring Paul Giamatti (last seen in "The Negotiator"), Rachel Weisz (last seen in "The Fountain"), Kathy Bates (last seen in "Misery"), John Michael Higgins (last seen in "Blade: Trinity"), Elizabeth Banks (last seen in "Meet Dave"), Miranda Richardson (last seen in "The Phantom of the Opera"), Ludacris, and cameos from Stephen Baldwin, Frank Stallone and Roger Clinton (in a sibling-rivalry therapy session!)

RATING: 3 out of 10 conveyor belts

Four Christmases

Year 2, Day 356 - 12/22/10 - Movie #721

BEFORE: Finally starting my Christmas movies - I know I'm late, with just three days to go. At this point I have to hope that my family's presents will come to life and wrap themselves...who the heck put Christmas Eve on a Friday this year?

And I wish I'd known that both Vince Vaughn and Jon Favreau were in the film "Rudy" - I would have scheduled that film to transition to this one. Let's just say I did that, OK?

THE PLOT: A couple struggles to visit all four of their divorced parents on Christmas Day.

AFTER: This film is about how your family is able to get under your skin and push your emotional buttons during the holidays, but as my ex-mother-in-law used to say, "You don't have to like your family, but you do have to love them."

The central couple in this film has chosen for years to avoid their families, and take a vacation together - which doesn't really address the problem. But when fog prevents their plane from taking off, and they're caught on TV, they're forced to come clean and spend the day with all four parents. Slapstick ensues as each parent's celebration puts them through the physical and emotional wringer, from wrestling matches to baby vomit to dredging up childhood insecurities.

There were a few chuckles, like an appearance in a revivalist Christmas pageant and a frustrating game of Taboo, but for the most part, this is designed to make your own Christmas journey seem like a cake-walk by comparison.

I suppose this is somewhat innovative, and timely for its portrayal of the holidays as they are celebrated by people with failed marriages and broken homes, and all of the lingering effects, but wait, isn't this supposed to be a comedy, and aren't comedies supposed to be, you know, funny?

The moral seems to be, "Don't get married", because all of the married and divorced people seem messed up in their own individual ways. Actually, that's the moral of a lot of films, and it's funny when you apply it to a movie on a different subject (i.e. "Saving Private Ryan").

I'll fall short of calling this film contemptible, since it is the spirit of giving - perhaps "misguided" is a better word...

My wife and I have our own holiday tradition - one evening after our jobs have essentially shut down for the holidays, and before we drive up to see my family, we go treat ourselves to dinner at the best restaurant we can think of. That happens tonight, and then I've got to go home and wrap gifts like crazy. But again, perfect timing.

Also starring Reese Witherspoon (last seen in "Pleasantville"), Robert Duvall (last seen in "Thank You For Smoking"), Sissy Spacek, Jon Voight (last seen in "Heat"), Mary Steenburgen (last seen in "I Am Sam"), Kristin Chenoweth (last seen in "Stranger than Fiction"), Tim McGraw, Dwight Yoakam (last seen in "Hollywood Homicide"), cameos from Colleen Camp, Peter Billingsley, Cedric Yarbough (from "Reno 911") and Brian Baumgartner (from "The Office").

RATING: 4 out of 10 photo albums

Big Fan

Year 2, Day 355 - 12/21/10 - Movie #720

BEFORE: I watched a bunch of football films last year, so tonight's film is more about the pro football fans, so tangentially related to the game itself.

THE PLOT: A hardcore New York Giants football fan struggles to deal with the consequences when he is beaten up by his favorite player.

AFTER: This film seems to delight in putting its main character into the most difficult situation possible - a man's fandom is put to the test when he sees behind the pigskin curtain and follows his favorite player to a Manhattan strip-club. He tries to express his fandom, but accidentally causes an altercation which ends with him beaten up and lying in a heap on the club floor.

He then faces a terrible choice - give an account of the situation to the police, which would likely result in his favorite player being suspended, or remain silent, and deal with the physical (and emotional) injuries on his own. Filing a personal injury lawsuit and cashing in on the situation would also result in other fans learning his name, which would also put him at risk.

It's a dark character study, which begins and ends with the movie's star, Patton Oswalt (last seen in "Blade: Trinity"). I happen to be a fan of Oswalt's stand-up, which we only see a small hint of here. This character is right in his sweet-spot too, bearing more than a passing resemblance to Spence, the character he played for years on TV's "The King of Queens" - you just need to change Queens to Staten Island, the Mets to the Giants, and his job as a subway token-booth clerk to one as a parking lot cashier.

This works as a look inside the world of fans - remember, the word is short for "Fanatic". This could just as easily be about fans of actors, authors, politicians, etc. - I for one have my own set of rules for encountering famous people at Comic-Con - it just happens to be about a fan of a football player named Quantrell Bishop (though throughout the movie I thought his name was "Cointreaux"). And if you think it's far off the mark, you don't need to look any further than the real-life stories of football players like Michael Vick or Plaxico Burress (and I'm sure there are others...).

The real NFL season is coming to a close (as is Movie Year #2), just two games left on the schedule. This film hits my schedule quite coincidentally two days after a massive Giants tanking, blowing a 21-point lead and losing to the Eagles. I simply could not have planned this schedule any better...

It's funny, through this whole process I've rarely noticed great soundtrack cuts, maybe because so many of them are NOT great, just the same songs used again and again - but tonight I did notice the song playing during the end credits. It sounded like Bob Dylan, very similar to "The Man in Me" (heard in "The Big Lebowski") but it turned out to be "Sweet Revenge" by John Prine. It sounds to me like the best song Dylan never recorded - I'll have to check it out. Thanks, IMDB.

NITPICK POINT: Throughout the film, the main character makes late-night phone calls to a sports talk-radio show - constantly being yelled at by his mother, whom he lives with, to keep his voice down. And the reason he doesn't call from another location via his cell phone is...?

Also starring Kevin Corrigan (last seen in "American Gangster"), Michael Rapaport (last seen in "Lucky Numbers"), Matt Servitto (famous for playing the FBI agent on "The Sopranos")

RATING: 6 out of 10 parking spaces

Rudy

Year 2, Day 354 - 12/20/10 - Movie #719

BEFORE: Moving up to college-level ball tonight - happy Bowl Week, everyone!

Last year we had Thanksgiving dinner at the home of my brother-in-law's future in-laws, out on Long Island, and after dinner they watched this film. I'd eaten so much deep-fried turkey, with all the trimmings (God, but I love trimmings...) that I slept right through it. So let me make up for that mis-step now.

THE PLOT: Rudy is determined to overcome the odds and fulfill his dream of playing for Notre Dame.

AFTER: Another Hollywood sports film - one that shows that with enough pluck, determination and hard work, a person can fall just short of their goals. I kid - Rudy knows that he's five-foot nothing, and 100 pounds soaking wet, so he really has no shot at playing football for Notre Dame. But regardless of that fickle mistress reality, that is still his dream. So he's (mostly) content to work as an assistant groundskeeper, and then later as a part of their practice squad, essentially as a human tackling dummy.

But we're led to believe he's got this quality called "heart", or "pluck", or "spunk". (As Lou Grant famously said, "I hate spunk.") He wants it more than some of the actual team members, probably because he can't have it. And in the end he achieves his dream, just not in a way that he could have predicted, plus he accidentally gains the benefit of a college education, and learns some valuable life lessons.

And this film can function as a metaphor for anyone's career path - how many of us have achieved our goals, but in an unpredictable fashion? Doesn't everyone, on some level, have to learn to balance getting what they want with wanting what they get?

I connected with this film in an odd way - because it reminded me of my first few years in the film business. I've spent years working for an animator/director whose name many people recognize, and many times I've found myself being envied by people who are just starting out in animation - they ask me how I got where I am, and how they can do the same thing. I always try to discourage anyone from walking the path that I took, and not just because I don't need the competition - no, it's because that experience was unique, and they have to find their own way to their own pipe dream.

One day in high-school I was told that I needed to pick a direction, so I said I'd go into the film business - I was told that with my grades I could choose anything, but that still raised a few eyebrows. Even my guidance-counselor's career-choosing computer advised against it, saying I didn't have the personality required to pull it off. But I forged ahead anyway, since it seemed like it would be interesting at the very least, and possibly fun on some level too.

So this film reminded me of the lean years, the times that I had to bring home food that was leftover from craft services, or the times I worked back-to-back studio shoots so that I didn't see sunlight for three days. Mostly these experiences are now my "war stories", which I tell to entertain the interns - like the time I spent 12 hours looking for the right stool for an Apollonia music video (it appeared on camera for about 3 seconds), or the time I'd been driving the production van for so long that I was dozing off at red lights, or the time I overslept and delayed an entire shoot from driving to Philadelphia, since I had the keys to the van. Or the time my van ran out of gas in the middle of traffic on 23rd St., and I had to figure out how to get some gas in the tank and get to the film lab before it closed.

See? Nothing to be envied there. Nostalgia is fine, but I have no desire to get back into live-action production on any level. If I've got any pipe dream now, it's to be a contestant on Jeopardy! - but if game shows and reality shows have taught me anything, it's that for every person who makes it, there are 10 other competitors vying for that same title, and 100 (or more) others who never even make it to the show. This goes for athletes, chefs, writers, actors, you name it.

So kudos, Rudy, for being the one-in-the-million who made it to the show, and then was able to excel. Everyone else, go out and find your own pipe dream - mine's taken.

Starring Sean Astin, Ned Beatty (last seen in "Charlie Wilson's War"), Robert Prosky (last seen in "Christine"), Charles S. Dutton (last seen in "Secret Window"), John Favreau (last seen in "Iron Man"), Lili Taylor (last seen in "Born on the Fourth of July"), and a cameo from then-unknown Vince Vaughn (last seen in "Mr. & Mrs. Smith").

RATING: 7 out of 10 rejection letters

Remember the Titans

Year 2, Day 353 - 12/19/10 - Movie #718

BEFORE: Sticking with high-school football, before moving on to College level. I noticed that Bowl games started this weekend, which seems a bit early, but also a nice coincidence. My co-worker keeps recommending this one to me, so I figure I've got to give it a shot - I got a copy too late to make Denzel Washington week, so I'll work it in here.

THE PLOT: The true story of a newly appointed African-American coach and his high school team on their first season as a racially integrated unit.

AFTER: Yeah, this was a pretty good one - again, I'm not up on all the mechanics of football, so I couldn't always follow what makes one play better than another, or what makes one team's offense or defense better than another's. I suppose all those signals they're calling mean something to someone, but I'm clueless. At least this film dumbed it down a little bit - THIS guy runs faster than THAT guy, so I can pick up on that.

But to have a little 9-year-old girl who understands all the plays, when I don't? Well, thanks, now I really feel dumb. But then I remember, I was a bookworm in high-school and a film geek in college - heck, I don't even think NYU had a football team, did they?

Then we've got the theme of race relations - the film takes place in 1971 Virginia, when two high-schools were combined to make an integrated one, and the white football coach was demoted to assistant coach, under a new black one (Denzel Washington, last seen in "Inside Man"). Coach Boone forces the team members to overcome their prejudices and work together, and then the spirit of racial harmony (eventually) extends to the entire town.

So football (and a little soul music) puts an end to racism - the cynic in me wants to point out that WINNING puts an end to racism, and one wonders whether there would be race riots if the team failed to come together, or failed on the field. Also, there's a fair amount of sugared sentiment here, everything's shiny/happy/winny once the races start to work together - which makes the issue of racism fairly black and white, if you'll pardon the pun.

Also, the movie's pretty formulaic - all football training movie sequences are fairly interchangeable. And success is pretty much guaranteed - since it's filtered through Hollywood, and movies tend to be made about the winners, and not the losers. But these are actually minor criticisms - it might be a classic formula, but it's a great, uplifting example of one.

Also starring Will Patton (last seen in "The Postman"), Donald Faison (most famous for "Scrubs"), Ethan Suplee (last seen in "Blow"), Ryan Gosling (last seen in "Half Nelson"), Wood Harris (last seen in "The Siege"), Ryan Hurst (also last seen in "The Postman"), Kip Pardue, Hayden Panettiere (last seen in "Racing Stripes"), and Kate Bosworth (last seen in "Superman Returns").

RATING: 8 out of 10 field goals

All the Right Moves

Year 2, Day 352 - 12/18/10 - Movie #717

BEFORE: Another office Christmas party last night, so I got home late again, and quite a bit tipsy again. Well, it is the merriest season of all... but I think I can kick off my football chain before turning in.

THE PLOT: A high school footballer desperate for a scholarship and his headstrong coach clash in a dying Pennsylvania steel town.

AFTER: I didn't really understand the mechanics of the jet-flying in "Top Gun", and unfortunately I'm just as clueless about the mechanics of the game of football. So I wasn't sure about the big game seen in this film - did Tom Cruise's character fail to listen to his coach, or did the coach make a crucial error in judgment? Something about not converting a safety - is that a thing? There seems to be a lot of debate online about this - taking the pass interference penalty, which caused a repeat of the first down, but it's mostly Greek to me.

What is important is what comes after the game, when Cruise's character sees his college prospects dwindle after he's cut from the team. And he starts to learn that life becomes a combination of getting what you want, and learning to want what you get.

But, thanks to Hollywood's patented 6-act structure, things always look darkest right before the dawn, which comes in Act 6. So, what's the take-away here, besides the fact that people who can throw and catch a football well have an easier time getting into college? The fact that you can mouth off to your coach, throw garbage at his house, mouth off to him AGAIN, and everything will still be OK at the end of the day?

This kid's attitude sucked - and it would be nice if his negative actions had lasting consequences. But nope! Give that boy a scholarship! He's obviously entitled...

Also starring Lea Thompson, Craig T. Nelson (last seen in "Where the Buffalo Roam"), Gary Graham (last seen in "Man Trouble", but more famous for "Alien Nation" and "Star Trek: Enterprise"), and Christopher Penn (last seen in "Mobsters")

RATING: 4 out of 10 jockstraps

Top Gun

Year 2, Day 351 - 12/17/10 - Movie #716

BEFORE: I went to a Christmas party at an editorial company last night - something I did a lot of when I was in my 20's. I'd get myself on the guest list for a company having a promotional event - free food, free booze - and that would be a night where I didn't have to cook or buy dinner. So last night I drank like a freelancer -

BUT I was working so much in the late 80's and early 90's, I missed films like this one - how the heck did I go 25 years without seeing this film? Hasn't everyone in the world seen this movie?

THE PLOT: The macho students of an elite US Flying school for advanced fighter pilots compete to be best in the class, and one romances the teacher.

AFTER: Tom Cruise, of course, carries over from last night's film - and this wraps up the war/soldiers chain. I suppose this was a viable experience - but I didn't understand half of the stuff that took place in the air, the dogfights (and mock dogfights) between the jets flying around.

Also, I was confused - why do navy pilots need to go BACK to flight school? Aren't they already, you know, pilots? They didn't learn about these special flying techniques when they were first learning how to fly a plane? This seemed a little contrived to me.

Also - Tom Cruise's character uses the code-name "Maverick". So why is everyone surprised when he doesn't play by the rules? Isn't that, by definition, what a maverick does? I would expect nothing less from a maverick.

NITPICK POINT #1: Admittedly, I'm not an expert on military techniques - but what was the point of having a co-pilot in each plane? Were they the navigators, rear gunners, or what? They never seemed to do much of anything, so I'm left wondering what their true purpose was.

NITPICK POINT #2: As in "The Hurt Locker", there was a lot of dramatic removal of headgear/facemasks in this film. Now, I realize that we can't really see a pilot's face while he's wearing his mask - and it looks GREAT when they rip it off at the right moment - but isn't that their main air supply when they're flying at high altitude? Aren't they at risk of suffocating, after ripping off their face-gear?

NITPICK POINT #3: Wouldn't you know, 5 minutes after graduating from the "Top Gun" flight school, an international incident arises in the Indian Ocean that can ONLY be solved by 3 pilots who have JUST finished their training. What are the odds of that? Couldn't this situation have been handled by, say, last semester's graduates?

But, as I learned with "Inglourious Basterds", it's possible for a film to be exciting and interesting, and still completely ridiculous and unbelievable.

Oddly, I do have a connection to this film, despite never having seen it - the land-based scenes were shot in San Diego, a city that I visit every July for Comic-Con. The first year I was there, I went on a trolley tour that pointed out some of the locations shown in this film. The scenes in the bar (where the pilots sang "Great Balls Of Fire") were shot at San Diego's Kansas City BBQ restaurant, which I make sure to visit every year. The restaurant is proud of its heritage, in addition to a big sign that lays claim to being the location of the "Top Gun Sleazy Bar Scene", they amassed a good collection of "Top Gun" memorabilia over the years - but they had a big fire there in 2008, doing literally dozens of dollars worth of damage. I wasn't able to eat my annual meal there in 2008, but fortunately they re-built and re-decorated, so it once again looks exactly like it does in this film. Great food is served there...I always love to unwind there after a long day at Comic-Con.

Also starring Kelly McGillis (last seen in "The Babe"), Val Kilmer (last seen in "Heat"), Anthony Edwards (last seen in "The Sure Thing"), Tom Skerritt (last seen in "The Dead Zone"), Tim Robbins (last seen in "The Hudsucker Proxy"), Meg Ryan (last seen in "Armed and Dangerous"), and character actors Michael Ironside (last seen in "The Falcon and the Snowman") and James Tolkan (also last seen in "Armed and Dangerous").

RATING: 4 out of 10 fly-bys

Born on the Fourth of July

Year 2, Day 350 - 12/16/10 - Movie #715

BEFORE: Oh, sure, I could have saved this for July 4, or even Veteran's Day, but I started the war-film chain with Tom Cruise ("Lions for Lambs") so I might as well end the chain with Tom Cruise.

THE PLOT: The biography of Ron Kovic - paralyzed in the Vietnam war, he becomes an anti-war and pro-human rights political activist after feeling betrayed by the country he fought for.

AFTER: Ach, this was a tough one to watch, as Kovic endured not just the horror of war, but the horror of being treated in a Bronx V.A. hospital. It's almost hard to determine which situation was worse. I sort of gave our soldiers short shrift by choosing "Manchurian Candidate" as a Veteran's Day film - this would have been much more appropriate. Let this serve as a reminder, going into the holiday season, that the people who have sacrificed, deserve proper care and our gratitude.

That said, it's easy to draw the connections between Vietnam, as portrayed in this film, and our current situation in the Middle East. Wounded soldiers here complain about being sold a "false bill of goods" about the war, and parents wonder why their sons are being sent to the other side of the globe to die - which sounds all too familiar. And it makes me wonder why the later scenes of 1970 war protests are not being echoed more frequently in our streets today.

This was made a few short years after "Platoon", also directed by Oliver Stone, and features appearances by several of the same actors (11 in fact, including Tom Berenger, Willem Dafoe, John C. McGinley) but it's really Cruise's movie. And an interesting character study as we watch Kovic go from idealistic teen to jittery soldier to defiant patient to angry protester.

There's no question that Kovic got a raw deal, but I'm forced to question whether it all went down so melodramatically - or whether details were added so that his story could be more of an idealized story, representing the plight of many Vietnam vets. Kudos for focusing on the individual, who as a microcosm represents a larger situation.

Also starring Willem Dafoe (last seen in "Clear and Present Danger"), Tom Berenger (last seen in "Training Day"), Kyra Sedgwick (last seen in "Phenomenon"), Frank Whaley (last seen in "Ironweed"), and a ton of cameos: Tom Sizemore (last seen in "Black Hawk Down"), John C. McGinley (last seen in "Talk Radio"), Stephen Baldwin, Billy Baldwin, Daniel Baldwin (that's gotta be a rarity, 3 Baldwins in one film), Mike Starr (last seen in "Blood and Wine"), James LeGros, Bob Gunton, Edie Brickell, Lili Taylor (last seen in "Public Enemies"), Holly Marie Combs, Wayne Knight, Vivica A. Fox.

RATING: 6 out of 10 shots of mezcal

Valkyrie

Year 2, Day 349 - 12/15/10 - Movie #714

BEFORE: Another day, another dollar, another plot to kill Hitler...

THE PLOT: Based on actual events, a plot to assassinate Hitler is unfurled during the height of WWII.

AFTER: This is an action film with, in my opinion, an appalling lack of action - an inaction movie? Instead the film consists mostly of meetings and phone calls, and people signing paperwork. Heady stuff...

The concept here is that a few ambitious German officers saw that World War II was about to end poorly for the Germans, so they figured they would hasten the end of the war by taking Hitler out of the picture. In actuality there were 15 attempts on Hitler's life, so I don't know what made this bunch think they'd succeed where 14 other plots had failed - I guess they believed that old German expression, you know, "The fifteenth time's the charm."

This film also faced an uphill battle by trying to make Nazis sympathetic - I think they tried to codify it by separating "Nazis" from "Germans", after all not all Germans were Nazis at the time, but come on, it was the dominant government party.
(Spoiler alert - Hitler wasn't assassinated...)

Oh, if only the excitement and flair of "Inglourious Basterds" could have somehow been combined with the historical accuracy and demeanor of "Valkyrie" - but that's impossible, right? A boy can dream, though...

Starring Tom Cruise (last seen in "Lions for Lambs"), Kenneth Branagh (last seen in "Wild Wild West"), Bill Nighy (last seen in "Underworld: Rise of the Lycans"), Tom Wilkinson (last seen in "Black Knight"), Terence Stamp (last seen in "The Company of Wolves"), and Eddie Izzard (last seen in "All the Queen's Men").

RATING: 5 out of 10 firing squads

Inglourious Basterds

Year 2, Day 348 - 12/14/10 - Movie #713

BEFORE: Another mission behind enemy lines during World War II - I've heard both good and bad reviews of this one, but I'm holding out hope. I've found that in my chains some films are bricks and some films are mortar, and I'm hoping this is one of the solid bricks.

THE PLOT: In Nazi-occupied France, a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as "The Basterds" are chosen specifically to spread fear throughout the Third Reich by brutally killing Nazis.

AFTER: I should be careful what I wish for - I wanted to hear more German spoken, and the vast majority of this film is in German (and French, and Italian) with subtitles. Oh, well, it was still good to hear some more German spoken...but is that why this film was so polarizing? People seem to either love this film, or hate it.

If I had any problem with the film, it was with the length - does any film, other than "Titanic" and "Lord of the Rings", need to be over 2 1/2 hours long? Especially when every key fact in the film is stated twice (at least) - so it took much too long for each plot point to happen.

In many ways, this is like a "Pulp Fiction" set back in WW2 - in that it displays a number of tense situations, shootouts and standoffs that may (or may not) add up to a coherent whole, with some of the characters overlapping and intersecting, and others not.

And Tarantino's been around for a while now - shouldn't he be growing as a director, instead of just re-making "Pulp Fiction"? And shouldn't he have abandoned amateurish moves, like that silly spin-the-camera-around-the-actors thing? There are just a few too many filmmaker-based inside references, perhaps.

The good news is, this is a big, bold movie that doesn't hold back. The bad news is, this is a big, bold movie, and the blatant use of titles written on the screen, combined with its complete unrealisticness, makes this sort of a live-action cartoon. Or revisionist history, I'm not sure which.

NITPICK POINT: A David Bowie song in a World War 2 film? Seems a little out of place...this isn't "Moulin Rouge", for God's sake.

Starring Brad Pitt (last seen in "Spy Game"), Christoph Waitz, Eli Roth, Diane Kruger (last seen in "National Treasure: Book of Secrets"), B.J. Novak (Ryan from "The Office"), Samm Levine (from "Freaks and Geeks") and a cameo by Mike Myers and the voices of Harvey Keitel (last seen in "Rising Sun") and Samuel L. Jackson (last seen in "Patriot Games").

RATING: 7 out of 10 glasses of schnapps

All the Queen's Men

Year 2, Day 347 - 12/13/10 - Movie #712

BEFORE: Still in World War II tonight, perhaps something of a war comedy tonight. I got caught up on episodes of "The Amazing Race" just in time to watch the finale and learn who won before reading any spoilers tomorrow. Plus I got some more internet shopping done this weekend, and got our Christmas lights up - gotta stay competitive with the other houses on the block. Just a few more Christmas cards to send out, then it's just wrapping presents and packing.

THE PLOT: A mismatched team of British Special Services agents led by an American must infiltrate, in disguise, a female-run Enigma factory in Berlin and bring back the decoding device that will end the war.

AFTER: I'm not buying Matt LeBlanc (or some of the other team members) dressed in drag. But he doesn't have to fool me, his character just has to fool the Nazis, and fortunately some German women tend to be on the burly side, plus they didn't usually shave their armpits back then... But unfortunately for the spies in question, some of the German men actually are attracted to the burly, Teutonic type.

Then you've got Eddie Izzard (last seen in "The Avengers"), who seems right at home in drag - of course the actor has done several stand-up shows (available on DVD, and well worth checking out) in which he jokes about being a transvestite - an action transvestite, even. Well, he lives up to that dream here, sort of resembling a rougher Susan Sarandon type when in full drag (only with bigger ta-tas).

Izzard's character is the most interesting, because he's an ex-soldier and drag performer who's openly bi-sexual, and who lived in Berlin for years - Berlin in the 1930's being described as something like San Francisco in the 1960's, or Greenwich Village in the 1980's.

And while the U.S. military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy is being disputed, this retro movie couldn't be more timely. So many people - even reporters - seem to think that the issue in question is whether gay men and women should be allowed to serve in the military. Which is missing the point - obviously, they're already there, and have been all along - and the only question is whether they're entitled to the same freedoms as the people they're fighting for. (Geez, when you put it that way, it should be a no-brainer, right?)

I rather enjoyed this film - it was a bit like "To Be Or Not To Be" crossed with "Some Like It Hot", with a bit of "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and a dash of "Benny Hill" mixed in. And I enjoyed hearing German spoken - I really should find some more movies in German, I do find it to be a beautiful language, especially the parts I understand.

Also starring James Cosmo, David Birkin, Nicolette Krebitz, Edward Fox (last seen in "Force 10 From Navarone"), and Udo Kier.

RATING: 7 out of 10 parachutes

Mother Night

Year 2, Day 346 - 12/12/10 - Movie #711

BEFORE: I think I might have sped through this one once, or looked at just pieces of it, because the whole film isn't in my brain as a coherent whole. It doesn't help that the main character also appeared in "Slaughterhouse Five", one of my favorite films, based on a book by Kurt Vonnegut, Jr., one of my favorite authors. Vonnegut was always intermingling his books, with recurring characters weaving their way through different stories. The character in question is Howard Campbell, an ex-American who becomes part of the Nazi propaganda machine.

THE PLOT: An American spy behind the lines during WWII serves as a Nazi propagandist, a role he cannot escape in his future life as he can never reveal his real role in the war.

AFTER: Ah, so Campbell was really working for the American government the whole time (or was he?). His character's appearance in "Slaughterhouse Five" now makes a lot more sense (I think...)

The film opens and closes with Bing Crosby's recording of "White Christmas" - so watching this just couldn't be more timely.

The story is told in flashback, as Campbell sits in an Israeli prison, awaiting trial for war crimes. His story reveals that he was a double-agent, working for the Nazis but also secretly broadcasting information about Nazi Germany to the U.S. His character is a bit like a Nazi Rush Limbaugh (or is that redundant?), or a Tokyo Rose if you will, and after the war he relocates to New York City - which he calls "purgatory" and tries to forget his past.

But the past has a funny way of catching up with him, and after one of those great only-in-New York coincidences, his past is revealed, and he's treated as a hero by some radical U.S. fringe political grounds, and reviled by Holocaust survivors at the same time. There are further twists I don't want to reveal here -

But Campbell seems like he's used as a pawn by whatever group he happens to be with - the Nazis, the Russians, the CIA. I guess once you take away a man's country, his politics, his livelihood and his love, what's left is an empty shell that can be filled with whatever ideology you want.

No one captured the absolute absurdity of war, politics, and the human condition better than Vonnegut, in my opinion, and that shines through here. Things don't tend to add up to a coherent whole, but in a way that's a point. Look for a cameo by Vonnegut himself, seen in a crowd on the street late in the film.

Starring Nick Nolte (last seen in "Q&A"), Sheryl Lee (with the fakest German accent since Teri Garr in "Young Frankenstein"), Alan Arkin (last seen in "Firewall"), John Goodman (last seen in "The Hudsucker Proxy"), with cameos from Arye Gross, Kirsten Dunst (last seen in "How to Lose Friends & Alienate People"), Zach Grenier (seen last night in "Rescue Dawn"), David Strathairn (last seen in "The Bourne Ultimatum") and Henry Gibson as the voice of Adolf Eichmann.

RATING: 6 out of 10 typewriter ribbons

Rescue Dawn

Year 2, Day 345 - 12/11/10 - Movie #710

BEFORE: Another Vietnam-era film tonight, then I'm heading back to World War II.

THE PLOT: A US Fighter pilot's epic struggle of survival after being shot down on a mission over Laos during the Vietnam War.

AFTER: A pretty gripping story, made more powerful by its being based on a true story.

It's about the lengths that a soldier will go through to survive in a P.O.W. camp - which I've already seen a bit of in "The Bridge On the River Kwai", but this is an updated version. Here we have the horrors of being denied the basic human necessities, like food and indoor plumbing - plus the mental breakdowns that take place among the prisoners. What happens internally to men in captivity - and do they muster the courage to fight back and escape, or just shut down and become inactive?

The unfortunately-named central character, Dieter Dengler, has to rally the spirits of his fellow prisoners, convince them to help him steal items that he needs to make an escape, and then convince them that they'd be better off in the jungle than in the camp, which turns out to be a tough sell.

Starring Christian Bale (last seen in "Public Enemies"), Steve Zahn (last seen in "That Thing You Do!"), Jeremy Davies, and character actors Zach Grenier (last seen in "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer") and Toby Huss (last seen in "Vegas Vacation")

RATING: 6 out of 10 machetes

The Siege of Firebase Gloria

Year 2, Day 344 - 12/10/10 - Movie #709

BEFORE: I tried to organize the war films by conflict, but there was no way to prevent some co-mingling - so I'm taking a 2-day break from WW2 films to watch a couple of Vietnam films. I got this one to fill the 2nd slot on a DVD with "Full Metal Jacket" - both films starring R. Lee Ermey.

THE PLOT: A tough sergeant and his sidekick roll into a demoralized firebase and proceed to rebuild morale and fortifications in advance of the climactic battle with the VietCong.

AFTER: What elevates a film from a simple war film to something greater? What makes a "Platoon" or a "Hurt Locker"? I'm not sure, but this film hasn't got it. This is pretty basic stuff - and any attempts at drama just seem like over-reaching (and over-acting!).

Based on the release date - 1989 - this was probably made in the wake of "Platoon", with Wings Hauser in a role that seems like a cross between Willem Dafoe's and John McGinley's.

Set during the famous Tet Offensive, the only thing distinguishing about this film is the subtle suggestion that maybe the U.S. soldiers didn't belong in Vietnam - after all, how would American soldiers react to Vietnamese soldiers invading the U.S.? But even if the Viet Cong had a right to defend their country, they choose to do it in this film by firing aimlessly at U.S. copters, and charging into a hail of American bullets. So, really, in the end, no new ground gets covered here. What a shame.

RATING: 3 out of 10 land mines

The Guns of Navarone

Year 2, Day 343 - 12/9/10 - Movie #708

BEFORE: Like "The Bridge on the River Kwai", this is a very long film - about 2 hours 40 min., which makes my decision to use up my free day seem like a smart one. This is another film set in WW2, with another piece of strategic enemy machinery that needs to be destroyed.

THE PLOT: A British team is sent to occupied Greek territory to destroy the massive German gun emplacement that commands a key sea channel.

AFTER: I'm looking for a copy of this film's sequel, "Force 10 from Navarone", which stars Harrison Ford - if I had that, I could have watched back-to-back war films with cast members from "Star Wars" in them.

Still, I've got "Star Wars" on the brain, because a lot of key elements in this film reminded me of pieces of that space saga - I guess war is war, whether it takes place in the Aegean Sea, or in a galaxy far, far away...

Specifically, when the commando squad dressed up like Nazi officers, it reminded me of Luke and Han disguised as Imperial stormtroopers on the Death Star. And when they approach the Nazi-occupied territory in a fishing boat, it reminded me of the rebels approaching the moon of Endor in a stolen Imperial shuttle. When a wounded member of the squad was tortured by the Nazis to reveal the plan, I thought of Princess Leia being tortured to reveal the location of the rebel base - and when the squad knocked down Nazis on motorcycles by using Greek fishing nets, I thought of the Ewoks knocking stormtroopers off of speeder bikes. And finally, setting charges to blow up the guns before the British fleet arrived - how could I not be reminded of the rebels blowing up the Imperial bunker on Endor, to protect the rebel fleet in space?

Let's face it, this movie completely ripped off "Star Wars: A New Hope" and "Return of the Jedi". Don't let the fact that it was made 16 years before the first Star Wars movie fool you...

Starring Gregory Peck (last seen in "The Omen"), David Niven (last seen in "Death on the Nile"), Anthony Quinn (last seen in "Mobsters"), James Darren and Richard Harris (last seen in "Patriot Games").

RATING: 4 out of 10 Greek columns

The Bridge on the River Kwai

Year 2, Day 342 - 12/8/10 - Movie #707

BEFORE: I don't know much about this film, but I know it's based on a book titled "The Bridge OVER the River Kwai". As a trivia geek, I have to know that the difference between "ON" and "OVER" in the title can make all the difference in, say, the Final Jeopardy! Round. Crossing another Oscar winner off the list tonight - Best Picture of 1957. And since I watched two films in the last week starring Ewan MacGregor, tonight I'll watch a war film starring the other Obi-Wan Kenobi, Alec Guinness. More trivia - you can anagram the letters in his name to form the phrase "genuine class".

THE PLOT: A British colonel co-operates to oversee his men's construction of a railway bridge for their captors - while oblivious to a plan by the Allies to destroy it.

AFTER: This film is a testament to the British spirit - the ability to maintain proper decorum and order, even in the worst of situations. In this case, a group of British soldiers is tasked with building a railway bridge - and their commander, Col. Nicholson, (Guinness), locks horns with the commander of the labor camp. Nicholson points out that forcing captured officers to perform manual labor is against the Geneva Conventions, so the officers are thrown into solitary confinement, and the bridge remains unbuilt.

However, the desperate Japanese commander eventually realizes that the imprisoned officers have construction experience, and before you know it, the officers have been released and have formed subcommitees, made time-management studies, and are practically running all phases of construction.

This becomes a rather complex issue - when forced to do manual labor in captivity, how hard should one work? And how well? Does efficiency constitute treason, or self-preservation?

Compare that to the attitude of the Americans in the camp, which is more like "escape, at any cost". The head Yank is played by William Holden (last seen in "Damien: Omen II"), and after defying the odds and escaping the camp, he's sent back on a mission. So the British build a bridge, and the American tries to blow it up - seems about right. The bridge becomes an obvious metaphor for the madness and pointlessness of war...classic.

RATING: 7 out of 10 unmarked graves

Tora! Tora! Tora!

Year 2, Day 341 - 12/7/10 - Movie #706

BEFORE: The IMDB mentioned that several of the actors from "Black Hawk Down" were also in the movie "Pearl Harbor" - most notably, Josh Hartnett, Tom Sizemore and William Fichtner. Which leads me quite neatly into Pearl Harbor Day, and films about WWII.

THE PLOT: A dramatization of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and the series of American blunders that allowed it to happen.

AFTER: This 1970 film covers a lot of the same ground as "From Here to Eternity", which I watched last Dec. 7, and the big-budget "Pearl Harbor" that came along later. Why didn't they wait to make a Pearl Harbor film until special effects got a lot better? I'm kidding - I know that filmmaking is a lot like war, in that you make a film with the special effects you have, rather than the special effects you want.

What's most shocking to me is that a film made in 1970, just a generation removed from World War 2, would so blatantly suggest that the U.S. military was caught by surprise on Dec. 7, 1941. You'd think that the WW2 veterans would still be revered as heroes, and this film seems to want to chip away at that, in a subversive way. Any navy personnel depicted here who spot incoming planes or a Japanese sub are essentially laughed off as either incompetent rookies, or brown-nosers. And the top brass seem to be either bogged down in military procedure, or out on the golf course. Gee, the attack took place on a Sunday morning, but we don't see any military brass attending church - because that really would be heretical.

Again, I'm not obsessed with military films or military history - I know some people who are, and a film like this is probably catnip to them, depicting the inner workings of the army's equipment and procedures... Much like "Black Hawk Down", there are way too many characters to follow - only real gear-heads care about Secretary of State Cordell Hull's meeting with the Japanese foreign minister, or what the Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox was doing on that fateful day.

By trying to be all-inclusive, this film made the Pearl Harbor attack boring - at least for the first 2/3 of this film. The whole first hour of this film was a snooze-fest, so I was really looking forward to the excitement of the attack. Which I guess was exciting, but I'm not really an aerial dogfight man either, unless X-Wing and TIE fighters are involved. Different generation, I guess.

This movie was ripe for parody, it really needed someone like Leslie Nielsen or Lloyd Bridges goofing around - "General, it's a telegram from Washington!" "What is it?" "It's the capital of the U.S., but that's not important right now..."

Starring Jason Robards (last seen in "All the President's Men"), Martin Balsam (last seen in "On the Waterfront"), E.G. Marshall (last seen in "Christmas Vacation"), Joseph Cotten (last seen in "Airport '77"), James Whitmore (last seen in "The Majestic"), Richard Anderson, and a cast of thousands.

RATING: 5 out of 10 depth charges (average score: 4 before the attack, 6 during)

Black Hawk Down

Year 2, Day 339 + 340 - 12/5 + 12/6/10 - Movie #705

BEFORE: Well, the big day is fast approaching, and I've got a lot to do to get ready. Of course, I'm talking about the finale of "The Amazing Race" - I've been watching all these movies, and just storing the episodes on VHS - but I hate it when I see the winner of a reality show is announced in a newspaper or magazine (or worse, on Twitter) and I'm not current on the show. So I figure if I start watching 2 episodes a night, starting...um...tomorrow, I just might make it.

Oh, yeah, Christmas is coming up too, so I took some time today to get the bulk of my Christmas cards addressed. We also had some social engagements this weekend - so I'm going to use up my free day, and count this as Sunday AND Monday's movie - which also helps me, in a roundabout way, to organize my war films somewhat chronologically.

THE PLOT: 123 elite U.S. soldiers drop into Somalia to capture two top lieutenants of a renegade warlord and find themselves in a desperate battle with a large force of heavily-armed Somalis.

AFTER: I admit, I got my wires crossed - I thought this was the film about a helicopter pilot stranded in Bosnia - but I think that's "Behind Enemy Lines". But I taped this one instead and put it on DVD, so I can't unring that bell.

Like last night's film, this movie depicts a recent conflict, with U.S. soldiers in tense, tight situations. But when you add up the chopper pilots, the humvee drivers, the army rangers, and the command forces, there were maybe a few too many characters in this film - it was hard for me to keep track of them all. "The Hurt Locker" accomplished more with less, by focusing on one squad of three men.

I know, it's based on a true story, and there were a certain number of soldiers involved, and there were a lot of different elements - so many that when one of the Black Hawk helicopters gets shot down, the whole operation descends into chaos.

There are probably a bunch of military gearheads who really dig this film, and are willing to rewatch it and spend weeks analyzing it, but I found it mostly confusing and pointless. Or was that a metaphor for war itself?

Starring (and this could take a while...) Josh Hartnett (last seen in "Hollywood Homicide"), Eric Bana (last seen in "The Time Traveler's Wife"), Ewan MacGregor (last seen in "The Men Who Stare at Goats"), Tom Sizemore (last seen in "Heat"), William Fichtner (last heard in "Mr. & Mrs. Smith"), Sam Shepard (last seen in "The Right Stuff"), Ron Eldard (last seen in "Sleepers"), Ioan Gruffudd (last seen in "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer"), Zeljko Ivanek (last seen in "Live Free or Die Hard"), Jason Isaacs (last seen in "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix"), Jeremy Piven (also last seen in "Heat"), Steven Ford (son of Gerald), and Orlando Bloom. Oh, and Carmine Giovinazzo (Danny from "CSI:NY") was in there too.

RATING: 5 out of 10 gun turrets

The Hurt Locker

Year 2, Day 338 - 12/4/10 - Movie #704

BEFORE: It's time to stop messing around with dark comedies, and movies with people talking about war, and get down to the serious stuff - soldiers in the line of fire. And it's always a banner day when I get to cross an Oscar-winner off my list.

THE PLOT: An elite Army bomb squad unit must come together in a city where everyone is a potential enemy and every object could be a deadly bomb.

AFTER: This is an honest (?), realistic (?) portrayal of today's type of warfare - in the desert and the streets of Iraq, and filled with tough, tense situations. Defusing bombs is only part of the problem - reading (and misreading) the intentions of the locals is another part. So is a hot-shot Sergeant, who's an expert on the bomb tech, but determined to not play by the rules. Admittedly, the enemy doesn't play by the rules either, and their various I.E.D.'s (improvised explosive devices) make for a deadly game of one-upmanship between the bomb designers and the bomb de-fusers.

The film organizes itself around the last few days in the rotation of Bravo company, and as their time in Iraq winds down, that starts to look like a countdown itself.

I'm going to side with the Oscar voters here, and award high marks for giving average viewers a look at the psychology of someone who repeatedly puts himself into harm's way - without specifically saying (though perhaps implying) that such a person must be damaged goods somehow in order to do that. BUT...

NITPICK POINT: I felt there were a few too many times when the soldiers removed their helmets or other protective gear in tense situations. Sure, it looks very dramatic, but I have to believe that gear is meant to be worn for a reason.

Starring Jeremy Renner (last seen in "The Assassination of Jesse James..."), Anthony Mackie (last seen in "Half Nelson"), Brian Geraghty (last seen in "We Are Marshall"), with cameos from Guy Pearce (last seen in "Bedtime Stories"), David Morse (last seen in "The Crossing Guard"), Ralph Fiennes (last seen in "The Avengers"), and Evangeline Lilly.

RATING: 8 out of 10 pirated DVDs

Charlie Wilson's War

Year 2, Day 337 - 12/3/10 - Movie #703

BEFORE: Another film about war in the Middle East - but this film takes place during the war between Afghanistan and the Soviet Union in the 1980's. Remember when we didn't send a team to the Olympics in Moscow, and then 4 years later, the Russians didn't send a team to the Olympics in L.A.? Turns out there was a lot more to it than that...

THE PLOT: A drama based on a Texas congressman Charlie Wilson's covert dealings in Afghanistan, where his efforts to assist rebels in their war with the Soviets have some unforeseen and long-reaching effects.

AFTER: Essentially, this is the back-story to the Middle East mess that the U.S. found itself in over the last decade. In 1980, the enemy of our enemy (U.S.S.R.) was perceived to be our friend, and shipping arms to Afghanistan in a covert operation seemed like an elegant way to bankrupt the Commies and win the cold war. And it worked - right up until the time that it didn't.

They say half of life is just showing up - so what do we call the other half? Following through? I'm all about following through. The U.S. used the Afghan rebels for short-term gain, and where did it get us? Without funding to rebuild their country, and a decade or so to hold a grudge, the Taliban took control, and the U.S. ended up fighting soldiers that they trained and armed 2 decades before.

And that leads us rather neatly into tomorrow night's film...

Starring Tom Hanks (last seen in "The Man With One Red Shoe"), Julia Roberts (last seen in "Confessions of a Dangerous Mind"), Philip Seymour Hoffman (last seen in "The Talented Mr. Ripley"), Amy Adams (last seen in "Enchanted"), Emily Blunt (last seen in "The Wolfman"), John Slattery (last seen in "Bad Company"), and Ned Beatty (last seen in "The Russia House")

RATING: 5 out of 10 stinger missiles