Zach Galifianakis: Live At The Purple Onion (2006, Michael Blieden)

I didn't know if I should write about this one or not. I dont know if stand up specials can be considered films or not but I think as long as there is a cinematic element to it, it should be seen as a film. Since, this stand up dvd of Zach Galifianakis chooses to intercut his stand up with clips of him being on the road with his friends and even some mock interviews with his fake twin brother "seth" I think that the stand up comedy special turns into a stand up comedy film.

I dont know much about stand up comedy but Zach Galifianakis is one of the few stand up comedians which I am a big fan of. I love his sense of humor and I love the way he presents it with different personas, a child's choir, storyboards, and most of the time just by playing a nice melody on the piano meanwhile he tells random jokes.

So, given that I am a fan I enjoyed the film. I will say that some bits where Galifianakis decides to bomb on purpose or just break off from his prepared routine and interact with his audiences at times become too much and you are just waiting for him to get back on stage or for the film to cut back to him on the road or a mock interview.

Still, if you are fan, you will find it funny and entertaining.

- ***

The Nines (2007, John August)

This movie broke my mind many times while watching it.

The Nines is a very out there and very original film. I still don't know what to make of it exactly but I know there is a great film somewhere in the mess and the craziness that it is. Some people are quick to hate on it and say that it's just a bunch of weird shit but I choose to applaud it for actually trying to do something original and out of box. Now, if it has some odd steps in it's execution and direction is a whole other thing. The one example that comes to mind is a musical sequence which is just there for the sake of making it all more weird. There are some things which I can not see making any sense at all even if the director were to personally explain it to me, but despite all these flaws, it is still one hell of a mind trip.

- ***

Project Grizzly (1996, Peter Lynch)

This was a pretty funny documentary about a man who is obsessed with creating an indestructible suit so that he can view and study grizzly bears up close. I don't really have much to say because there isn't much to it. It's funny and nothing more.

= ***

Demons (1985, Lamberto Bava)

This one just has to be seen to be believed.

The premise of the film is simple: a mysterious figure gives out tickets to a screening of a horror film to a small group of people. Once there, there is a weird mask in the lobby that scratches one person and it doesn't take too long before she transforms into a zombie/demon and begins to infect everyone that she scratches. Of course, the theater is all of a sudden sealed shut with no escape to be found. How will they ever survive...or will the even survive?

That is the plot to Demons in a nutshell. The logic behind almost everything gets thrown out of the window, nothing is explained at all, and it just becomes a showcase for style, action scenes, and gore. It's great

I really have nothing else to write about it. It really is just a showcase kind of film. Given that Lamberto Bava (Mario's son) and Argento were involved with the project, the film has a certain charm to it and becomes more that just a nomral splatter film. I even think that the film set out to be the ultimate splatter film at the time with it's over the top style.

Speaking about style, the influence that this film had over Peter Jackon's Dead Alive is very notable. When one character jumps on top of a motorcycle and starts killing the demons with a swords you cant help but think of Dead Alive's final minutes.

That's really all I have to say about this one. It's far from a great film and has a bunch of flaws but it's still a lot of fun. Its the kind of film that doesn't take itself too seriously and if you are able to do just tha towards the filmt, then you will enjoy it.

Oh...and the ending is pure gold.

- ***

Sunshine (2007, Danny Boyle)

This whole film brings out a big sad sigh from me.

While watching the first hour and 20 minutes it felt like I was watching flawed perfection. By this I mean that some small factors were getting in the way for for the most part the film was just beyond great. I felt like I was watching one of the best films from last year. It felt like I had discovered THE overlooked/underrated/underappreciated film from 2007. I was enjoying myself and just kept on asking myself "Why was this film not a huge hit" and then the final 20 minutes kicked in and it made me forget about everything the film showed for all those minutes leading up to it.

I cant think of another film taking such a nose dive to blandness like this one. The sudden tone shift from an intelligent sci fi film that stood over its genre to a horror/slasher film was just too much. it feels out of place and even the overall style of the film completely changes. I will say that this whole sequence is nicely shot and is intense but it just feels so extremely out of the place that it just makes you confused. It literally just ruins the film.

That's really all I have to say about Sunshine. I wish that I could be praising it more but I cant. The last part of the film just makes me wonder about what kind of film it actually could have turn out to be without it. I imagine that it might have turned out to be one of the best films in recent memory instead of the odd and for the most part disappointing film that it is.

I still don't know what exactly to think of the film as a whole just because I just cant get past my hatred towards the last 20 minutes. I will say that its worth a watch just to see the greatness that comes before it. I jsut wish that I could forget about the rest.

- ***

Charlie Wilson's War (2007. Mike Nichols)

My friend Dan over at The Public Enemy hit this one right on the head with his brief but perfect write up for this film, which can be found here.

Charlie Wilson's War is a film that is good, becomes great at times, and almost becomes excellent but never really achieves it. I don't know what is off about it but my guess is that the shifts in tone through out the film from comedy to drama are at times executed perfectly (when Hanks first meets Phillip Seymour Hoffman in the middle of him handling a scandal on his hands) while other times it just feels forced and not funny at all (the pilots having a conversation about girl problems before getting shot down....HILARIOUS!).

The other thing which really hurt the overall quality of the film, at least to me, was what I felt was a rushed and sudden conclusion which makes the final scene feel extremely unsatisfying on every kind of level. I seriously had zero emotions during the final scene and I wonder if Nichols really thought he could achieve just that with an audience. It just feels like the exact kind of Hollywood ending that you would expect from such a film. Sure, it might have happened like that in real life but it just feels like a bad cliche.

Apart from it's flaws, Charlie Wilson's War does contain one of the best performances from 2007. Phillip Seymour Hoffman completely steals the show from everyone and every single scene involving him turn out to be the highlights of the film. The man is one of the best actors out there right now and this is only further proof of this. I would be pretty disappointed to see this film become an Oscar favorite and get a couple of nominations. However, the man deserves all the praise he is getting for this performance and he deserves a nomination for this performance. He really does make the film as solid and enjoyable as it is.

- ***

Night on Earth (1991, Jim Jarmusch)

I feel like I should just copy and paste what I wrote for Paris, Je'Taime because both of these write ups are going to come out almost the same.

Jarmusch's Night on Earth is made up of 5 short stories/short films each filmed in a major city from all around the world which all deal with a cab driver and his or her experience with their customer through out a night. We see Winona Ryder drive a casting agent through L.A, a cab driver who doesn't know how to drive in New York, a man and a blind woman having a conversation in France, Roberto Benifni picking up a priest and confessing his sins to him in Rome, and a cab driver picking up a couple of drunk workers in Finland and then telling them the saddest story they will ever hear.

I have a couple of films left to watch from Jarmuch but for the most part I really like the guy, despite me having a huge hatred towards Stranger Than Paradise. I really like his minimalistic style and I like his dry sense of humor a lot. He is definitely one of the many directors out there whose full work I am trying to watch.

Now, I don't know what it is with me and anthology films. I love the idea of them and I always expect for me to enjoy them but I always find myself saying the exact same thing after each one of these kinds of films: they are always a mixed bag. Some turn out excellent, some turn out good, and one or two of them always turn out bad. Night on Earth suffers from this exact thing.

The film contains one excellent story where Benigni steals the show as the wild cab driver who begins to confess his sins to a priest while driving him. Apart from that, the film never really reaches such an excellent point as this one. The remaining 4 stories have their highs and lows and for the most part are enjoyable but there is never anything too amazing about them, sadly. However, there are no real bad apples in the bunch, which is a good thing.

The one thing that is amazing, though, is Tom Waits score and soundtrack to the film which is just as cool as you would expect. His musical style is a perfect fit to the mood that Jarmuch evokes through out the film. The film just wouldn't be the same without it.

I really have nothing else to write about. It's far from a great film but it's enjoyable enough. It's worth watching just to see the Rome segment with Begnini.

- ***

Black Snake Moan (2007, Craig Brewer)

"A God-fearing bluesman takes to a wild young woman who, as a victim of childhood sexual abuse, looks everywhere for love, never quite finding it."

Yeah, this film is about a guy who chains up a girl to his radiator and aims to cure her of her sexual wickedness. I remember when I first read that plot outline for the film I was both curious about it but also laughed a little bit at how stupid the idea of it sounded. Luckily, Brewer delivers a solid execution for an idea that could have easily been laughed at.

Brewer not only does that but also manges to execute a personal and heartfelt portrait of people finding redemption and hope in their lives. This factor is what made me like this film a lot and love Hustle and Flow a lot. Both films share this factor and both films also share some of the most original stories put on film in the past year or two. Who would have known that a film about a pimp wanting to be a rapper and a bluesman chaining up a woman would be so original and great?

Although I did like Black Snake Moan a lot, I didn't love it. I felt that in the end of the film some of the character didn't quite fit right. I felt that the character development was somehow rushed in the final 20 minutes or so. It's not that big of deal but in a film that deals with loss and depression so much I would imagine that the ending would feel more organic and more developed. Instead, it just comes in a hurry. But even with that, it does not take too much out of the film.

Craig Brewer has also become one of the most interesting filmmakers out there. in my opinion . and I am interested in seeing what kind of films he does next.

- ***

Psycho III (1986, Anthony Perkins)

"Norman is still running the Bates Motel. Things are going fine until Norman falls in love with a fallen nun, takes in a greedy drifter, and a nosy reporter sticks her nose where it doesn't belong. Soon after a series of murders begins once again. "

Psycho II is in my opinion one of the best sequels ever. It was respectful to the source material and understood how to control the audiences expectations and keep them on the edge of their seats. It was a perfect mix of popcorn entertainment while being somewhat artistic and not lowering the bar to just shocks and scares. It was just great in every way to me. However, Psycho III is nothing like its previous sequel.

The film picks up one month after the events of the second film and we are once again reintroduced to the tormented world of Norman Bates. Anthony Perkins is also once again able to play the character straight and not make it a self parody. It seems that by now Perkins understands the character in every single way and because of this he is a lot of fun to watch in every situation in the film. Jeff Fahey who plays one of the "villains" to the film is also great fun and is nice to see him interact with Bates as he is hired to take care of the Bates Motel.

Everything is going fine for Bates until an ex nun stays in the Motel for a night. She happens to look exactly like Marion Crane, you know the woman in the shower from the first film, and this sets off Norman Bates off once again. There is also a nosey reporter that is brought into the mix along with a weekend party that a local college is throwing at the Motel where of course dead bodies start to appear.

Psycho III sounds like a great idea on paper and it actually is, it's the execution of it all that is weak. Maybe it's because Perkins himself directed the film or maybe its because the studio wanted a different kind of film but in the end the film feels slightly off. There are odd scenes of black humour during death scenes and this time out the killer is treated more like a type of "slasher" killer. Plus when the film starts out with a nun trying to commit suicide but instead kills another nun by accident you know you are not watching a movie like the first two films.

The way the story is handled is fun though. We get to see Norman Bates go out on dates and fall in love, and if you are a fan of the first you cant help but smile in these scenes. The scenes dealing with Norman are still top notch and the climax of the movie is still pretty fun although its not as shocking as the previous two films.

Psycho III is far from the bad film most film buffs think it is. It just isn't as great as the previous two installments and you cant help but feel disappointed because of it. I still wish people would give these sequels a chance though, you will be surprised by them guaranteed.

- ***

Sicko (2007, Michael Moore)

"A comedy about 45 million people with no health care in the richest country on earth."

As soon I heard that the newest Michael Moore documentary was about the health care system in America I knew that I would be biased towards it. I don't want to sound like I am complaining, or sounding emo, or sounding self important but I am a big victim of this shit system. I wont go into detail because this is not a diary entry or even a livejournal. I will just say that I have experienced this horrible system first hand. When I heard that this would be the topic of this documentary I couldn't wait to see Moore expose the awful truth about it.

Maybe its because so much has been exposed about Moore or maybe its just because his bag of tricks has been uncovered so much since his early days of Roger and Me, but during the length of Sicko you tend to be very skeptical of what you are watching on the screen.

Moore once again knows what buttons to press and begins Sicko by about 45 minutes of horror tales from the medical health care in America. We see and get to know all these Americans who have suffered thanks to the medical system. All these small segments are great but after 20 minutes of the same thing over and over again you kind of get the point that Moore is touching on. America's health care system sucks. We all know that. Moore in an interview said that he didn't want to offend anyones intelligence by going into the documentary explaining the health care system. He however does offend the intelligence of the audience by telling all these stories over and over again and continuing to preach a message that we all already know.

I once again don't have that much a problem with all these segments though. They are at least interesting and will just leave you shaking your head at how incredibly bad our system is. We know our health care sucks.....now how do we make it better Michael Moore? Well, by showing other countries health care systems for an hour and then ending the film of course.

Sure the later hour of the film is interesting and entertaining but it all really doesn't serve a purpose other than to just once again point out how much our system sucks. Maybe its because I have experienced the health care first hand, and continue to, but I was just frustrated with the presentation that Moore gives us. Its not a bad presentation, its just not an important one. Through out the second half of the film I was just begging Moore to show what we as Americans can do to be better but he never does. He doesn't even purpose that many questions. Just the simple "if we are so rich then why cant we treat out own citizens as well as ____" Great question, but that's it? Your not even going to even try to get one person to answer that? Not even try to get someone who actually likes our system and will debate it to no end? Nothing at all?

France has amazing health care! UK has amazing health care! Even Cuba does! America doesnt! This is basically it for the whole film. I hate,hate,hate,hate saying that this documentary is very one sided, but it is. I hate saying this because I love the side where the documentary stands. I support this side and I want this side to win. However we cant win by just complaining and comparing ourselves to other people for 2 hours and expect the other "evil side" to magically change.

Moore gives us a documentary that presents all the facts he wants to show but doesn't give any opposing thoughts on his facts. When the film finishes you feel that you have watched something great but when you really think of what you watched for the last 2 hours you start thinking that you haven't watched anything new or something that you didn't already know.


I wanted Moore to probe for answers. I wanted confrontations. I wanted to see Moore trying to make a change personally. Part of me sort of feels offended that he has done this in all of his previous documentaries and even in his tv show. He even did this for the tv episode that inspired him to make this documentary. Yet he doesn't do it for this. I want answers, not more questions.

Maybe the purpose of the documentary is to allow us to watch the film, become informed, and then ask the tough questions ourselves. The thing is that Moore should know that this has long been happening already every year. He even touches it upon his film that even Hilary Clinton couldn't change things. How will this film change things? It wont, sadly. I would have loved to have seen this film begin to change things but I hardly doubt it will make any changes at all.

Sicko is not a bad film at all. It is highly entertaining and does help to inform. It just a weak execution in my eyes. I just wanted something more challenging than what is ultimatly there. It just all feels tame. When a films final sequences are Michael Moore almost crying because Cuba is so nice, you cant help but feel that you saw something really tame, lame, and weak.

- ***

Behind the Mask: The Rise of Leslie Vernon (2006, Scott Glosserman)

"The next great psycho horror slasher has given a documentary crew exclusive access to his life as he plans his reign of terror over the sleepy town of Glen Echo, all the while deconstructing the conventions and archetypes of the horror genre for them."

I don't know where to begin with this one. I have very mixed feeling towards it but when I think back on it, I really love it. Yet, I know I was hating parts of it while watching it. I guess the good parts cancel out the bad parts over time and leave a nice "yeah, that movie was great" memory for you.

Behind the Mask can only be compared to Man Bites Dog. I feel that anyone who even knows about Man Bites Dog was quick to hate on this film as soon as the premise was known. You would expect that two mockumentaries about a documentary crew following a serial killer would be very similar but luckily Behind the Mask was smart enough to know that people would make comparisons and it is quick to separate itself from Man Bites Dog.

The film takes place in an alternate universe. The best way of thinking of this universe is "the movie universe" in which people like Freddy, Jason, Myers, and Chucky actually exist and everything that we saw happen in those movies actually did happen in this world. After a quick intro scene which explains this world we are treated to this documentary crew as they follow Leslie Vernon. Vernon is the next serial killing bogeyman who is planning his first killing spree. Ok, right here is where the parts that I hated started to happen.

The documentary crew follows Vernon as he begins to plan out things. Everything is always clever and always self conscious. It does however always seem fake. I hated this because given that we are supposed to be watching a documentary everyone, except the actor playing Vernon, come off as actors. Maybe its because of the budget or maybe its because of poor casting decisions but these actors can't even play straight, Everything feels phony and everything just feels way too pre planned. I was ready to hate the rest of the film until around the 50 minute mark.

From this point on this film is fantastic. It makes you believe it is going in one direction and completely flips the plot on you, as well as the perspective, where you are immediately glued to the screen. I have to admitt that I absolutely loved the 2nd half of the film. The cleverness, which starts to get annoying, becomes extremely smart. What I also loved about this 2nd half is that it actually manages to make the 1st half great.

Saying anymore would spoil the movie. All I can say is that this film was never given the chance that it deserved. It really is one of the best horror movies I have seen in a long time and even with all it's flaws it's still a great movie, at least in my opinion. I can see why some people will hate it but I also think that these people should always remember that this is a low budget independent film. In terms of true indies, this one is a great one.

- ***

Spider-Man 3 (2007, Sam Raimi)

I'm not going to write anything about this one. There are hundreds of reviews out there already. I will jsut say that I disagree a lot with most critics on this one. I felt that it was a bit messy and the flow felt odd at times. However, I still thought it was an insane amount of fun where you could tell that the cast, as well as the director, were having a lot of fun making it. It's everything and the kitchen sink and that all I wanted from the film.

- ***

Matando Cabos (2004, Alejandro Lozano)

"A dark, offbeat comedy about a group of Mexico City teens embroiled in a kidnapping involving a retired wrestling legend and a parrot."

Matando Cabos (Killing Cabos) was one of the most popular Mexican film in 2004/2005. It even won a couple of awards and took home the MTV en Espanol award for "Favorite Movie" among other things. I was curios to watch it to just see what a big mainstream film is like in Mexico and how it compares to an American film. I am happy and both sad that there is a big difference between the two but I am sad to say that it's not that big of a difference really.

The movie is about two young guys who by mistake kidnap one of the guys father in law. They set off to simply take him home and dump him on his front lawn but when an ex Mexican wrestler,a fighting midget, 2 would be kidnappers, and a crazy next door neighbor become involed over the night everything becomes crazy and close to impossible to pull off.

With a plot like that you can expect the film to be a lot of fun, which it is, but it also should ring a bell in your head. If it does, it's because you have already seen this film over,and over, and over again. It falls into the "Tarantino Wannabe" pile along with Lock Stock,Snatch, Boondock Saints, Go, and plenty of others. It's one of those films where every other character has something eccentric about them and every other scene uses some cinematic device like a flashback scene, or a "5 minutes earlier" scene to establish each of these "crazy" characters pasts. When the film started to do this I even thought "awwww shit not another one" but to my surprise it was actually good.

The thing that Matando Cabos has that most of these other wannabe films do not have is a small dose of creativity. It was nice to see the Tarantino formula put into a non gangster film. The plot of this film at least uses the multi story plot device to make things move along in a very fun way that keeps everything to a point where you don't know whats going to happen next.

Matando Cabos is an odd film to critique. It's nothing new because it uses plot devices which have become cliched ,so it's nothing new. Yet it is something new because it uses them to move along a fresh approach to these kinds of films. I don't know if I should applaud this or not but I do know that i had a lot of fun watching it.

- ***

The Muthers (1976, Crio H. Santiago)

"A group of women sister pirates must get into a prison/slave market and save their sister who is in there by breaking out."

This film is just beyond ridiculous. It's a postapocalyptic, pirate, blaxploitation, women in prison, prison breakout, war film with some nudity here and there. Whats even more ridiculous is that it somehow works.

I don't really know why it works or why it turns out good but I think it's because of the overall over the top sense of story we are presented. It reaches such an odd point where you just want to watch to see how it all turns out. Given this and the over the top bad guys and girls that are given to us thanks to the over the top film we can't help but cheer for the The Muthers as they try to breakout.

Sure, the film has some horrible and stiff acting but if you are able to look past all this the film is a lot of fun. I can honestly say that I enjoyed it way more than I maybe should have. If it was on DVD I would already own it too.

- ***

Death Race 2000 (1975, Paul Bartel)

"A champion of a brutal cross-country car race of the future where pedestrians are run down for points."

This one lives up to it's title and plot. It is a low budget quickie from grand master Corman and its a quick and fun ride while it lasts but sadly like most Corman films it suffers for the same reasons. I know this one is regarded as a B movie classic and it certainly deserves it's spot but I couldn't help but feel that this could have been an A movie classic with a little more of a budget. I highly doubt it though since I can't see any studio at the time actually making this outrageous film.

Death Race 2000 is just an excuse to exercise a lot of cool low budget style while sticking in enough action and nude scenes to make everyone happy. The film is at its most funnest when we get to to see some of the over the top racing scenes which luckily comes often. Everyone in this one is also just as over the top, especially David Caradine who spends the entire film in an odd S&M type of costume. There is not much more than could be said. Everything is just ridiculous and over the top but that's what makes it fun.

I really wish I could write more but writing more on this odd gem is not doing it justice. If you like these type of films then you have already seen it and if you haven't then I'm sure it's on your "to watch" list. It's been on mine for awhile and I'm happy to say that it lives up to it's title and reputation.

- ***

David Caradine as Frankenstien and his car.
How can this movie not be awesome?

Double Dare (2004, Amanda Micheli)

"A double-barreled, action-packed documentary about the struggles of two stuntwomen in male-dominated Tinseltown to stay working, stay thin, and stay sane."

This documentary follows two stuntwomen who are struggling in Hollywood. The first, Jeannie Epper, is a well established stuntwomen who is struggling to get work because of her age. The other, Zoe Bell, is a newcomer who is out of work and trying hard to get her name known. The documentary starts telling their stories separately but when the two stuntwomen meet the documentary really takes off. This is when it becomes another little hidden gem.

What makes this one so great to watch is the two women that we get to know. It's that simple. At first both stories that are being told are both interesting and at times tough to watch. Zoe Bell in New Zealand in her last days of doing Stunts for Xena and Jeannie Epper shuffling around Hollywood trying to get work. It's when Zoe Bell decides to leave New Zealand to come to Hollywood that thing get really interesting. When she comes to Hollywood the documentary crew decides to have Zoe and Jeannie meet and the documentary then transformers into something else.

Jeannie immediately takes Zoe under her wing and we get to see their friendship develop to the point where Jeannie treats Zoe just like her daughter. Everything from this point on feels really intimate and we really begin to see the troubles the two stuntwomen face in Hollywood. What is also fun is that we never feel like we are watching a documentary but instead a series of home videos. By this I mean we don't get a feeling of the two women acting phony or hiding their personalities. By the end of this documentary you truly get a feeling of having gone behind of the scenes of how Hollywood works. The final 20 minutes of the documentary are also great because of the paths we see both women take (especially Zoe) It truly feels like an ending that was preplanned. I mean this in a good way.

I wished I could have seen this documentary before seeing Grindhouse, Zoe's first film as an actress. After seeing the documentary I hope that the poor box office of Grindhouse doesn't affect her career too much. You really just feel like cheering for her after watching Double Dare. The only complaint I had with the documentary is that we don't get to see much of Jeannie Eppers work and very little is said about her past as a stuntwoman. Some more interviews from some filmmakers would have been great to see as well. It's really odd to see Spielberg or Tarantino pop out for just a minute and then never come out again.

- ***

One a Sidenote.....

I was exploring the special features on the DVD and found the (kind of) full Tarantino interview. This has to go down as one of my favorite special features ever. I may have some issues with Tarantino the director but I love Tarantino the person. When he is given the chance to rant by himself I find him hilarious. This interview is a perfect example of this. In this 20 minute or so interview we get to see Tarantino go on a huge rant about why Xena is amazing and we also get to see Tarantino begin to reenact movies and trailers all by himself. Whats even more fun is that he seems to be talking to himself since we only hear the person asking the question once and then hearing Tarantino go on and on and on about the question and almost never answering the question. The reason I put (kind of) is because believe it or not even the director chooses to cut him off by having edits when Tarantino starts ranting. I would seriously watch a whole movie of just Tarantino talking to himself and reenacting things by himself.

Midnight Run (1988, Martin Brest)

"An accountant is chased by bounty hunters, the FBI, and the Mafia after jumping bail."

I will seriously go as far as saying that this is a little hidden gem. I have never read of a person talking about this film. Sure, it's filled with cliches and it's nothing new and it's predictable but it has something that a lot of recent films fail to have. That certain thing is chemistry. With enough great chemistry between the actors any film can become a lot of fun, like this one.

The film not only has the great chemistry between the two main actors but it also has some great typecasting. I hate typecasting but sometimes it can also help out a film if it's played just right. Midnight Run is a perfect example of this. De Niro is the tight lipped bounty hunter with no sense of humor and Grodin is the wisecracking smartass white collar criminal he has to transport across America. They work great off eachother and the dialogue which could easily become annoying is fast, witty, and always fun. The action delivers also and also helps the film fly by really fast.

Once again it's nothing new but to put it simple, it's just a fun film. Nothing is too over the top and nothing is too serious. It's sad that we at least don't even get fun movies like these anymore. Instead we are treated to crap films like Hollywood Homicide or The Last Shot which try to have this fun chemistry between the actors and instead fall flat in every single way. It's also sad that they don't even make mainstream films like they used to.

- ***

Notes on a Scandal (2006, Richard Eyre)

"A pottery teacher enters into an affair with one of her students, causing upheaval in her personal and professional lives."

I have never read about a person who hated this film. I have read of people not liking it too much but never a bad review. After seeing the film I can see why this one is hard not to like. The film has a lot of things going for it but the main thing that elevates this film a lot are the two powerful and intense performances by Dench and Blanchett. I am happy they got the recognition they truly deserved last year.

This film is another case of horrible advertising. The trailers and TV spots made it out to be a straight forward drama. This is not the case at all with Notes on a Scandal. This is one intense and to a certain point disturbing psychological thriller. It only lasts less than an hour and half but that hour and half will take you for a very dark journey and that will have you squirming a lot. Dench in particular is chilling and scary in this one, surprisingly. Out of all the nominated performances I have seen of last year she gives the best one by far.

The other thing that Notes has going for it is that it's a true psychological thriller. It feels like so long since I have seen a true thriller. It seems that nowadays everything seems to be labeled a thriller. Premonition is the latest example of this. A film that has car crashes and time travel is not my definition of a psychological thriller at all. Red Eye is another example of these modern "psychological thrillers" I also think that Red Eye is far from being a true thriller. However, Notes on a Scandal is the definition of a psychological thriller.

The film feels like it's action packed and very intense. You really do forget that the whole film is just people talking to each other. You also know that you are watching a great film when even the slightest sense of danger gets you glued on to the screen even more. Notes on a Scandal is filled with these kinds of scenes. The kind of scenes that leave you wanting to shout at the TV. When you combine this type of intense atmosphere with some even more intense performances and on top of all that some great direction you are guaranteed a memorable time.

I was truly loving the heck out of Notes on a Scandal until the very end. The film could easily fall into being classified as being too trashy or a little bit campy but yet it never does. Well, not until the ending. During the course of the film I kept wondering how the ending would be pulled off. I thought it could either go really extreme and take you out of the film or really subtle and just leave you wanting more. The ending had to be just right and the film called for a great ending that delivered everything you wanted it to deliver. Sadly the film goes the extreme route and completely takes you out of the film. I found the ending to be really over the top and felt too much like a typical Hollywood ending. It felt like the type of ending you would see in Premonition or Red Eye, not in a true psychological thriller like this one. I'll just say that I felt cheated in a small way.

Notes on a Scandal has it's share of flaws but they hard to really find. The great direction combined with the performances by the entire cast easily makes this one of the best films of 2006. I can't say that I loved all of it but I can say that I loved a great deal of it. It's worth watching just for Dame Judi Dench. I never thought I would say that, but seriously watch it just see her frightening performance.

- ***

Spanking the Monkey (1994, David O. Russel)

"Raymond Aibelli is a promising medical student ready to begin a prestigious summer internship. But Susan, his mother, is immobilized by a broken leg, and his father Tom, a travelling salesman, makes Raymond stay home and take care of his mother, an attractive though unhappy woman. His mother's condition leads them to a degree of immediate physical contact which Raymond finds disturbing."

This is the feature debut from David O. Russel. This is the man who would later on make some of the most original and odd films out there. This however, his first film, is his most original,odd, and maybe even his best film yet.

I first heard about Spanking the Monkey when I heard it mentioned on an IFC original documentary about sex on film. They kept on mentioning and referencing it as a prime example of how sex can be treated on film. I forgot to mention, the mother and son have sex. Yeah, it's more uncomfortable than it sounds. The whole film is driven through it's second half because of this and because of it Spanking the Monkey has become one of those films that you can debate and talk about for a long time. Sadly, or not sadly (I don't know), it will be hard to find one person who has watched or will watch it.

There is more to this film than "the mother has sex with the son. Ewwww!!" There are layers of psychology going on in this film. It's not surprising since it's David O. Russel and this seems to be an ongoing theme with him. I Heart Huckabees might be the best example of this. Other than the ongoing theme of psychology we are treated to some true dark comedy. By dark I mean pitch black. The comedy ranges everywhere from dialogue driven gags to slapstick but most all we are treated to some very awkward and uncomfortable comedy.

O. Russel is somehow able to make a scene go from uncomfortable to funny in a matter of seconds and this is why I liked the film so much. It's a very brave and bold film that takes more chances than it should and ends up working. Whats even more impressing is that this is the first film from him. I can't figure out how he was even able to make this film and get people to watch it. It seems like an impossible sell and an even more impossible thing to pull off.

The reason the film works is do to a lot of raw talent. The performances are just right and perfectly played out. Jeremy Davies, who was a scene stealer in Saving Private Ryan, turns in a brilliant very intense and often funny performance as the troubled son. The script is smart and well written and everything comes off natural. The direction, although simple, suits the film perfectly as well. The only flaw the film has is some secondary characters that pop up every now and then and just annoy the viewer since they don't influence the plot that much

Spanking the Monkey may not be for everyone. It's a film that has to be seen to be believed and few people will take the chance. It's a shame because there is much more to the film than the controversy it provokes and still keeps provoking.

- ***

Brothers of the Head (2005, Keith Fulton,Louis Pepe)

"In the 1970s a music promoter plucks Siamese twins from obscurity and grooms them into a freakish rock'n'roll act. A dark tale of sex, strangeness and rock music."

This is a faux documentary made from the 2 guys who made one of the best documentaries on the nature of film, Lost in La Mancha. The writer of this is also the man who gave us the great script to Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. There is a lot of talent behind this film and it clearly shows on screen.

The film is perfectly made. It looks and feels like it was all done in the 70's. The style is never exaggerated but it is very noticeable. The cinematography is great. Most of the film is told through old "documentary footage" of the two brothers and because of this most of the shots look really rough and handheld. Yet, every shot is pretty damn great and is very stylish. I imagine this was a tough thing to pull off. The whole mixture of making everything look fake but also making it look stylish is remarkable. The musical performances are also a lot of fun to look at and hear.

I wish I could keep writing about how great the film is but I can't. The problem with this film is that it feels empty. You don't care for the brothers at all. I'm guessing that I really didn't care for them because the only thing that we feel bad for is the fact that are conjoined. That's pretty sad I guess but not enough for me to care for them. Every scene that could have added so much layers to these characters is never shown and is instead told through the fake interviews. Instead of these scenes that are described to us, we get a lot of "footage" of the brothers fighting. You would think that by this I mean we get some really dramatic emotional scenes. Instead we just get a lot of scenes of one of the two brothers messing with the brothers. That's right, we get a couple of scenes that feature one brother not letting his brother go to sleep or not letting his brother finish a sentence, These are the scenes that are supposed to be tense and are supposed to add insight to the brothers. They do not at all.

Brothers of the Head is a well made film. It's worth watching just to see how the filmmakers pulled it all off. I just wish that the plot and characters could have had as much attention and detail as the film's style did.

- ***