I have neglected this site for too long. I’m setting a goal for myself to finish the 2009 Movies project within the calendar year of 2010, which gives me just about 11 months to watch 90 movies and write 111 reviews. I’ve updated The List, which now shows all the movies left in the challenge. Many of the films are already available on DVD, so I’ve got no reason to hold back.

• Cold Souls
• The Marc Pease Experience
• Not Quite Hollywood: The Wild, Untold Story of Ozploitation
• Unmistaken Child

• Lorna’s Silence
• Ponyo
• Spread
• Yoo-Hoo, Mrs. Goldberg

• Adam
• The Cove
• Jerichow
• Paper Heart

Wish me luck!

• $9.99
• Humpday
• In the Loop
• Shrink
• Soul Power
• Somers Town

I’ve seen trailers for $9.99, Humpday and Soul Power, but the others I’m largely in the dark about. The ones I know about all look fairly decent, but none look amazing.

Afghan Star, 9:30p, Ritz at the Bourse

My mom is still visiting from Chicago and so we’ll probably just spend some extra time together. We’re planning to attend a daytime showing of the new Ice Age movie for the whole family. This will potentially be the first theater movie for my twin daughters. I’m hoping they enjoy it, though I’m not sure how they’ll handle the 3D. Maybe that’s too much.

• (500) Days of Summer
• Afghan Star
• The Answer Man

Afghan Star is about a show like American Idon but set in Afghanistan. I don’t know anything, really, about the other two movies as I have assiduously avoided watching the trailers. Moon spoiled far too much for me and now I’m trying to be careful again.

The Hurt Locker, 7:00p, Ritz Five
Séraphine, 9:50p, Ritz Five

Movie times are pretty simple, though there’s a pretty large gap in between. My mother is coming to visit this week, and arrives only a few hours before. She’s graciously agreed to watch the girls and allow me to continue my movie night, so I’m excited to still be going. Next week remains up in the air, as I’m going to be busy with the family while I’m on vacation. Hopefully I’ll still find time to catch a few films. Stay posted if you’re coming along.

• Séraphine

I haven’t watched the trailer when it has shown, as I don’t want to learn anything about it.

This week just past I got to see five movies and most of what was out. Even with this release, there are only two films that I haven’t seen which are available in the theater or on DVD. I’m hoping to use this week to finish some of the now 17 unpublished reviews I’ve got in the queue.

Cheri (Rupert Friend) is a young man not quite 20 years of age. He was born to a very successful prostitute., Madme Peloux (Kathy Bates). He was a relatively normal child but into adulthood became more confused and angry. Ultimately he is eventually taken in by Lea de Lonval (Michell Pfeiffer), also a prostitute, and many years older. The women have done very for themselves, but are social outcasts in an era and culture where it mattered more. Cheri is drawn to Lea’s kindness, and the two become romantically involved despite the difference in age. She takes care of him, trying to draw him out of his petulent shell while instructing him on societal ways. But when Madame Peloux arranges a marriage with (you guessed it) another prostitute’s daughter, the six year arrangement with Lea must come to an end. This sends Cheri and Lea into depressive states, though neither is willing to refuse the arrangement. They don’t acknowledge to themselves or each other the love they feel connecting them; instead they perfunctorily live their livers, all the while harboring desires to be back with their old lover.

One frustrating fault with this film is the way information is presented. The realizations aren’t shown to us by the actions of characters themselves. We’re instructed via a third-party audio overdub of the rudimentary foundations of the culture, and in the end of Cheri’s ultimate despair and suicide. It never fails to astonish me that film makers can’t be bothered to show us viewers a story and allow us to come to our own conclusions. We’re capable of understanding the complexities of love and despair without direct explanation, and deducing what led to actions the performers made. I found myself asking why I should care about any of them? The ridiculously overvalued Victorian sensibilities coupled with the faulty one-true love premise combined in Cheri for an exasperated experience, quite distant from any form of enjoyment.

What I liked: Some of the dialog was interesting, and the costumes extravagant. The performances of Michelle Pfeiffer and Rupert Friend were fine by themselves, but the deplorable characters and the uninteresting story diminished any appreciation. It’s always amazing to see the incredible castles and estates the excessively wealthy people in the world inhabit.

What I disliked: The overdubbed narration was annoying. There was some information provided about the history of courtesans and their rise in popularity in history, but was otherwise strange in so far as it appeared early in the film but disappeared until the very end. I got the impression it was added late to the mix to explain certain points that failed to get adequate descriptions in the film. The characters weren’t likable, and not because of their being prostitutes. I wanted to like the characters, but how could I when they never acted worthy of care?

Rating: 3 of 10

Before he’s finished his time, though, strange things start happening to Sam. He’s become more brittle. He has periods where he cannot focus and has even begun hallucinating. When he crashes a rover into one of the harvesters, things don’t look good. Even after GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey) patches him up, things aren’t quite copacetic. Sam goes out to find out what’s wrong with the harvester, only to find someone who looks just like himself, barely alive, in the wreckage. GERTY doesn’t provide any answers, so the two Sams work together to reason out what’s going on. They conclude they must both be clones, activated when the old clone no longer worked.

This is where the film begins to go someplace interesting. The relationship between the clones is touching and awkward. Initiaully neither one wants to admit he is the clone. This leads to a few scuffles and confrontations. But the older Sam has experiences the younger Sam doesn’t, and even though their common memories of before are set, they are two different people. They each learn from the other, and quickly adapt to the unexpected. The question of whether clones deserve to be treated as humans clearly comes into question. What makes someone a person, worth of respect and individual freedom? What are the ethical and moral implications of creating another person, and then deceiving them through more technology? Our society is headed in this direction, faster than we’re able to keep up and answer those difficult questions. This is what good science fiction does, and Moon is certainly that.

What I liked: The stunning lunar landscapes and perspectives. The set of the station was really cool and was a great locale for the story. Sam Rockwell did a terrific job, too, in a subdued near solo performance that I think is potentially award worthy. The tech was gritty and simple, almost like something extrapolated and envisioned in the Apollo lunar landing era for what the middle of the 21st century would look like.

What I disliked: Trailers ruined the enjoyment of much of the movie for me. I suspected many of the plot twists from the very beginning, just based on the scenes in the trailer, which I saw easily a half-dozen times. While I understand that it wasn’t the whole movie, I don’t think I got enough out of the bits that I hadn’t already deduced to make it really worth seeing. Some of the logical holes in the story are larger than I can easily overlook. Why was the cost of the clones so cheap? Why couldn’t the robots do remotely everything the human did in the film? If they produced so much cheap energy on the moon, why couldn’t they afford to send more people and technology up?

Rating: 7 of 10

Soraya is unhappily married to Ali. Their family life strained by his desire for a divorce so he can marry a more wealthy girl. Soraya will not accede to this as she would be left unable to provide for the children. She is aided by her Aunt Zahra, the most respected woman in the tiny rural town, but even together there’s little they can do. Women aren’t respected enough in the traditionalist Islamic culture to have a say. Ali schemes to have Soraya accused of adultery, which he succeeds in after intimidating a local simpleton to testify against his wife. Eventually the entire town comes to stand against Soraya, accusing her of violating the will of God, and demanding her death by stoning.

The stoning scene itself is the focus of the film. Soraya arms are tied to her side and then she gets buried up to her waist in the ground. Starting with the people who should have loved her the most, including her father, her husband and her children, they pick up stones and hurl them at her, inflicting bloody welts and open sores on top of what must have been exceptionally painful bruising. The unadulterated barbarism is shocking to modern sensibilities, but this is not a film about ancient times. Stonings still occur in the extremely restrictive cultures still haunting the world, mostly to women.

Soraya is killed due to a cultural preference for males in her society. Their moral systems failed to protect her because she wasn’t deemed to be as important. This is the reason we must fight against discrimination of all sorts. Whenever people are marginalized and deemed of lower status than others, then incredible justifications for wronging those people can be and are made. We must speak out against such barbaric cultures, religions, beliefs, and principles whenever possible. The story of Soraya informs us of the consequences of inaction.

What I liked: The movie was well made, and was beautiful (if heartbreaking) to watch. The women were fantastic and strong despite the limitations of their status, and carried the movie for the men. I thought the portrayal of the stoning itself was a visceral, difficulty scene. It wasn’t a short scene that glossed over the gore or the brutality. It felt painfully anachronistic and chilling to see it occurring in a modern time.

What I disliked: While the movie seemed polished and professional, some of the scenes seemed to be unnecessary movie conflict. There was clearly enough material in the film to do without the trite car chase scene at the end. The men’s roles were too simple, but most likely only because the women’s performances were nuanced, subtle and important.

Rating: 7 of 10

The Stoning of Soraya M., 7:15p, Ritz Five
The Hurt Locker, 9:45p, Ritz Five

Linda’s not planning to stay for the second show, but I’ll just stay a little later. I like that I don’t have to leave work early, either. Tonight should be fun!

• The Hurt Locker
• Tetro

I already saw Tetro at a screening function last week, so only one new film added to the list this week.

Cheri, 4:30p, Ritz Five
Julie & Julia, 7:30p, Ritz Five
The Girl from Monaco, 9:50p, Ritz Five

The times don’t line up well. I’ll need to leave work early to get down to see a 4:30p show, but it will make getting in line for the screening easier. I don’t know if anything else is leaving this week, either. The plans could easily change.

I will probably not get to see any just due to time constraints, but there are plenty of interesting looking films that I’m going to add to my Netflix queue to screen when they are released on DVD.

The End of the Line, 5:15p, Ritz at the Bourse
Little Ashes, 7:00p, Ritz at the Bourse
Cheri/The Girl from Monaco, 10:00p, Ritz Five

The two options for later are at the same theater at the same time, so that makes it a pretty easy choice.

• The End of the Line *
• The Girl from Monaco
• Moon

Moon is the movie that stands out for me this week. The trailers for it started a long time ago, and I’ve looked forward to it from the first time. The End of the Line is yet another documentary, and I know nothing about the Girl from Monaco.

* One Week Only

Boris Yellnikoff (Larry David) is a temperamental chess-tutor and self-proclaimed genius whose life we follow over the several year span of this farce. While returning to his apartment he is startled by a young runaway girl who is looking for something to eat. Melodie St. Ann Celestine (Evan Rachel Wood ) pleads with him to take her in, which he does, despite going completely against his curmudgeonly nature. After she stays with him for a while, she starts to have feelings for him, and they ultimately get married, despite the 40-odd year difference in ages. This goes fine until her mother Marietta (Patricia Clarkson) locates her. She pleads with Melodie to come home to Mississippi, but Melodie would rather stay. Instead, Marietta is consumed by the freedom to pursue her interests in the big city, and gives up her convictions and moves in with two men. Until, of course, Marietta’s husband John (Ed Begley Jr.) arrives to reclaim her and Melodie. Boris endures all of this as you would expect (badly) but is moved to desperation one day when Marietta tells him she’s found someone else and is leaving Boris. For the second time in his life he jumps out a window in an attempt to kill himself, only to survive by falling on a passing stranger.

On it’s own there’s nothing terribly interesting about the story. It’s preposterous, true, but it’s meant to be silly. It’s just a vehicle for some of the ideological positions that Boris offers up. His philosophy of life is that there is nothing important, no underlying meaning or mystery, and that you should take any opportunity to enjoy whatever life gives you, because it’s not nearly as much in your control as you could possibly believe. So by doing Whatever Works you at least have some chance at being happy while you’re here. Because you’re certainly not going anywhere else once you’re gone.

What I liked: The philosophical nature of the concepts in the film. I enjoyed the contemplation of the bigger picture, and find myself largely in agreement with the ideas espoused by Boris, though not the the same degree. I found the transformations of the characters from a right-wing stereotype into a left-wing stereotype to be hilarious and irreverent. The witty exposure of the roles we play in our lives was clever, especially with how silly the whole process seemed at the time.

What I disliked: I’m a bit tired of sixty-somethings being love interests of twenty-somethings. It’s too creepy for me. I realize it’s a farce, but it’s wasn’t necessary to the rest of the film. And it took away from it. I didn’t like Larry David in the movie, and while I think that was largely the script and the film and not his performance, I’m not sure he’s free from all rebuke. The movie and most of the performances were just average.

Rating: 5 of 10

Their requirements for buying something were pretty simple. First, it had to be affordable on their budget. Dorothy’s paycheck would cover the rent, the food, and other living expenses. Herb’s check went toward the acquisition of new art. Pieces they purchased had to be transportable to their apartment and had to fit inside somewhere. Quickly the paintings, sculptures and hangings filled every available nook their apartment offered. Soon that wasn’t enough. Newer work replaced older ones. Canvas got stuck in boxes and crates, rolled and hidden in stacks of art that rose up to the ceiling in places.

Herb & Dorothy were passionate collectors, described by some artists as “the mascots of the New York art scene”. They were and are loved by a variety of artists everywhere whose work remained unappreciated by just about everyone except the Vogels. Testimonial after testimonial spoke of the shrewd eye for art that Herb possessed and the deals he would strike to be able to afford not just a single piece of work but a reflective sample of a promising artist’s progression. In the end their collection outgrew their apartment, so they donated it to everyone through the National Gallery of Art.

What I liked: The overwhelming dedication to art of this couple. It’s amazing that their story is even possible from two people with ordinary jobs and lives. But their passion and resolve to seek out artists they liked and pieces that pleased them proved successful. I admire their desire to do this together, for decades. When I compare their focus to my own, I find my own a bit lacking. I spread myself too thin to accomplish anywhere near what they’ve done. But maybe it’s not too late for me to learn a thing or two from these amazing people.

What I disliked: I would have liked to have seen more of the collection. I would like to know more about what the pieces cost, and how much it would be worth to sell it. As someone who doesn’t follow modern art, I think the movie did a fair job of explaining what certain styles were, though more from the artists might have been better.

Rating: 8 of 10

As of now I’m planning to see two movies on Wednesday evening, with flexible options for a third if I feel like it.

Herb & Dorothy, 5:15p, Ritz at the Bourse
The Merry Gentleman, 7:35p, Ritz Five

The time between films is roomy and the connection easy to make. Also, the times are reversible so I have options for a third movie at either theater so long as I decide before which it’ll be.

UPDATE: There’s a screening of Tetro at 7:00p that I might try to catch. If I do, the order of films will look like this:

The Merry Gentleman, 5:05p, Ritz Five
Tetro, 7:00p, Ritz East
Herb & Dorothy, 9:35p, Ritz at the Bourse

If I do, though, it will be the first time I’ve seen one movie in each theater. There appears to be enough room in between provided my estimates are close.

• Cheri
• Little Ashes *
• The Stoning of Soraya M.
• Whatever Works

I haven’t seen a whole lot for Cheri, but the other three have had a bunch of trailers. I’m not especially excited about anything, but I’m sure they’ll be great films.

* One Week Only

The program is run by Wilma Stephenson, a teacher at Frankford High School in Philadelphia. She’s a firecracker, no-nonsense teacher who doesn’t take a lot of attitude from her students, and even less from everyone else. Her acerbic personality is legendary in the school system, as is her passion for providing students with an education about the reality of the food service industry. In this film, which is shot through graduation in 2007, she takes on a new crop of students highlighted by three promising young pupils.

Erica is a hardworking young woman helping take care of her legally blind sister, and manages to find time to be a cheerleader in addition to her challenging culinary classwork. Dudley, a giant of a man, is a football player bound to get scholarship offers but endures the rigors of the cooking as a challenge as well as for the friendship of his classmates. Fatuomata is a straight-A student who recently immigrated from the Ivory Coast in West Africa to live with a father she never knew who resists her efforts to make a life for herself. These three students, as well as the dozen other students in the class, are a tribute to everyone who finds hope through sacrifice, hard-work, and a dedication to succeed. The only real shame of the situation is that for each of these kids there are a dozen or more left behind without realistic chances at landing a job that will sustain them and their families. It’s tragic that poverty plays such a dominant role in the lives of so many, but maybe this film will encourage more people to lend a hand.

What I liked: The individuals in this film are lovely people, even the grating Mrs. Stephenson. You get a real feel for how much of herself she gives to her students. Sure, she’s demanding, but only out of a sincere desire to impart some practical benefit to those students taking her course. Anyone with that amount of dedication to helping others succeed, especially those without a lot of opportunity, deserves some slack. The students are real people who are facing the challenge of becoming independent and successful with the very real force of familial needs tugging back.

What I disliked: The repeated use of transitional shots depicting the dilapidated sections of Philadelphia. It got old after a while, and felt like we were seeing the same old row homes over and over again. We understand that these students live in this lousy conditions. The story is uplifting and even inspiriational, but the formula seems a little overused. That’s not a terrible fault, but I couldn’t help thinking that I’d seen this story once or ten times before.

Rating: 9 of 10

As of now I’m planning to see two movies with Linda on Wednesday evening and possibly a third on myself afterward:

Food, Inc., 5:20p, Ritz at the Bourse
Pressure Cooker, 7:00p, Ritz at the Bourse
Herb & Dorothy, 9:35p, Ritz at the Bourse

The connection between the first and second films is tight, but should be okay with the trailer times.

UPDATE: Good news! The only film leaving this week I haven’t seen is Pressure Cooker, and I’m already planning to see that on Wednesday.

• Food, Inc.
• Herb & Dorothy *

Food, Inc. looks like a terrific documentary, something I’m excited to see but that frightens me a little as well. I worry that this movie could materially change the way I think about food, my most guilty pleasure. Herb & Dorothy is also a documentary about modern art collectors in New York City.

This is the first time that I can recall that the only releases are documentary films. No new fiction this week. I think six months ago I would have been disappointed, but the documentaries have been some of my favorite films this year. A slow week is exactly what I needed to catch up. I’ve been getting DVDs to watch and I still have eight reviews to write.

* One Week Only

Mrs. Whitaker (Kristen Scott Thomas) is the stoic mother attempting to hold together her family. He husband, Mr. Whitaker (Colin Firth) is a World War I veteran who has been damaged by his being part of horrific death on a grand scale. His days are spent tinkering in the garage and not engaging his family except tangentially. The eldest son John (Ben Barnes) runs off to American and meets his lovely, lively bride Larita (Jessica Biel) and brings her home to meet his family. She clashes with everyone, but most notably Mrs. Whitaker, who frets over his unwillingness to assume responsibility of the family affairs and their incumbent problems.

The movie is muddled, though, with attempts at humor and levity in the midst of overwhelming crisis and drama. Without a major stroke of fortune the family is doomed to lose the little it still maintains. It’s a worthy tragedy, and could have played as such if not for the insipid interjection of slapstick humor and needless shenanigans. This structure of the story is a house of cards, precariously stacked up the instant before the story unfolds. It has no stability, no foundation. But there’s no tragedy, no love lost when the cards come tumbling down; they had nowhere else to go.

What I liked: Some of the dialog was sharp. Dry and acerbic, too, but it sometimes kept some scenes moving. The actors are by and large of a good quality, and it’s a shame the film doesn’t work for them. I wanted to like the movie, and at times I did sympathize with the characters. There were moments of closeness and family bonding that could have been touching, had they been less fleeting.

What I disliked: Two major annoyances were present in this film. I cannot stand movies that always have characters storming out of a scene and characters who smoke constantly or whenever they feel anything remotely emotional. The smoking was forced into nearly every scene to no practical benefit. I think both of these faults are telltale signs of a director who doesn’t know his craft. I don’t know if Stephan Elliott is a hack, but he turned in a lousy effort on this film. No one was authentically emotional and kept important information from the people they supposedly loved. Easy Virtue made no difficult choices and was uninteresting. Colin Firth and Kristin Scott Thomas have no chemistry and play banal roles.

Rating: 3 of 10

This week I’m only planning two movies for sure, but I’m putting a third one on the list just in case I feel like doing a late show.

O’Horten, 5:20p, Ritz at the Bourse
Rudo y Cursi, 7:45p, Ritz Five
Easy Virtue, 10:00p, Ritz Five

They line up pretty well but I do have to switch theaters to make sure I see both shows that will not be here next week. O’Horten and Rudo y Cursi are leaving. The third show is quite flexible; there are bunch of movies filling that time slot I could see. Besides Easy Virtue, there is Departures or The Merry Gentleman.

• Away We Go
• Departures
• The Merry Gentleman
• O’Horten *
• Pressure Cooker

Away We Go is a Sam Mendes film. Departures is the Academy Award winner for best foreign film. The Merry Gentlemen is the directorial debut of Michael Keaton, who also appears in the film. O’Horten is the one for which I’ve seen the most trailers and looks oddly cute. Pressure Cooker is a documentary about some Philadelphia students who attempt to earn some culinary scholarships.

Each one of these exciting films has something specific that I am eagerly anticipating. Even though I haven’t managed to gain any ground the past few weeks, I’m not really losing ground, either. Neither of the other movies I haven’t seen are leaving this week.

* One Week Only

Recovering from that kind of start in life isn’t easy, and it only gets worse for the boys. Their mother is frail and doesn’t get to live her life fully, either, leaving Carter in charge of his little brother Ellis (Ethan Peck). Without much complaint, Carter takes on this burden and keeps them both going, working instead of going to college, nurturing his brother instead of going out with a girlfriend. This is their life, and it continues until they discover that Ellis has got leukemia, and desperately needs a bone marrow transplant in order to survive. The only possible donor is their father, who as been out of the lives of these young men for years. Hope for Ellis is up in Tennessee, so they begin another journey back home.

Along the way they pick up Krystal (Mariah Carey), a closet songwriter who’s never quite dared to reach out on her own. She’s married to another abusive man, this one a police officer with a bad attitude. She decides to travel with the boys and head to Memphis to see if her dreams of singing can finally come true. Plenty of obstacles are thrown up. The highway patrolman husband tracks her down. The eventual worsening of Ellis’s disease makes him more and more frail. The eventual discovery of the father’s demise nearly drives Carter over the edge. But somehow, Ellis does the only thing that can relieve his brother of Carter’s assumed responsiblity; he dies, and in doing so frees Carter to live his own life, to pursue the love he once had and to find the dreams he barely had the chance to imagne. Ellis makes an odd hero, a sick man concluding his life when most people are just beginning.

In some ways it’s a tender, touching story about a family or people that are just fractured so much there’s not much left to build upon. It’s sad and understandable that there is a lot of pain in homes so broken by abuse, and it’s worth making good films about them. But this film is mostly just weak, making the older brother too much of a martyr. The singer is just an odd wrench thrown into the works for no apparent reason–she adds nothing to the story, certainly not any quality performing. She alters nothing the brothers do except for providing them a ride. I would have enjoyed the movie had it attempted to delve further into the character of the older brother, the one for whom the younger brother is willing to stop fighting for his own life for.

What I liked: Some interesting and selfless people doing noble things for others, even at their own expense. The feel of the movie was solid, and I enjoyed the grimy raw love that connected them and seemed to follow the brothers around.

What I disliked: The entire movie is built upon the premise that the older brother doesn’t learn about his father’s death. The tension could be spoiled by a half dozen simple things, things that happen to people every day. A phone call, an obituary, an inquiry from a newspaper, a phone fcall from a relative or old friend. There is no reason to build a movie on such a house of cards when other perfectly reasonable methods are available. I didn’t like the singer, or the self-pity in which Carter constantly wallowed. He didn’t own up enough to his choices sometimes.

Rating: 5 of 10

I think the other part keeping me from seeing more films is I’m in a bit of a writing funk. I do kind of like writing, but it’s challenging to write a review for each movie I see. So far, I’ve completed 57 reviews over approximately 22,500 words. That’s somewhere around a 75 page paper! Considering I only do this in my spare time, that’s a lot of writing. My reviews are getting longer, too. I’m trying to stay consistent, but I’m finding I have a lot of thoughts on the films I’m seeing, so I try to get a lot of that down on the site. That, coupled with the fact that my writing is improving (I think) with practice and I’m writing sooner after seeing the movie, it’s all understandable.

I’m headed for a triple movie night tomorrow, this time with Linda coming along. We’re looking forward to our little treat, with many thanks to her sister, who will be staying at home with the kids.

• Easy Virtue
• Ii Divo *
• Tennessee

I only saw two movies this week, but fortunately I managed to see the one that left, Englighten Up! The trailers for this week’s three films have been shown extensively, so I feel like I know what I’m in for. Tennessee, a film starring Mariah Carey, doesn’t inspire greatness, but I’m holding out hope she has improved as an actress since Glitter.

* One Week Only

Tennessee, 5:20p, Ritz at the Bourse
Il Divo, 7:00p, Ritz at the Bourse
Rudo y Cursi, 9:50p, Ritz Five

The first two should remain set, but changes have been known to happen. The third slot can be filled by either Rudo y Cursi or Easy Virtue depending on if either will be leaving by the end of the week and who comes. If you’re interested in joining, let me know.

Nick is a skeptic from the very beginning. He’s open to the experience of yoga, but cautious about the claims he’s expecting to hear. And he doesn’t wait long to hear some big ones. Initially Nick tests the waters in his home turf, the New York City area, where both Kate and he lived. There are plenty of mainstream and boutique yoga places that offer him various styles of yoga. He stretches, breathes, twists, flips, contorts and even stands on his head for a while. He converses with the practitioners and teachers alike, trying to get an answer to some basic questions, like “What is Yoga all about?” and “What am I supposed to do if I don’t feel anything spiritual happening?” Nick eventually travels the world, first to Alaska and Hawaii, then to several remote spots across India in search of Yoga knowledge and their master Yogis. When the challenge ends after six months, Nick moves to Colorado and stops his daily practicing of yoga. But it wasn’t wasted time. The physical nature of the workouts and the reflective moments of the meditation did have an effect on Nick. He spent more time examining his life, and felt invigorated also.

Nearly all of the individuals interviewed in the movie spoke of being closer to god, and that being the reason they did yoga. For me, though, that’s not really a relevant point. Like Nick, I’m not a believer; I don’t believe in any gods or follow any religion. Instead I channeled the discussions into more general and I think more potent questions. “What is life all about?” “Why are we here?” “What does it mean to live a meaningful life?” Many believers of Yoga think that it can answer those questions, but that it can take years. I grant that, but only in the sense that anything you dedicate yourself to, can provide the same connection with the larger world. We’re all searching for some kind of personal meaning to our lives, and it’s possible to find that with Yoga. But it’s not for everyone, and it holds no mysterious sway that cannot be had elsewhere.

What I liked: Nick Rosen is my kind of guy. To me, the challenge was that much more credible because his perspective was so similar to what I expect mine would be. The discussions with the gurus were quite contemplative and philosophical, and interesting. The life perspectives of all the different people and all their different backgrounds bring some amazing stories to the screen. I especially liked the laughter yoga, which was a humorous and enjoyable variety that I hadn’t seen before. The “Yoga for Regular Guys” seems like it has some potential, too.

What I disliked: Not much. Sometimes the yogis were a bit preachy and had some very circular and nonsensical statements. Lots of pop-psychology. There’s a fine line between a reasonable choice for how to spend your time and cult-like following of ritual and self-delusion, and I think some people were on the wrong side of that line.

Rating: 9 of 10

But, every once in a while, there is a movie like Summer Hours. A couple of hours passed by, and at the end I had to remind myself that it wasn’t real, that I didn’t just witness a family losing their mother. I reminded myself that it was just actors, playing roles, and that the assorted emotions I was experiencing were just a reaction to a well-crafted piece of art. I re-adjusted back to reality and calmly waited for the credits to finish, ready to rejoin the world.

The matriarch in the film is Helene, the aged and dying mother of three children who gather at her pastoral home for a weekend in the summer. She implores her eldest son Frédéric to consider how to settle the estate once she’s gone. He doesn’t believe it’s coming so soon, so he ignores her. Only too quickly, though, it comes to pass, and the family gathers from the corners of the world to grieve. Their mother has been the caretaker of many priceless paintings, furniture, sketches and other pieces of art, all of which are in full display around the drafty old summer house. Frédéric assumes everyone will want to keep her possessions intact there, but Jérémie, the youngest son, has moved his family to Japan, and doesn’t have any interest in keeping an old house he’ll never use. Adrienne (Juliette Binoche), the only daughter, lives in the USA and doesn’t see herself returning now that their mother has died. So Frédéric begins the process of selling her belongings, dealing with the mundane tasks of taxes and dispersements, and moves the family on to their next stage.

The story is so simple, and anyone who has endured the loss of the last member of an older generation will find it eerily familiar. The beauty, even magic, of this story is entirely in the details. It is found in the casual conversations during lunch, or sifting through old objects and remembering some fond story. You learn things about the person who died you never knew, comprehend things about yourself you never otherwise got. It’s these moments in life, whether in deaths, births or weddings, when we gather with family and engage the immediate event, that allow us to examine our choices and focus our resolve. This family did very normal and courageous things, and it was beautiful being a part of it.

What I liked: The realism. The gentle pacing and letting the story unfold easily and naturally. The discussion and understanding of things, of objects, and their values to us. This picture spoke to the quality of art, and how utterly subjective and personal that value tends to be. The balance of the story was awesome. I enjoyed how the mother of the three children dominated the first portion, and the daughter of the oldest son led the final portion, an appropriate example of how families move forward, how life moves on for us all.

What I disliked: Sometimes I felt like the movie tried to do a little too much, especially with the daughter. At the beginning she was playing nicely with all the younger children, and by the end, only a few months later in time, she was getting busted by the police and having raucous parties. Not anything terrible, though. Juliette Binoche was underused.

Rating: 8 of 10

• Enlighten Up! *
• Rudo y Cursi

I’ve seen trailers for both of them, and I’m not expecting anything Earth-shattering. Tonight, there are two special showings of Enlighten Up! with filmmaker Kate Churchill. I’m hoping to see one, probably the 7:30p showing.

I missed a couple of movies so I’ve still got four to watch this week to be completely caught up.

* One Week Only

Simon’s mother and father died in a car accident when he was young. His 22-year-old uncle Tom (Scott Speedman) took over the responsibility and burden of raising Simon. They get along okay, but lack the deeper relationship one usually has with a parent. The school assignment together with the death of his grandfather bring into focus the ideological beliefs of Simon’s family. They’re Christian of some kind. We come to realize that his Simon’s father, a Muslim, and grandfather fought over religious ideas, disagreeing fundamentally on whether a non-Christian could even be a good person. Simon grapples with this grief and how his life has been shaped by such beliefs.

Adoration forces us to take a serious look at the things we believe and what impact that can have on the people around us. Most of the time our views of what is right and wrong has very little impact outside our immediate circle of connections—our families, our friends, our neighbors, for example. When we attempt murder to defend our views, we’re very likely going too far. It’s essential to get beyond the anger and violence to someplace more rational.

What I liked: An interesting experiment in emotional storytelling and film making. I liked the slow introduction of complicated relationships between all the characters. Fundamentally I agree with the humanist message of tolerance and consideration of others perspectives. I value those qualities in this world, and wish everyone would think and empathize before judging and condemning.

What I disliked: Discontinuity. I found it frustrating that the film took place out of sequence. I don’t feel like enough was gained by the maneuvering. Sometimes the story became confusing when I tried to distinguish between the imaginary scenes and the historical ones. The mother’s character seemed so vapid and ethereal. Unimaginably shallow for someone who was declared to be so vibrant and alive.

Rating: 8 of 10

For some reason, though, Asa has a dream of making a life tbere. He’s a retired sailer staying with his sister Samal who is married to a herder working on the barren steppe. Her husband Ondas won’t give Asa any sheep to start his own flock until Asa is married. A wife is key to survival there–essential chores, cooking, and childcare must be performed while the animals are cared for. He is interested in the only single young woman in the area, Tulpan. She is the daughter of another herding couple, but she is not interested in Asa. Her mother is set against him because he has no job and isn’t a sufficiently accomplished suitor for her daughter.

Asa doesn’t have the experience or the temperament for the work. Whenever he’s tasked with helping birth the sheep that experience problems, he is repelled by the gritty requirements of the process. Ondas pushes him, but instead of driving him to become better at the job, it incites Asa to consider leaving. He sets off to make his own way in the world several times, drawn back by a connection to be his sister, the only family he knows. He dreams for bigger things, a fulfilled and important life, but the harsh reality of his environment keeps getting in his way.

What I liked: The compelling pull of family, of belonging, of sharing a bond with those like us. The movie is gorgeous, a canvas of surreal landscapes and experiences. The claustrophobic feel of life in the yurt, the one-room tent, was palpable and real even in the theater.

What I disliked: Asa’s constant ambivalence became tiring after a while. Movies about indecisive characters are difficult to maintain. I felt his challenges were sincere, but it was personally painful to watch. I felt like shouting at him to run, to find his own way, to seek his fortune on his own terms. In real life failure is a common outcome.

Rating: 7 of 10

Four movies last week, five movies this week.  They are:

• Adoration
• The Brothers Bloom
• The Girlfriend Experience
• Summer Hours
• Tulpan *

I’ve seen something for all of these except The Brothers Bloom. On the last few trips to the theater I’ve been trying to not pay attention to the trailers. It’s difficult to not see or hear without leaving the theater. I’m using my headphones to block out the sound and averting my eyes until I can determine the trailers have finished.

* One Week Only

The Girlfriend Experience, 5:20p, Ritz at the Bourse
Tulpan, 7:15p, Ritz at the Bourse
Adoration, 9:35p, Ritz at the Bourse

This plan should remain set, but there’s always a chance it will change. If you’re interested in coming, let me know.

Summer Hours, Ritz Five, 2:35p
The Brothers Bloom, Ritz East, 4:30p

Check with me if you’re planning to join me at these films, as the plan could easy change.

Life in his small world is difficult. He’s employed harvesting ostrich eggs and caring for the unusual birds. He cares about his work, and does it well for the most part. One day, though, while attempting to prevent a co-worker from abusing an animal, an ostrich escapes from the pen. Despite the chase he and about a dozen other people give, the bird escapes and Karim is fired. When his wife asks why he has brought home his work clothes, he tells her he’s going to look for a better job. On a trip into Tehran he discovers he can taxi people around on the back of his motorbike and make a living that way. His mind is always scheming, though. He finds abandoned junk and brings it home to repair. He pleads to be allowed to carry goods for local merchants. One man even puts him to work unloading boxes into his home. All the while Karim is earning for his family and stashing some money away to pay his debts.

All during the film, the boys of the village, one of whom is Karim’s son, are showing their own entrepreneurial spirit. They’ve hatched a scheme to try to raise goldfish in the local water reservoir, a murky muddy pit that doesn’t seem likely to support their enterprise. But they persevere, taking turns cleaning out the scum and raising the sum that will be required to purchase the fish to cultivate. All the while, Karim does his best to discourage their plan. He believes the whole thing to be futile and unproductive. When the kids’ plan miserably fails, the boys are heartbroken, and we see human nature once again independently shine through Karim. He empathizes with their pain, and doesn’t take the opportunity to lecture them or to talk down to them. Instead, he sings them a song, joining their moment of sorrow and shattered dreams.

What I liked: Karim’s hopeful, dreamy nature. It would be a stretch to say he’s an optimist, but he was the kind of man who you grow to like and even admire, in a “I’m glad I’m not him” kind of way. His tough love is out of true concern for his family and friends, and he never gives up on them. The movie was beautifully shot, very intimate. The boys crusade to become millionaires is so easy to relate to. These kids acted like kids, not adults in miniature packages.

What I disliked: Karim took a while to get to like. He was gruff, dirty, and selfish in some ways. Maybe that’s the only way to make the payoff at the end really resonate, but it was kinda hard for me to like him. It’s also difficult for me to watch movies about cultures where women play such a deferential role. All the real action in the movie is done by men or boys, who are allowed the foolish dreaming while the women stay home and cook and clean.

Rating: 6 of 10

Wednesday is a one-movie night again. This time it’s probably going to be late, unless someone wants to go early.

The Song of Sparrows, Ritz at the Bourse, 9:40p

Monsieur Henri Verdoux (Charlie Chaplan) is a French banker who’s been hit hard in advance of the Great Depression of the 1930s. He loses his job, and cannot find work to support his disabled wife and child. Out of desperation, he begins courting, and sometimes killing, wealthy women to bilk them of their money. He’s got a litany of false names, homes, businesses and strange jobs, many of which require his perpetual presence out of town. All of these deceptions have been kept from his family and friends who think he is doing legitimate work.

Several important things happen to Monsier Verduox, though. Some families of the women who strangely vanished have contacted the police, who themselves have detected the unlikely disappearances. His money, which he aggressively funnels into the stock market, is dwindling as the market begins its eventual crash. As a result he must work more diligently to try to swindle more money from women. And eventually, many years later, the police catch up to him. Ironically this happens a result of the one noble deed we witness Henri make in the film. His is arrested while having dinner with a young woman whom he assisted when she was further down on her luck than he was.

It is not until the arrest that things finally make sense. We learn that Henri has adopted a perverted sense of principles that allow him to do things unconscionable in a civilized society. He offers the argument that he is simply acting in the best interest of his family, and that all nations routinely do this very thing. Countries that kill thousands in seemingly justified wars are guilty of the same crimes as he, only in far greater numbers.

On some principled level I agree with him. Our governments and corporations make decisions all the time that profoundly impact individuals. It happens when hard times begin, fiscal cuts are made, jobs are lost, homes are foreclosed, insurance is forfeited, and our health and lives are the final price we pay. Our recent market crash is surprisingly relevant to this very story. Our government is paying billions of dollars of our taxpayer money to bail out corporations that took foolish risks. We don’t yet know the outcome of this current crisis, but it’s pretty clear regular, hard-working people will lose everything, through no fault of their own. We could have a Monsieur Verdoux out there right now, and that’s a chilling thought.

What I liked: Eventually understanding Henri Verdoux, and how dire circumstances can push us beyond normal societal limits. He’s a simple character whose moral framework slips off the path that most of us tread our entire lives. All of society is built upon everyone buying into this method of co-existence, or paying the price for nonconformity. With enough ingenuity and resourcefulness, though, it’s possible to avoid the penalty, and people can be hurt in the process.

What I disliked: It was difficult to get a read on the character of Henri Verdoux for most of the film. His misogynistic attitude and the occasional situational comedy moments soured my liking for the ending. His points, when ultimately made, were poignant and thoughtful, but getting there was an odd road. I wonder if Charlie Chaplin is just a taste I haven’t yet acquired?

Rating: 6 of 10

He flies out to Baltimore, she puts him on a bus home. She comes back to visit, and then he goes back to Maryland again. Only this time she’s gone to Washington state to be with her ex-boyfriend Jango (Woody Harrelson). Jango, the ex-punk yogurt magnate with an obsession for breeding dogs, as a character in another movie, might be novel in a rough sort of way. In this one, he’s the brick wall that diverts the sappy love story off course into an emotional self-actualization movie. And even that’s done badly. There are just terrible stereotypes abused throughout the movie. When Mike needs to reflect on his life, he visits some Buddhist monks who explain their calmness and serenity by saying they’re Buddhist monks, some kind of self-referential word game. It’s just silly.

Eventually Mike halts his pursuit of Sue after he spies on her wedding to Jango. Instead he heads home to take care of his family, and starts putting some of his Buddhist training to good use. When he fixes everyone else’s problems and even some of his own, he decides it’s time to make peace with Sue. He finds out from Jango she has moved back to her mother’s place in Maryland. He tries one last time to get her back, and with the personal growth they’ve both sustained, their relationship might just work.

What I liked: Some of the affection was cute; Mike and Sue shared a juvenile affection that wasn’t entirely unpleasant. It reminded me of my own youth, some 15 or 20 years ago. Both characters grew up because of each other.

What I disliked: My biggest complaint of Management is inconsistency. A director must make choices for a film to be a success, and Stephen Belber didn’t make any good ones. The first half of the film is a dorky, silly comedy, but the latter half ditches all the laughs for a dramatic conclusion. I really have no preference as to which movie should have been made, but I’m fairly certain it should have been one or the other. In my opinion, the second half worked a lot better, but had no emotional foundation that lets me care about the conclusion. Another problem was casting. Steve Zahn and Jennifer Aniston are too old for these roles. I could not accept in my head that 40+ year-olds could act so completely like teenagers.

Rating: 3 of 10

The film follows a man whose name we never learn. In fact, I cannot recall a single named character in the film. This man, played by Isaach De Bankolé, has agreed to perform some kind of job from a pair of men he meets in an airport. We learn nothing about what the men do, who they represent, what the job entails, or what their goals are. They could be the law, they could be criminals, they could be something else altogether. Nothing is clear. Most movies that begin this way use this type of ambiguity to heighten suspense.

The man travels around Spain and gets encrypted (or nonsensical) messages delivered to him in color-coded wooden matchboxes. These exchanges occur with other disguised men and women who always appear wearing sunglasses, hats, wigs, costumes, etc. Each speaks a different foreign language which the original man always seems to understand and says only odd things that probably have hidden meaning. The original man never really speaks, only listens to the arcane mumblings and the occasional off-topic rambling on science, music, or movies. I got the sense that information was being conveyed, but without sufficient context, don’t trust my judgment to perceive any difference between idle chit-chat, subterfuge, or nonsense.

All of his movements seem dedicated to tracking down a well-dressed man who lives in a heavily fortified bunker in the middle of dry, empty countryside. Our lone agent succeeds somehow in penetrating the significant defenses and confronts the suit-wearing man, ultimately completing his assignment. Once that’s done, he leaves the scene, doffs his work clothes, and disappears from our sights forever.

The movie works on several different levels, which is difficult to do. On the primary level, we’ve witnessed from start to finish an operation that calls for a hit on some kind of business man. But we’re unable to determine the moral right or wrongness of these actions, because we know little to nothing about every individual in the film. On another level, we witness a remarkable meta story about how regular citizens in our culture are unaware of the actions of a covert few working among us. Whether those agents are sleeper cell terrorists, government agents, or just a neighbor with a private agenda, plots are constantly hatched all around us.

When the end credits rolled I was pretty surprised to not have received the contextual information I thought was coming. That felt more like real-life than the movies, which was a rather incongruous feeling. But I liked it, and even more, I respect the film for it. Well done!

One interesting note: The title of the film on all the poster and the trailers is The Limits of Control. But at the end of the film the title showed up as No Limits No Control. I’m not sure whether either title is more appropriate for such an ambiguous film.

What I liked: Taking risks. The idea of a film that gives you a complete story but doesn’t help you fill in the blanks as to which side you’re likely to take in the conflict. It’s novel and intriguing. It simulates real-life situations, in which many parties take contrary positions to each other and there is no clear right or wrong perspective for someone not directly involved. My personal and a bit romanticized sense is that the lone man and his conspirators were a kind of rebel force subverting a corporate tyrant. I liked the use of so many languages by the lone man’s team. It gave the film an international flavor that provided a powerful sense of inclusion and multi-nationalism, and heightened the sense of importance to the actions taken.

What I disliked: The movie is certainly confusing and difficult to understand. That’s intrinsic to making a film in this way. There’s no easy way to approve or disapprove of anyone’s actions, and it’s hard therefore to care very much about the people without more information.

Rating: 9 of 10

A Chorus Line debuted on Broadway in 1975 and became an immediate success. It practically swept the Tony Awards that year, for Director, Producer, several performers and more. It even won a Pulitzer Prize for drama, something infrequently accomplished for a musical. In 2005, the Bob Avian and some others from the original performance decided to stage another production, and had an open casting call. Three thousand performers from around the world showed up to audition. Every Little Step tells the story of that revival, and with it a whole new assortment of performers’ stories.

This film concentrated on the competition for a few key roles in the show: Cassie, Mike, Connie, and Val. We see in greater depth the dancers trying out for those parts, and here the film shines. The stories of the performers are blending in with the stories of the characters, and one thing becomes very clear. This is the quintessential performer’s show. Everyone who auditioned believed that A Chorus Line was their story. Each performer chooses years working hard, training, and sacrificing things everyone else takes for granted. For what? For a long-shot chance of getting cast in a big show. For their love and passion for the work. Nothing short of all-out dedication can prepare for that opportunity when it comes.

What I liked: Getting a behind the curtain look at how a musical like this is staged. It’s a drawn-out process with lots of difficult decisions to be made. Having not seen the musical itself, I was worried I might miss something, and that was not the case. A significant percentage of the musical numbers were at least partially performed, often by different auditioning performers and by prior cast members. The meta-comparison of Every Little Step to A Chorus line is a delightful treat. Both the show and the movie show us the individuals behind the otherwise anonymous faces of the chorus. I got the sense that I knew these performers and now long for the opportunity to see the show.

What I disliked: The movie tried to tackle a litle bit of everything: individual dancers’ stories, auditions, the original recordings, cast member selection, interviews with original cast members, etc. It really came off well, but I felt at times that the film was awash with all the different stories.

Rating: 9 of 10

• Every Little Step
• The Limits of Control
• Management
• The Song of Sparrows *

This was originally slated to be five, but Rudo y Cursi is being moved back two weeks. The genre of films looks slightly more varied. Maybe something a little lighter for a change in Management which will either be cute or a disaster.

* One Week Only

Here’s the preliminary plan:

Every Little Step, Ritz Five, 5:30p
The Limits of Control, Ritz Five, 7:30p
Management, Ritz East, 9:55p

I reserve the right to change my mind.

Then Clarence (Micheal Caine) shows up. He’s a curmudgeon with ample attitude for all who cross his path. Initially he and Edward don’t get along, but their mutual hatred for the home draws them together. Clarence worked as a magician his whole life. Age has taken its toll on his act, though. Senility is settling in.

Being surrounded by death is difficult for Edward, as it is for many young people who personally experience it. He’s old enough to ponder the weighty issues of pain, loss, and the afterlife, but doesn’t really have anyone with whom to talk about it. His parents don’t have the time, his schoolmates aren’t interested, and the eldrly occupying his home don’t need any reminders they’re next. Eventually Clarence grasps this and selflessly puts aside his own fears in an attempt to get Edward through the naturally troubling time.

What I liked: The intersecting lives of Edward and Clarence, one on the way in and one on the way out. It’s surprising when you think about it how rarely those two groups have any significant interaction. The reality based parenting displayed in the film. Parents have to cope with issues that often prohibit them from doing things for and with their children.

What I disliked: Clarence was a tad two-dimensional. He transformed from the cantankerous loner to grandfatherly mentor without much of a transition. Some of the dialogue was muffled and indistinct. The colors in most of the scenes were drab and washed out. While I admit it worked well with the material, the film dwelled there too long. The relationship seemed a little one-way; Edward tried to help Clarence only to find him too far gone to appreciate it.

Rating: 7 of 10

Is Anybody There?, Ritz Five at 5:30p or 7:50p or 9:55p

I can probably do any of those times. If I were going alone, I’d likely choose the 5:30p so I could get home and help with the kids’ bedtime. If someone wants to see it with me, though, I can do either of the other two.

Solo drives a cab in the Winston-Salem area of North Carolina. He lives with his girlfriend Queira and her daughter Alex (Diana Franco Galindo). Together they’re expecting their first child but the relationship is heading in the wrong direction. Solo is studying for a flight attendant’s exam but Queira wants him around to be a father for their child. He wants to do right for his baby, but he strives for greater things than driving around a cab every night until the early morning.

One evening he picks up an unusual passenger. William (Red West) is an ill-tempered older man who tries to schedule a job a couple of weeks in advance. When Solo learns it’s a one-way trip to a remote location, he begins to question William’s motives. He befriends William and takes him all around town running various errands, none more peculiar than the frequent trips to a local movie theater. Despite William’s complete silence on the matter, Solo predicts that William is attempting to end his life. Solo is distraught by this, but also by the conflict in his own relationship. He tries everything he can to convince William not to go through with it.

It is the nature of this friendship that is so bizarre and yet so touching. Solo quickly senses a disturbance in another human being that he cannot ignore. This caring and persistent indifference to any protestations certainly makes an impact on William, but not enough to deter him from his intended plans. What makes this movie really amazing is Solo’s willingness to respect William, despite not agreeing. Love takes on all shapes. It’s rarely simple or easily comprehended, but Goodbye Solo gives us a sadly short friendship set in the natural world. We’re never truly alone, no matter how isolated we can feel.

What I liked: A complicated, deeply human story. Solo was a great character who exhibited noble qualities. His step-daughter Alex was great in her limited screen time. There is an incredible scene at the end where William and Solo share a moment of understanding. That moment, a few seconds in time without a spoken word, had more emotion in it than I would have thought possible.

What I disliked: There was very little to dislike in the film, really, but it was sad. That’s not really a criticism, but I don’t have much else to put here. There was nothing I would have specifically changed, because the movie as a whole was ultimately solid.

Rating: 9 of 10

The story behind Lemon Tree is quite simple, but the details make it more than a David versus Goliath story. Salma decides to use the courts to argue her case, though, and enlists the help of a lawyer Ziad Daud (Ali Suliman) to fight this battle. As she spends more time with the younger Ziad, though, they become attracted to each other. She respects his ability to argue the case, and he admires her spirit and tenacity. Just when she finds something positive in her horrible situation, a family “friend” comes in to warn her to stop disrespecting the memory of her husband. It’s not enough that her people are being oppressed by a crushing military, but she is also a minority among her own people. The rules for her are different than those for men, and Salma is forced to quell her own emotions. Her hope evaporates immediately afterwards.

I know that my belief in gender equality is arbitrary, that it’s very likely I value it because it’s a direction that my own culture is headed. Still, I choose to believe in the potential of every person being able to determine for himself or herself some of life’s basic choices: who to love, how to be productive and employed, what to like, and how to be happy. I cannot be content so long as people are prevented from making their own choices because they live on the wrong side of a wall, read the wrong books, have the wrong color flesh or happen to be born with the wrong sex organs.

What I liked: A powerful story about culture and freedom, and how disenfranchised some of us are. Salma and Ziad’s budding relationship is torturous to watch knowing it will not flourish. There is so much wasted potential in our world, and Lemon Tree makes it abundantly clear we need to be doing more about it.

What I disliked: Some of the plot seems a little predictable. Also, some of the decisions by the neighbor, Mira, strike me as late in coming. She only attempts to be neighborly and see Salma after the grove has already been fenced off. And then when she finally decides to leave the Defense Minister, the grove has already been doomed by the court rulings.

Rating: 8 of 10

Goodbye Solo, Ritz at the Bourse at 5:25p
Lemon Tree, Ritz Five at 7:40p
Is Anybody There?, Ritz Five at 9:55p

As always, if you’re around and care to join me, please do. Movies on Wednesdays at the Ritz are $6 all day, and parking meters aren’t enforced after 6:30ish.

I feel like this is the last time I’ll be up to date in a while. There are five new movies scheduled already for each of the next two weeks. Add that to the number of trailers I’ve already seen for movies not in this list, and it’s looking like a very busy summer.

• Outrage
• Goodbye Solo *

Outrage was a pretty good film on a very important topic. Goodbye Solo looks like it might be truly awesome. I am looking forward to this one like I haven’t in a while.

* One Week Only

Adoration
Departures
Every Little Step
Girlfriend Experience, The
Goodbye Solo (x2)
Limits of Control, The (x2)
Little Ashes
Management
Rudo y Cursi
Song of Sparrows, The
Stoning of Soraya M., The
Tennessee
Tulpan

The first clip before every movie at Landmark Theater, though, is an advertisement for HDNet. It has been the same clip since last year sometime, so I’m getting pretty tired of it. HDNet and Landmark Theaters are both owned by Mark Cuban, so I can understand the connection. There’s a monthly Sneak Preview of upcoming movies shown on HDNet. Since HDNet Movies was removed from my DirecTV package sometime in the past couple of years, I haven’t watched the channel at all.

Ryuhei Sasaki (Teruyuki Kagawa) in Tokyo Sonata learns the hard way the extent of control of his destiny when he gets laid off from his administrative management position. His depatment is relocating out of town, forcing him to leave or move to another position. When asked, though, he cannot name enough skills or abilities to justify himself in another role. Shame prevents Ryûhei from telling his wife Megumi (Kyôko Koizumi). Instead he leaves for work every morning only to wait in the park for a charitable lunch between sessions of looking for other employment.

While this is going on, Megumi struggles to keep her family together at home. Their older son Takashi (Yu Koyanagi) has been gone most of the time and the younger Kenji (Inowaki Kai) is quiet and uninspired. Takashi worries about not finding respectible work and decides to enlist as a foreign soldier in the United States Army. Takashi is bored in school and torments a teacher to channel his energy. One day coming home from school he sees a beautiful piano teacher and tries to convince his father to let him take piano lessons. When he is refused, he uses his lunch money for lessons instead, practicing on a broken and silent electric piano he found abandoned in the trash. Neither boy is aware that their father has lost his job.

Ryuhei sees his family coming apart, and takes all the blame squarely on himself. He tries to assert is authority, usually with screaming and sometimes with violence. The family is slowly and usually silently tearing apart. Ryuhei doesn’t adjust to the situation, and his family resent him for it. Each character then undergoes some dramatic event or happening that forces each one to re-evaluate their lives and their choices. At this moment the film goes to a transcendent, almost magical place that is both sublime and inspirational.

What I liked: Deep characters going through very challenging times. They don’t always deal with these moments well. Families are resilient, though, and this one is no exception. A quirky story about honor, love, responsibility, and the choices we make. The understanding that no matter how well things might be working out, you can never stop making choices.

What I disliked: Some of the cultural issues I have a problem with. It is probably a cultural or personal bias, but I have difficulty understanding how anyone could not tell his spouse he lost his job, especially when he was the only source of income. I think the story of the older son got dropped, and I would have liked to have seen that resolved.

Rating: 9 of 10

Scott Bartlett (Rory Culkin) is a fifteen year-old growing up on Long Island. In so many ways he’s a typical kid growing up in the late 70s/early 80s. He’s got a star wars toy collection, a girl he likes, and he gets picked on in school. But Scott is playing against a stacked deck. His mom Brenda (Jill Hennessy) and philandering dad Mickey (Alec Baldwin) aren’t getting along. His brother Jimmy (Kieran Culkin) is back home on leave from the Army. Adrienne (Emma Roberts), his girlfriend, keeps prodding him along but he’s too uncertain and timid. Her dad Charlie (Timothy Hutton) has contracted lyme disease and sits in a basement closet all day while her mom Melissa (Cynthia Nixon) is beginning to come apart. The tension and disharmony keeps piling on everyone.

Scott handles this onslaught of family issue like he handles everything–with a cool detachment. Things just seem to roll off of him, like when he lets a bigger classmate beat on him instead of fighting back. Mickey and Adrienne both push him in their own way to engage his own life, with some moderate success. Scott’s just on his own time, and figures out his own path by the end.

This is the kind of movie where things don’t truly get resolved. I think we get enough hope that Scott is going to make it through this trying time in his young adulthood. All people, whether they are strangers or our immediate family, are going to have their own problems. It is not up to us to solve them. We must focus on ourselves and make sure we’re doing what’s best for us, and maybe we’ll show others find their way in the process.

What I liked: A terrific cast. Rory and Kieran Culkin both deliver very solid performances but Alec Baldwin dominates the screen whenever he’s on. Even when he plays degenerate characters he stays sympathetic and likable. He’s a real gift. I think the movie revealed things through Scott’s perspective more than through a neutral third-person perspective, which was a little odd until I caught on to it.

What I disliked: It’s hard for me to find things I didn’t like here. This is my kind of movie in so many ways. Sometimes characters showed too much restraint, and kept their thoughts inside too long. Many story lines for these characters roll off the tracks right in front of our eyes in this film, but I didn’t get the sense that things would have progressed naturally to that point. It felt a little like a trick in some ways.

Rating: 8 of 10

I cannot imagine a much more disturbing and frightening circumstane. Dee Roberts, the heroine of this real-life story, was just one of many people targeted in sweeping drug raids that occurred all over Texas. She was targeted for being poor and black, and likely unable to defend herself. A racist District Attorney Calvin Beckett (Michael O’Keefe) was using convictions via guilty plea-agreements in return for federal drug money.

Dee was more fortunate that most in her circumstance. Her mother managed to get her bail reduced through a petition campaign. Then with some help from a couple of ACLU lawyers and a sympathetic local attorney, they fought back against the DA. Against formidable odds and recrimination, they sued for discriminaion.

This case highlights the difficulties many folks face in trying to receive justice in our society. Those who cannot afford a good lawyer are often left to make plea agreements that will have long-lasting ramifications that aren’t easily understood. We all must do our part to voice our opposition to injustice and inequality, and American Violet does well to begin that conversation

What I liked: A touching story of a caring family struck by calamity. A solid cast led quite powerfully by Nicole Beharie, someone I cannot recall seeing before. The DA was given all kinds of chances to be a complete villain and yet sometimes even acted civilly as his duty would require.

What I disliked: A formula that was a little common, especially for the underdog drama. Some of the parts our well-established characters played could have been farmed out to new characters to help move the story points along. Alfre Woodard’s character Alma tended to bounce back and forth between supporting grandmother and nit-picking authoritarian.

Rating: 7 of 10

American Violet, Ritz Five at 5:05p
Lymelife, Ritz at the Bourse at 7:35p
Tokyo Sonata, Ritz at the Bourse at 9:40p

There are some interesting options in the first slot.  I’m choosing essentially between Is Anybody There?, Lemon Tree and American Violet all of which are at the Ritz Five. After that I will need to hustle over to the Ritz at the Bourse.  Tokyo Sonata is on a one-week only run; that’s the one I really need to see this week.

As always, if you’re around and care to join me, please do. Movies on Wednesdays at the Ritz are $6 all day, and parking is free at all parking meters after a certain time which I cannot recall.

• American Violet
• Is Anybody There?
• Lemon Tree
• Lymelife
• Tokyo Sonata *

I have seen the trailers for all five of the films, and I’m excited for each one. I almost saw an advanced showing for Lymelife Wednesday but ended up see Outrage instead.   It was hard to go wrong with those two.

* One Week Only

May is kicking off with a bang, though, because five movies are slated to open tomorrow alone! Hopefully I can see them all before they disappear from the screen.

Kirby Dick, the director of Outrage, thinks we should be outraged, and do something about it. And I think he’s right.  He highlights the mission of Michael Rogers–expose the hypocrites by outing them. Michael runs a site called BlogActive, which draws attention to the hypocrisy of elected officials who have been discovered having gay relationships while at the same time voting against gay rights. His stated aim is to get these lawmakers’ personal views out in the open to convince them to be more supportive of the cause.   Others contend the traditional media do not publish enough stories on this issue, and most people are sorrowfully under-informed.

Personally I don’t really understand why people are so opposed to gays specifically or homosexuality in general.  I don’t believe we can choose who we’re attracted to, and we should be free to engage in meaningful and recognized relationships with whomever we choose.  We should be protecting all people against discrimination, hate speech, and encouraging people to look past their differences.  The country will only benefit.  

I was lucky to see this interesting film at a special screening where Kirby Dick spoke to the audience and answered questions about the film.   He clarified his message that politicians who vote against homosexual rights issues perpetuate the false notion that there is some inherent wrongness in the position.  He implored us to tell our friends to come and see this film, in the hope that the more people who see it, the greater the consciousness of the issues of gay rights will be in our culture as a whole.  I couldn’t agree more.  See this important and well executed film.

What I liked: The simple and straightforward structure of the film.  Dick interviewed lots of people who have been working to expose the hypocrisy of elected officials.  Seeing the dismal voting record and how those seemingly simple decisions have far reaching consequences.

What I disliked: Some of the concepts weren’t especially well covered.  I think the question of how the major media doesn’t cover these issues enough was underrepresented in screen time.  I would have liked to see more data on what happened to officials’ voting patterns after they have been outed.  

Rating: 7 of 10

The Ritz Theaters is running a special Saturday evening summer promotion starting May 2. These are single showings only, not the regular weekly run. They’re also only playing at midnight, when nothing else in the theater is likely to be showing. They’re classic movies instead of new releases. The schedule for these shows is:

Saturday, May 2, BACK TO THE FUTURE
Saturday, May 9, THE SHINING
Saturday, May 16, THE CITY OF LOST CHILDREN
Saturday, May 23, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
Saturday, May 30, REAR WINDOW
Saturday, June 6, GHOSTBUSTERS
Saturday, June 13, THE BIG LEBOWSKI
Saturday, June 20, SPIRITED AWAY

I’ve seen all but The City of Lost Children and The Big Legowski. I’m leaning toward not counting them. The challenge I established for myself was to see the movies released in the year, not special one-time only events. Since one of the goals of this project is to write a review for each movie I see, this list of eight films will eventually add two new movies to see and eight new reviews. That doesn’t add much value, in my opinion.

The reaction of everyone in the theater was to shush her. Some told her to shut up, and other uttered things I cannot in good conscience repeat on this page. She was on the phone for far too long, but eventually ended the call. Later, she walked up to the top of the theater and took two more phone calls. It was unbelievable.

It amazes me that people are so inconsiderate. I feel self-conscious if my phone vibrates loudly and would never intentionally leave my phone on for a film. Is awareness for others so foreign to people today that they wouldn’t care if their insanely loud cell phones and conversations are bothering other people.

When I passed on this story to a friend I was informed that recently someone in a theater got shot for talking on a cell phone by another moviegoer. This apparently happened in a theater I have visited in the past six months, not some out of the way place. I can say that I understand.

When this happens, I’m tempted to tell someone who works for the theater about it, but I don’t want to leave and miss some of the movie. In the event yesterday, nobody else left, either. I think the movie theater should provide some kind of text-messaging or email system that customers can quickly send a message to in the even the volume is too loud, or the screen is off center or a really obnoxious guest is talking on a cell phone. Texting is quiet and easy enough to deliver without leaving the theater and missing the show.

I have started to question whether my ratings are staying true or whether I’m starting to inflate my scores. I don’t see many movies that show at the regular multiplex theaters. I suspect that if I did I would probably find more movies to score lower. I’m actually planning to see one tomorrow, though. The Soloist looks like it could be really interesting and I’m a big fan of Robert Downey Jr. I’ve been very fortunate to have seen a dozen movies in the last three weeks, and most of this is due to the fact my extended family have been spending the weekends with the kids. It frees Linda and me up for some extra movie times, and I’ve been taking full advantage. Now I’m caught up at the Ritz again, and five new movies are opening this coming Friday. April has been truly a whirlwind of film.

In the Dominican Republic, Miguel is a top talent. He’s clearly an outstanding ballplayer who’s got the right stuff to take a shot at the big leagues. That opportunity is compounded by a chance to get into the United States, where very few people are as poor as where Miguel got started. He gets a tryout with a farm team of a Major League Baseball club, and does well enough to make the IA team, located in Iowa. He gets on a plane and starts showing off some of his talent and performing quite well. For Sugar, at least, things are going well on the baseball diamond.

Off the field is another matter. Sugar has a hard time communicating with anyone as nobody speaks Spanish and he speaks only a few words of English. His host family is obsessed with the baseball team, and talk to him of little else. The rules and structure of the organization begin wearing him down. The girls he’d like to get to know don’t understand him and he has few bonding opportunities with anyone. Then injury strikes. Sugar goes through a slump after his recovery, and can’t seem to catch up to his pre-injury state. The game is suddenly faster than he can cope with, and he sees his one opportunity slipping away like it has for so many others before him.

So Miguel makes the decision to disappear from the team and head to New York like a Dominican teammate of his had done earlier in the season. Sugar didn’t make it to the big leagues. His ultimate hope for success was still alive, though, if he could find some way to make it in the US. With some luck and some essential aid from newly acquired friends, he manages to stabilize himself in New York.

What I liked: A different kind of baseball movie. Miguel was looking for success and happiness, and realized that a life in baseball wasn’t going to provide that. He left that dream behind and sought out his path another way, the harder way, in New York. I loved the emotional timbre of this film. Sugar’s angst and dissatisfaction over the life of a ballplayer grew over the course of the film, and he ceased loving the one thing that had given him hope. Watching him go through that transformation was painful and powerful. We as viewers never got to forget how hard it is for someone in their late teens to grow up while struggling with the enormous professional challenge of sport.

What I disliked: Some of the decision Miguel made were odd, and not quite fully explained. The language barrier shouldn’t have been as big a source of tension in the locker room environment, for instance, because there were plenty of Spanish speaking players around. .

Rating: 8 of 10

Émilie meets a young man Gabriel when she’s trying to find a cab to her hotel. He gives her a ride, instead, and very shyly asks her to dinner. She accepts. They have a nice evening out and as he returns her to her hotel, he attempts to give her a small kiss. She refuses, saying that she cannot accept because the consequences are too severe. A friend of hers, she explains, did that once and it changed her life forever. To prove herself, she relays the story to her new friend, and we the viewers flashback to the key moments she discusses.

Judith is her friend, who is married to a wonderful man, Claudio. They seem perfectly happy. Judith is a longtime best friend with Nicolas, from when they went to college. When Nicolas suffers a kind of ennui as a result of not sharing any intimacy with anyone in so long. He pleads with Judith to help him and she reluctantly accedes. In the course of events, they kiss, which leads to their making love. While this cures Nicolas from his wasting sickness, it kindles a desire between Judith and Nicolas that continues to flourish.

The spiral downard from there is largely predictable, but touching and sad simultaneously. Émelie tells all this to her new friend, and under some careful restrictions, allows Gabriel to kiss her. After their moment was concluded, he left the room and her life forever.

What I liked: The tender way the movie dealt with the passions shared. I enjoyed the witty dialog and the clever situational moments. There were certainly moments when I could completely sympathize with the characters. The movie never took itself too seriously, but explored the nature of love and friendship, closeness and chemistry all with some interesting results.

What I disliked: There was one thing that bothered me about the story. The final kiss between Émelie and Gabriel was beautiful, but didn’t fit with the story. She originally refused the kiss on the grounds that she was too concerned about the consequences. But after telling the whole story sharing the evening with Gabriel, she risks it anyway. If she had just acquiesced originally and just got out of the car, nothing would have been different. Except we wouldn’t have had the movie we did, obviously.

Rating: 7 of 10

To ease off himself a little bit, Art takes a job working at a Book Barn for minimum wage. His manager takes a liking to him, though, and they quickly embark on a very intimate relationship. Then he meets up with a college roommate who takes him to a party, where all the rigid and respectable plans begin to unravel. He meets a beautiful girl Jane (Sienna Miller) with whom he has a nice conversation. Until her boyfriend accosts him at work, then abducts him. They head to an abandoned factory where the two actually become friends.

Cleveland (Peter Skarsgaard) takes a liking to Art, and vice-versa. Art is quiet, thoughtful, and reserved, while Cleveland is gregarious, energetic, and free-spirited. The summer then proceeds to take many odd twists for everyone. Art becomes more attached to Jane and Cleveland, Jane gets accepted into a music school in San Francisco, Art’s now ex-girlfriend starts sending her new boyfriend to harass him. Cleveland is in trouble with some gangsters. The tension between all is made bearable by the attraction they feel for each other. The summer must come to an end, though, and it’s not an especially happy one for these friends. Art begins to make choices for himself, though, and begins to live his life. It might not go perfectly, but at least he’s got a chance. And isn’t that what we all at least hope for?

What I liked: The Mysteries of Pittsburgh, based on a book by Michael Chabon, is an ambitious movie. It creates very involved characters with complex longing and passions. It takes a complicated view of friendship and sexuality, which I’m hoping are trademarks of Chabon. Peter Skarsgaard really delivered in his role.

What I disliked: There are so many great stories that the movie couldn’t really resolve many of them, and ended too soon. I don’t think it explored the issues enough, and settled superficially. I think if done well this could have been an amazing movie, instead of just a pretty good one.

Rating: 7 of 10

All that said, Anvil! The Story of Anvil works whether the story is true or just an elaborate fabrication. The documentary is about the band Anvil, which is really two Canadian guys: Steve “Lips” Kudlow and Robb Reiner. They were a very early heavy metal band with a big sound and a stage presence imitated, or so we’re told, by many of the big bands that would follow after them, like Metallica, Slayer, and Anthrax. Unlike those other groups, though, Anvil didn’t have the commercial or popular success. They toiled away in obscurity, releasing albums periodically but unable to quit the menial day jobs.

The movie begins roughly when the band members are 50 years old, but they haven’t quit. They embark on a European tour that ends up a disaster. They play to empty houses, miss their trains, fight with club owners over pay, and have a generally lousy time. When that fails they turn to recording a new album. And to raise the $20,000 they need to do that requires some serious begging and pleading. And when they try to pitch the albums to the record studios, the disappointment hits home again.

But this documentary is a success because of the people in it. Lips and Robb are best friends. Sure, they disagree and fight; all good friends do. Their passion for making good music and dedication to the life of artists is what makes them so likable. They never let their failures keep them down for long. It is this determination to succeed, to achieve their dream of becoming successful rock stars, that allows us to admire them.

What I liked: The dream-like quality of the film. These guys are so genuine and passionate about their dream. It’s inspiring.

What I disliked: Not knowing whether to believe the story or not. While I don’t think it matters one way or another, because I liked it so much, some of the similarities are just too astounding to ignore.

Rating: 8 of 10

• Anvil
• The Mysteries of Pittsburgh
• Shall We Kiss?
• Sugar

Anvil is the first movie I can recall that I really am not looking forward to seeing.  It looks too much like This is Spinal Tap.   Sugar looks like a pretty enjoyable baseball movie.   I remember seeing the previerw for Shall We Kiss? and thougt it was a little odd, but cute.  The Mysteries of Pittsburgh looks like my kind of movie, though I’ve been deceived by trailers before.   I am indeed looking forward to another interesting week, though.

The second act was a single lengthy conversation between one inmate and a priest. Bobby Sands is his name. He is trying to win rights for the prisoners who are imprisoned for what he considers political crimes. During most of this smoke filled scene the camera stays motionless as the priest and Bobby Sands converse. We see only a shadowy profile for both as the two exchange witty but serious sentiments. Our takeaway from this meeting is that Bobby is planning a hunger strike. He is convinced it is his only course of action. He wants results.

The final act is Bobby’s ordeal during his hunger strike. He becomes emaciated. Sores develop all over his body. He has trouble hearing and staying awake. Visions begin to fill his few waking moments. Toward the end he cannot even bear the feel of a sheet over his body, which must be draped over a cage above his prone form. We’re told at the very end of the film it takes 66 days for him to succumb to this form of self-torture. His final moments are memories of other times, hardly aware his parents are with him. Also stated before the final credits was the fact that the demands of the hunger strike were eventually met, but without any acknowledgment by the English government.

What I liked: The passionate convictions of Bobby Sands. The gritty storytelling and some unconventional camera work. The scene with the priest was one very long shot with lots of sharp dialog. Actually, it was the only real dialog of the entire film.

What I disliked: Needing to witness to awful treatment that people endure over political conflicts. It’s amazing that within my own lifetime in “civilized” countries there are still disagreements so fundamentally cruel that people are willing to die in incredibly painful ways to try to earn more rights for their countrymen. That’s not a criticism of this film, however. I think more coverage of the stories that led these people to be in prison would have been useful for truly understanding the source of the conflict.

Rating: 8 of 10

In the film, however, the town is called Borgo. It’s full of larger than life characters and personalities. Everyone has a jovial, almost juvenile viewpoint. Each player in this film has been caricatured to highlight their particular oddities. Titta, ostensibly the role of Fellini himself, spends his days pulling pranks and wearing the shortest short pants I’ve ever seen. His father Aurelio blows his temper at the slightest insubordination from anyone, while Titta’s uncle never gets worked up over anything. Aurelio’s wife Miranda calms Aurelio down and tries to temper everything her male family members do.

Titta has developed a very healthy adolescent lust for various members the town. There’s the beautiful hairdresser Gradisca who struts around town. And Volpina, the airheaded blonde prostitute who wisps around town wherever them men seem to be. Then there’s the tobaccanist with her enormous bosom that Titta just wants to cuddle up to.

It is the love shown for all these variaous flawed and funny characters that make this movie special. We live one year with everyone, from spring through to spring, witnessing the pranks and the passion, the laughs and loves, the succor and the sadness.

What I liked: The great personalities of the individuals in this place. The whole town just fits together so perfectly. It’s like getting stranded with all your favorite aunts and most outrageous uncles and jovial cousins for a whole year.

What I disliked: As much as I liked it this isn’t really my kind of movie. Sure, ti’s beautiful in what it does, but it’s not challenging in any serious way. Maybe my experience of my own childhood is too different, or maybe I’m just too serious of a person. Some of the crassness got old after a while.

Rating: 8 of 10

For the first half of the presentation I felt jealous of Isaiah. There, on the screen and in my own town, was someone who lived his life with tremendous purpose. He spent 35 years creating art that chronicled his family’s life. Through this period he was supported and loved by his wife and two sons. His seeming tireless devotion made me aware of the lack of that kind of focus in my own life.

But the second half of the movie presented a darker side to those qualities. His passion for his art turned out to be less of an expression of his thoughts and dreams but more of a place to hide from his personal demons. His prodigious output felt more like a side effect of a malfunctioning brain or psyche. It was a fantastic effort to stave off thoughts of suicide and depression. Isaiah struggled with declining passion for live and for his marriage. He and his entire family endured much drama, including affairs, divorces, drug rehabilitation, childhood sexual abuse and general unhappiness. It brought home the reality for me that there is no way to live your life in a dream. There is no perfect, fulfilled life. We as humans are constantly struggling with our existence, and the only way to combat it is to stay engaged in your relationships, your work, and your mind.

What I liked: Beautiful artwork. Some great panning camera work showing Isaiah touring his artwork. Also, there were great montage moments of family history and artwork that conveyed a great deal of the human side of Isaiah’s family and work. Touching music played behind some great camera shots. I’m looking forward to taking a few moments to tour some of his work in the near future.

What I disliked: Nothing major, actually. I think there was some room for more of Isaiah’s history but overall I thought the story worked really well.

Rating: 9 of 10

But, catching even that one film was enough to present a chance to see the three as yet unseen movies this week. They are:

In a Dream, Ritz at the Bourse, 5:10p
Amarcord, Ritz at the Bourse, 7:00p
Hunger, Ritz at the Bourse, 9:50p

Come join me if you’re interested in seeing a film on Wednesday.

The movie The Wild Child is based on true events about such a young boy, ultimately given the name Victor. He is a dirty, skinny child who has been living completely isolated from other humans by foraging in the woods for mushrooms and drinking from streams. When captured he was obviously frightened and often bit at his captors. During his transport, he is leashed like a dog and other men and children taunt him. He is a bizarre novelty, and is never treated humanely until the Doctor takes him as a charge.

Dr. Itard has an interest in learning whether the boy has inside him what he considers human. Those two elements are an ability to communicate using language and a general emotional understanding of right and wrong. While he ultimately succeeds in the latter, the former is never fully grasped. Despite all his attempts, Victor never really grasps language as a concept except for understanding a few words.

The beauty in the movie is the way that Victor eventually opens up and adapts to the human way of living. Much of the movie is overdubbed with the doctor’s words as he writes in his journal. While it was obvious the doctor cared for Victor, the movie presentation felt cold, clinical and dispassionate. Some of the cuts and fade-outs were stylized from an earlier period of film, and gave it a sense of being closer in sync with the pre-film era during which these events took place. I certainly enjoyed the film, and I’m sorry I missed seeing it in the theater.

What I liked: A touching story of human exploration and kindness. I was very eager to see what would happen simply because of my own curiosity. I wondered what would happen if a child were discovered today under these circumstances.

What I disliked: Abruptness in the story telling. Many things weren’t adequately explained. This might have been a translation problem. The doctor was very cold and methodical most of the time, even if he did seem to care overall.

Rating: 6 of 10

Paris 36 is the story of a group of people in a small suburb of Pairs whose lives revolve around a local theater, the Chansonia. Unfortunately for the town and the owner, though, it’s not making enough money. When a local business man demands payment for a debt or he will take ownership of the theater, the actual owner kills himself in despair. Everyone working for the theater is left unemployed and the town suffers a loss. The film’s main character Pigoil, a thirty-five year veteran of the theater, takes it very hard. His wife, a performer, leaves him. His son secretly stops going to school so he can beg for money so they can eat. Eventually he even loses custody of his son when the police find him begging and he’s left in the care of his mother.

Things take a turn some time later when a young woman comes town. She’s unknown to everyone except the local hermit who keeps in touch by listening to his radio. Everyone joins in together to try to get the Chansonia open again, and with a lot of luck they manage. But some schemes and interference of the corrupt businessman derail their plans more than once. Ultimately, though, the friendship and courage of the townsfolk wins out. Their love and determination are the eventual hope for themselves and for the little town they inhabit.

What I liked: The sweet characters who lived in this movie. The overwhelming loss for the character of Pigoil through most of the film was painfully sad but somehow endearing. The friendships and the enduring hardship that everyone faced was touching

What I disliked: Some confusing plot holes. The lack of apparent aging for almost all the characters through some rather long periods of time. Some of the shifts seemed abrupt or unexplained.

Rating: 7 of 10

As I move forward I intend to write the reviews sooner after seeing the films. I saw Rachel Getting Married sometime in 2008, and it was difficult to remember some aspects of the film. Wish me luck!

• Amarcord
• Hunger
• In a Dream
• Paris 36

Amarcord is a restored 1973 Federico Fellini movie that I’ve never seen.  I don’t know much about the films Hunger or In a Dream.   I have seen a couple of previews for Paris 36 and I while I am hopeful, it does have similarities to movies I have seen before.  My hope is that it isn’t too unoriginal.

The opening short in this film was called “Interior Design” by Michel Gondry. I’m already a huge fan of his for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. His story was about Hiroko and her boyfriend Akira. He’s an aspiring filmmaker trying to promote a film he’s made. They move to Tokyo to screen it in a porn theater even though his film isn’t pornographic. Everything is much more expensive than they were prepared for. They cannot find an apartment, their car is ticketed and eventually towed, and they’ve outstayed their welcome with the one friend who put them up. The end of the movie is about Hiroko and her feelings of self-worth, and I won’t spoil it, but it’s awesome.

The middle segment is called “Merde” by Leos Carax. I haven’t seen anything else by this person, but now I want to. Merde is a madman living in the sewers of Tokyo who comes up to the surface and terrorizes everyone to get flowers to eat and to lick people. He’s elusive and destructive, and after killing some of the people on the surface he is arrested and imprisoned. But nobody is able to talk to him except for French lawyer Maître Voland, who speaks the unreal language of gibberish and gestures.

The final segment “Shaking Tokyo” is about a special type of recluse called a “Hikikomori”. He gets money from his father through the mail and spends all his time reading, crapping, and eating standing up. His house is meticulously organized with all his essentials and reading materials and trash collected over the eleven years he’s been shut-in. One day, though, he becomes so enamored with a young woman in a garter belt who is delivering the pizza he has just ordered that he looks her in the eyes. After she leaves he’s overwhelmed with the desire to see her again but discovers that she has become a hikikomori herself.

All three pieces are wacky, surreal examinations of life in a booming metropolis. They offer great insights and downright bizarre perspectives on what it means to be alive in the modern world. I very highly recommend this film to anyone who likes movies that are just different.

What I liked: The colorful and original storytelling that took place. I am going to be thinking about the imagery and characters for weeks.

What I disliked: Nothing. Really, nothing. Except maybe that the amazing ride had to end.

Rating: 10 of 10

She’s the heroine of Everlasting Moments, the eventual mother of seven children. Maria cleans people’s houses, can sew anything, and helps out all over the place. Her husband Sigfrid (Mikael Persbrandt) is a hulking man who has no trouble finding work, booze, or women to trifle with. But somehow it works for them, most of the time at least. Maria’s life is changed one day when she tries to sell a camera she uncovers one day while cleaning. When the shop owner encourages her to at least try it out, she unearths a passion for photography. She has a natural eye that attracts the shop keeper’s interest both professionally and emotionally.

Through everything, including physical and verbal abuse, untold cheating and even after sending her husband to jail, Maria sticks with her family without voicing much of a complaint. We get to see her pass up opportunity to explore her passion and her change at love. It’s a beautiful and yet heartbreaking thing. Her children, who do not really understand the relationship with their father, never realize their own chance at success and happiness will be at her expense.

What I liked: The everyday heroes in the story. Maria was the most incredible parent I’ve seen in a movie in months. Her spirit and drive for her family moved me personally. It’s a beautiful story.

What I disliked: The narration by the daughter. It didn’t ever work. All the voice-over work was unnecessary and I felt detracted from the story. She was a minor character who didn’t offer any particular insights in a film that already gave us plenty of omniscient viewpoints. Wishing Maria would just leave and get on with it.

Rating: 8 of 10

Everlasting Moments, Ritz Five, 7:05p
Tokyo!, Ritz at the Bourse, 9:45p

As always it’s short notice, but if anyone out there wants to join me, come on down to the Ritz Wednesday.

This movie, however, adds some extra elements. It’s set in Russia and the defendant is a Chechnan teenager charged with killing his stepfather. Almost nobody has much sympathy to this youth. Added to this mix though we the viewers get to flash back to certain moments in the life of the defendant, and observe his troubled life. Also, the stories of the jury members are updated, and many new back stories are created to give the deliberations some life.

Unfortunately, though, these additions make things much more clouded than clear. Stories seem to go on and on and have little or no relevance to the story. The flashbacks provide very little insight to any of the case details, and are distracting. And the final case made by Juror number 1 is just plain silly. I wasn’t expecting a remake of the original. If you’re going to borrow so many elements of a perfectly crafted story, and then change many of the details that make it work, you’re surely destined to fumble a bit. I think 12 fumbled a lot, and lots of strong acting performances and interesting speeches didn’t save it from the terrible holes in the story itself.

What I liked: The intensity of the characters. Adding some background to the stories of the original film. Some really strong performances by some interesting actors.

What I disliked: Stories that were just logically absurd. Nobody really made any sense in this movie. If I didn’t know the original 12 Angry Men story much more in this movie would have been confusing. Many characters drifted in and out and didn’t seem to stay true to themselves.

Rating: 3 of 10

In addition to that, I’ve got the opportunity now to see another movie tomorrow. Linda and I are going to the 1:20 showing of 12 thanks to the gracious willingness of her sister Christie to watch the kids for the afternoon. I am a big fan of 12 Angry Men and look forward to catching that tomorrow. I will probably see the four new movies by the end of the week!

Sin Nombre (which translates to “The Nameless” or “Without a Name”) is a tale about the struggle of these untold thousands and millions who seek only the opportunity to escape the deprivation. In particular, it centers on two people. Willy (Edgar Flores) is a young man who has chosen the life of a gang member. He appears to have done this for practical purposes–protection and security. He keeps his personal life private, at the very physical risk of a few beatings. Sayra (Paulina Gaitan) is a young woman who is being taken to the United States by her long-absent father. They’re trying to ride freight trains all the way through Mexico to get to the US.

Willy and Sayra meet on one of these trains under a very stressful circumstance. A member of Willy’s gang is shaking down the illegal passengers. When he finds Sayra, he decides he wants more than her cash. Willy decides to take a stand, fully aware it will probably cost him his life. From then on he tries to help Sayra complete her journey. All the while they’re surrounded by nameless faces all trying to find their ultimate destination–hope and the freedom from poverty.

What I liked: Almost everything from a nearly perfect movie. The cinematography was awesome. The story was touching and brutal, and the absence of real hope from each person in the movie was palpable, though in greatly different ways.

What I disliked: I would have liked to have known more about Sayra earlier in the movie. While I understand that developing that story more might have limited the drama in the events that did happen, I think that an opportunity was missed there.

Rating: 9 of 10

Opening up this week are these films:

• 12
• Everlasting Moments
• Sin Nombre
• Tokyo!

12 is an updated version of 12 Angry Men which I think looks intense.  I’ve seen previews for Sin Nombre and Everlasting Moments and both would appear to be challenging films.  Tokyo! appears to be an intriguing series of shorter films by three different directors, each with a distinct style.  Two of these films are showing for one week only, and four movies are scheduled to open again next week.  Let the fun begin!

Just when she starts looking for some change, her married boyfriend Mac (Steve Zahn) suggests she start a business cleaning crime scenes. It makes no sense, but she decides to do it anyway, and brings her sister along as well. While the work is disgusting, Rose begins to take a certain pride in it, and finds solace in helping people when they need it most.

Plenty of drama ensues throughout the film, between all the members of this grieving family. Eventually, though, Rose and Norah help each other out of their respective ruts and vault themselves on a new path toward happiness. For everyone in this story it’s still going to be a long road. But their journey has at least begun.

What I liked: A powerful story. Nice acting by Amy Adams and Emily Blunt.

What I disliked: A little too much formula. The movie introduced some difficult themes, but the nearly happy ending was a bit out of place. The lives of the characters were too out of whack for them to have even been getting by with any functionality. A trailer that promoted entirely the wrong mood for the film.

Rating: 8 of 10

The story itself takes place in a quiet town someplace in the desert in the American Southwest. One night while the townsfolk are going about their business, an alien ship crashes into a butte. The yokels who first discover this craft are ignored or pulverized by an evil alien who turns its victims into puddles of muddy water. A local scientist finds his way to the craft and his body is taken over by another alien on the damaged vessel. With the eventual help of the sleuthing townsfolk who put together the mystery, the warden alien begins to catch up to the killer. But they must act before it multiplies and kills all life on the planet.

It’s not entirely surprising that this movie succeeds. That it does so with so many hearty laughs and “aw, shucks” moments is actually a somewhat surprising. The audience I shared this film with chuckled often and loudly, and nobody seemed to leave disappointed. I suppose that’s not a bad place to be.

What I liked: The fun, whimsical tone of this film. From beginning to end it didn’t take anything too seriously, and the effort paid off.

What I disliked: Sometimes the over-the-top style was a bit excessive. The movie didn’t have much ambition, and didn’t take any risks.

Rating: 7 of 10

Buck is not the easiest guy to work for, though. He’s got a rough tongue and an acerbic temper when things don’t go exactly as he wants. Troy has the right temperament, though, and lets this negativity roll off of him while still absorbing all the positives Buck has to offer.

While Buck Howard is indeed a fictional character, the character is based on the life of The Amazing Kresken. It is likely also the tale of many mid-level talents that circumstance tends to leave behind before they’re ready.

What I liked: Fun storytelling. Everything moved the story forward and I sympathized with the characters. I quickly grew attached and wanted to see what happened to them next. Colin Hanks was light-hearted and fun in this role.

What I disliked: Simplicity. The movie didn’t take enough risks. There weren’t any particularly deep characters, and thus they didn’t have any difficult choices or conflict. Overall the result is kinda boring at times. Overused the “I’m going to quit now…” theme.

Rating: 7 of 10

• Alien Trespass

It looks like a fun 50s spoof film about Aliens coming to take over the Earth.

The Philadelphia Film Festival continues, so I’m okay even though I didn’t see any films this week.

The Ritz East appears to be completely dedicated to Festival films, and the Ritz Five appears to be losing one screen. That means nine screens and three movies remain for me to see. That’s inspiring. Sometime I’d like to see of the films presented at the Film Festival itself, but not this year.

The story begins during the second World War in London, during the period of perpetual bombing of London by the Germans. People fled for safety underground, and tried to carry on their lives in subterrainean tunnels and caverns. One of our for main characters, Vera (Kiera Knightly) is a singer, entertaining the citizens of London and the soldiers preparing to leave for the front lines. She meets an old lover, Dylan Thomas (Matthew Rhys) and find herself attracted to him once more. Vera is shocked to discover that he has wed Caitlin (Sienna Miller), but it doesn’t diminish her affection for Dylan. Caitlin and Vera take a liking to each other, and their relationship becomes the central interest of the film. Also during this period, a soldier, William (Cillian Murphy) becomes interested in Vera and the two marry before William is deployed.

But when Vera becomes pregnant things change. She’s forced to retreat to the countryside with Caitlin and Dylan to raise her son. Without any way to make money, though, she lives on her husband’s military salary, supporting herself and her friends. While the war drags on, everyday life becomes a chore. When William eventually comes home, he is suffering from the effects of war. He is confused, depressed, and frightened. And poor. He doesn’t believe that the son that Vera has birthed is his own, and he fights with Dylan and his intellectual friends. Vera is struggling with her own feelings for William, and while she thinks she loves him, his gruff exterior will not allow her in.

The characters in this movie all care for each other, but their actions often fall short of love. To me it’s part of what the title really meant. People in a time of war and strife struggle to understand what they’re truly feeling, and confusion dominates. Life on the edge of love must be terrifying. This movie, while far from perfect, attempts to convey some of this turmoil, and mostly succeeds.

What I liked: The stunning camera work for the first section of the movie. It was almost like remembering a dream, or watching through a kaleidescope. Very interesting use of mirrors. Witty dialog.

What I disliked: Slurred speech presented at a low volume. Maybe part of that was just our theater, but it was difficult to make out things here and there, in particular in the first half of the movie.

Rating:7 of 10

Matty came alive only when verbally threatened by the driver of the truck. This accident, this unplanned setback, is how she (and the movie) really got started. It necessitated her abandoning the routines she adhered to. The driver of the truck eventually inserts himself into her life, pointing out to her both directly and by his mere presence, that she hasn’t been engaged in living. Instead of waiting placidly for her husband, who moved out to live with his 22-year old lover, to return, she looked inward to see what it was that she wanted. And Matty came alive.

She took on her headstrong eldest daughter. She challenged her husband and lover. And they challenged her back, with drama aplenty. It was amazing to watch her realize that her husband wasn’t the only one who needed to do some soul-searching, and that she needn’t just wait around for his eventual return. The ending, too, was both powerful and tender, but far from perfect. Matty is a reminder to us all that we must take an active role in our lives. We must all face our complacency instead of coasting by on autopilot.

What I liked: A mid-life crisis story that focused primarily on a woman. Interesting characters who lived their lives while the story continued moving forward.

What I disliked: Some of the outbursts were a little over the top. Some of the minor characterizations were stereotyped and underdeveloped. This is largely excusable because the rest of the story was so solid. Sometimes the odd tension introduced felt heaped on.

Rating: 8 of 10

Now, though, the worst seems behind us, and I’m ready to be inspired again. I was aware of being more blue and less inspired. It crossed my mind every now and then that while I wasn’t getting the spiritual escape from the everyday grind, I wasn’t getting as excited about doing anything. Without a time to play, a time to let your mind and heart search out new worlds, alternate realities, and different truths, you’re not likely to enjoy the things you do have. That applies to the smooth times as much as the rocky ones.

I’m going to try to see the following movies:
Moscow, Belgium (5:10p, Ritz at the Bourse)
The Edge of Love (7:00p, Ritz at the Bourse)

These are my first two choices mainly because they’re leaving the Ritz. I realize my quest to see all these films largely dictates the order of which movies I see, but that isn’t really a problem for me. Overall the goal gives me direction that I’m comfortable with it. Further, the choices are all fantastic anyway. I have seen VERY few movies that I’m disappointed with thus far this year. And I’m up to date on writing reviews for all the movies I’ve seen in 2009 on this quest.

The last movie is going to be one of the following:
Explicit Ills
The Great Buck Howard
Sunshine Cleaning
Crossing Over

All of them look interesting, but I’m going to wait to see how I feel before deciding the last film. Sunshine Cleaning looks humorous and solid. The Great Buck Howard looks quirky but less solid. Explicit Ills is a dark horse and Crossing Over looks current and mediocre. I don’t typically like anything with Ashley Judd, but since I’m compelled to see the movie because of my goal, I’m going to just ignore that fact. Besides, I might ultimately be swayed by not wanting to leave the Ritz at the Bourse!

So wish me luck! I’m already excited. It’s going to be a great night!

• The Edge of Love
• The Great Buck Howard
• Moscow, Belgium
• Sunshine Cleaning

I’ve seen reviews for all of these except The Edge of Love.  Those three all look like fine movies.

In the case of Azur and Asmar, I liked the chioce. The film was highly stylized and absolutely stunning. The artists made tremendous choices in their use of color and computer animation. It’s true I was a little uncertain at first whether the lack of mouth movement or the somewhat jerky animation was simply too odd or unnatural. By the end I was mystified and captivated, and completely at ease with the visuals.

The story itself is notable, too. It’s a nice fairy tale story of two boys, raised somewhat as brothers in someplace resembling England. One boy is blond and blue-eyed, and the other dark-haired with brown eyes. Both children are raised almost exclusively by their mother, who looks more like the dark-haired one. She speaks English to Azur and Arabic to Asmar. Ultimately the English father of Azur takes control of his life and kicks out Asmar and his mother without any thanks.

Due to their mother’s storytelling, they are both captivated by the tale of the Blue Djinn. Each grows up intending to free this mysterious Djinn and marry her. Ultimately they both set off on this path and meet each other along the way.

What I liked: Excellent Animation. A positive multi-cultural approach to fairy tale storytelling.

What I disliked: Still too much dependence on old, tired themes. Let’s press forward to inspire new, better fantasies instead of clunking together a bunch of old ones.

Rating: 8 of 10

• Crossing Over
• Explicit Ills
• Monsieur Verdoux

Monsieur Verdoux is a Charlie Chaplin black comedy.

Making this harder is the fact that two of the new movies from last week are already leaving the Ritz Theaters, so I’m going to have to make those up on DVD release.

In that year, I learned an enormous quantity of things about myself, teaching, and education for a bunch of kids who really don’t see the purpose of it all. The Class is all about that kind of environment. At a school in France, a bunch of very well-meaning and apparently talented teachers attempt to give the disadvantaged students an education that will help them in their real world. Every day those teachers face the real challenge of students without a working understanding of even basic concepts. The students don’t see the value in what they’re learning, as the knowledge doesn’t come close to being practical in their daily lives. Collectively, the class resists education, and often for no reason other than teenage antagonism.

The movie focuses specifically on one teacher and his class of young teens. It follows the arc of one school year. There is very little action in this movie, but it felt so authentic I was almost nauseated when I left the show. I remember the panic that would come over me when I started losing the battle to impart knowledge to my students, and the realization that I was the only chance they would have to learn a particular thing. It is a terrific thrill when things work, when the students listen and even learn. However, it’s also frightening to struggle through the bad days. This movie complete captured that feeling.

What I liked: The great, authentic portrayal of the classroom. The great demonstration of the fine line walked by educators to keep their cool and focus in the face of tremendous adversity. The teachers and their obvious passion to do well, and the chance to see their fallibility as well.

What I disliked: The frequency of scenes in the same space over and over. I know there’s probably a good side to this, but I found it a little draining not changing environment enough.

Rating: 9 of 10

Leonard is troubled most of the time. He suffers from bipolar disorder and depression. He gets through his days helping his parents run a dry cleaning business, but only barely. His parents are aware of this, and attempt to set him up with a nice woman named Sandra (Vinessa Shaw). He doesn’t resist these efforts, but at the same time discovers the woman upstairs, Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow). She’s in a troubled relationship with a married man. He takes on both relationships, blind from each other and from everyone else around him.

Where the story goes from here is interesting and touching, but I won’t reveal that here.

What I liked: The interesting and touching story of Leonard. Joaquin Phoenix does a stellar job in playing this difficult character.

What I disliked: Not a lot. Many of the scenes were dark but it seemed to fit the story.

Rating: 9 of 10

The story itself involved a few distinct branches of the crime family operations. Some people carelessly dumped hazardous waste into unprepared and unsafe areas. Others brutally maintained their order with violence and killings. Still others decided they could go it alone with a renegade style.

Ultimately, though, in this kind of environment, everybody loses. That’s the point I took away, at least. It doesn’t matter if you’re loyal to one side or another, if you’re friends with one person or another, if you keep your mouth shut or sound off at every opportunity. Your life is forfeit if you stay; it’s just a question of when.

What I liked: The gritty filming and storytelling. The engrossing storytelling and back story for many different characters of every age, loyalty, and sex.

What I disliked: Being so involved with such a depressing and dysfunctional environment. That’s no fault of the movie, I understand. It’s hard to bring yourself to observe the depravity that other human beings live in and know there’s little or nothing you can do to stop it.

Rating: 7 of 10

• Absurdistan
• Eleven Minutes
• Phoebe in Wonderland

I’ve seen previews for Absurdistan which looks quite cute, but not the other two.

• Cherry Blossoms
• Gomorrah
• Two Lovers

I’ve seen reviews for Cherry Blossoms and Two Lovers, both of which look like they could go either way.  I think I’m going to be a bigger fan of Cherry Blossoms, but I’m open to liking both.   I don’t have the first clue about Gomorrah.  I’ll find out.

This week’s releases are:

• Harvard Beats Yale 29-29
• The Wild Child

The Wild Child is a re-release of a 1970 French movie by François Truffaut. Harvard Beats Yale looks like a fascinating documentary about a tumultuous time in America.

• Azur and Asmar
• The Class

I have seen previews for the latter, and I’m very interested in it.  The former is another of the one-week variety.  I have a short window of opportunity in which to see this film, so it’s very likely to be my first choice this coming week.

It should come as no surprise I’m not a fan of the horror genre. I get the sense there’s a reason for having everybody in the story die in a revelatory new way. But seriously, an unattached outboard motor? Inside the boat? (I hope I am not spoiling anything here). The first death is shocking enough, I suppose, but each successive one becomes more extreme.

I object also to the moral message that young people acting lewdly after getting drunk, high, and stealing a yacht somehow deserve this gruesome fate. Young people on holiday are out to have a good time. So what?

The only wonder I really about this film is why was it showing at the Ritz Theaters? Was this an arts-house thrasher movie? Was it because other theaters wouldn’t touch the wild home-move orgy scene? Was this a cut above the regular horror flick? I don’t really know. I picked the Ritz for my movie project on the basic assumption this fare is atypical. We’ll see if in one year’s time that holds to be true.

What I liked: Attractive people having fun. That the movie finally ended.

What I disliked: Very unnecessary overdramatic story arc. Stupid characters making very dumb decisions. Over the top and almost comical murders.

Rating: 2/10

Yonkers Joe’s girlfriend is the x-factor that makes this movie watchable. Yes, Chazz Palminteri is a fine actor. Still, he comes off as the square peg in the round hole. He appears too old; he’s neither coordinated enough to handle the action of the movie nor passionate enough in this role to really give the delicate touch his character needed.

What I liked: Christine Lahti as Yonker’s Joe’s girlfriend. Her scenes were really spot on. While I admit she had an easier role, it was performed admirably. Tom Guiry as Joe Jr. was pretty good, too. It was a nice synthesis of two kinds of stories, too. Michael Rispoli had a pretty good turn in the movie, too.

What I disliked: Chazz Palminteri in this role. Some gratuitous character decisions make the movie play out in a jerky way. The ending was far too happy in this film. From a consistency standpoint the tone of the rest of the film didn’t indicate a happy ending like this.

Rating: 7 of 10

This story is simple, but there’s a lot of ways for it to go wrong. That was my biggest fear coming in. But for the most part the film stays to the script and keeps the scenes funny and reverent without being too sappy or stupid. As a big fan of the original Star Wars series myself, I laughed repeatedly at the jokes, cameos, trivia and quizzes that took place through the entire film.

While there were a few absurd and ridiculous moments, the film quickly moved on and kept the story moving forward. It never took itself too seriously, either, and took shots at everyone along the way. This is especially true of the last line of the movie, when the characters are finally in the theater to see the movie, the fanfare plays, one Fanboy says to the others, “What if the movie sucks?” Fanboys certainly didn’t.

What I liked: Cameos by Billy Dee Williams and Carrie Fisher. William Shattner is HILARIOUS in his tiny role. George Lucas’s apparent sense of humor about himself and his movies.

What I disliked: A strip routine in front of a rowdy group of gay bikers at a dive bar in the middle of nowhere? Mistaking super-hot escorts in Las Vegas for regular girls? Come on, people. You proved you have an imagination, so use it! Step out of the dumb cliche, please!

Rating: 7 of 10

• Donkey Punch
• Fanboys
• Yonkers Joe

And here are some movies that I hope to see but I don’t think are going to count toward my goal of seeing all the movies:

• Oscar Nominated Short Films 2009: Animated
• Oscar Nominated Short Films 2009: Live Action

These collections of short films look awesome, and I do relish the opportunity to see some of these nominated shorts.  Every year I wonder who sees enough of them to nominate them for anything.  This year, at least I can have an opinion as to which is the best.

The story was a pretty simple one. The main character, Jeff (Adam Neal Smith), has a very heavy burden. His best friend Mark (Chuck Blaum) just died in a car accident. Jeff assumes the responsibility of emailing Mark’s contacts and letting them know what happened. In the process, he discoveres a secret relationship that Mark had been hiding from him. Through email and phone calls, Mark had been carrying on a long-distance friendship with Andrea (Alessandro Calza), an Italian who was planning to visit Mark just a few weeks after the accident.

Jeff invites Andrea to come out anyway, and the two of them spend a sad weekend talking about Mark and his influence on their lives. The two of them form an intense bond and start what appears to be a hopeful relationship.

The story itself is pretty simple, and the movie avoids any the clutter of pretty much any subplots. Unfortunately, though, the movie fills in the gaps in the story with awkward silent periods. The camera work is all but non existent. Every scene plays out the same way. First we observe some location. Then the actors come into the shot and do their scene. And then the camera stays on about half a minute too long, with any characters doing nothing. The lighting is terrible in most scenes, though that could be based on the fact that our movie appeared to be projected from a DVD source. There are moments, too, where the dialog is completely unnatural. The timing is hardly great with any actor, but the few extras in the movie are abysmal. It felt like an after school special at times, or the jittery attempt of a rookie filmmaker.

What I liked: A really tender story and a relationship that doesn’t devolve completely into sex and love. Some sweet moments and people I could have liked given time.

What I disliked: The amateur feel to everything. The terrible colors and lighting. Having non-actors speaking in your movie.

Rating: 3 of 10

• Ciao

As of Wednesday I’ve now seen all the movies playing, so I can relax a little bit. I’ve seen the trailer for this film about 6 or 7 times, and I hope that doesn’t ruin anything. I’ve checked showtimes, though, and it appears to only be running at noon and just after 5pm. I’ll have to head down early to see it. But, that will leave my evening free.

The main character in the movie is Ari Folman, a movie director who once served in the Israeli army in the early 1980s. When a friend tells him he’s being chased by 26 dogs in a recurring dream, they realize they cannot remember what happened. So Ari tracks down his old comrades and slowly begins to uncover the truth about a dark time in 1982. He rediscovers his own role in the Sabra and Shatila massacre, a terrible weight on his conscience.

Because I don’t like to spoil the events of movies before I see them, I didn’t know what this movie was about. I didn’t know the full details of this massacre until after I’d seen the movie, though I did piece together quite a bit from the film itself. It’s a humbling film, and does a remarkable job of piecing together the pieces of memory from all its participants. Everyone has forgotten something, but nobody has really every gotten over the pain, either. Their lives are marked by it, in fact. It’s difficult to imagine this film being done in such an emotional way with a live-action format.

What I liked: The animation. It’s wonderful and appropriate for the tone of the film.

What I disliked: Not knowing the history of the event beforehand. The repetition was a little much at times, but only slightly.

Rating: 7 of 10

Her despair is accelerated when her car breaks down in a small town. While she’s waiting for the word on how much the repairs will cost, she gets caught shoplifting from a local grocer. She’s detained by the police and her dog disappears from the pole she attached him to. All of the protection from her strange circumstance is stripped away. This film is the tenuous strain of Wendy pulled to the breaking point.

It’s a pretty intense ride, too. I ended up caring what was going to happen to her as she searched frantically for her best friend and companion, unsure if he was even alive. Everything is largely resolved by the end, though that’s not the highlight of the movie. I don’t know honestly know how I would end this movie, though. If everything worked out perfectly I would have felt cheated, but I still left the theater a little off, even if I can’t put my finger on exactly why.

What I liked: The gritty realism. The compelling emotional attachment that Lucy had for her dog.

What I disliked: Some of odd choices Lucy made, like shoplifting, where she slept, abuse of her car, etc. It made for dramatic moments in the film but I found it hard to believe anyone would actually choose to do some of them, despite the harrowing circumstance. The ending was pretty unsatisfying, too.

Rating: 7 of 10

Frank Wheeler (Leonardo DiCaprio) and April Wheeler (Kate Winslet) are the special couple on the cookie-cutter suburban street titled Revolutionary Road sometime in the 1950s.   They have two kids, a nice white house on a small hill, and plenty of friends.  He toils all day in a job he loaths and she takes care of the house.  They seem like a perfectly normal couple–they fight, they go out, they visit with the neighbors.  Until one day, April comes up with an idea.

She suggests to Frank the couple sell their house, quit their job, and move to Paris, the only place that Frank ever thought people were alive.  Then they try to make it happen, over the mumbled criticism and whispered naysaying.   

I don’t want to reveal what happens, so see the movie if this sounds interesting.   It was to me.  Rarely have movies challenged me in such a personal way.  I don’t have the cozy house in the suburbs, but I do imagine what would happen if my wife and I decided to pursue our dreams.  What would happen if we quit our jobs and decided to move someplace and find work that we found idealistic and self-fulfilling?  

I wonder if a lot of people have these same thoughts?  I suspect so.   

What I liked: A very moving story that spoke to me personally.  A lot of really strong performances.  A wonderful character of John Givings, played with zeal by Michael Shannon (nominated for an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor).  

What I disliked: The seemingly false choices presented about taking a chance.  The fact that the kids of the main characters were hardly in the picture, a stark difference from my personal experience with children in everyday life.

Rating: 9 of 10

This movie is flat, boring, and so rigid in its adherance to formula I’m surprised they bothered gave the characters names.  Our <down on his luck protaganist> Harvey Shine (Dustin Hoffman) plays a pathetic composer whose job has moved beyond his abilities and skills.  He hasn’t adapted.  His family have turned their back on him, too.  Probably for something he did, though the movie never actually says.  It couldn’t be bothered. We’re just supposed to feel sorry for Harvey because people treat him badly and sad music plays when he gives us his whipped puppy face.  Ugh.

While traveling to London for his daughter’s wedding, he meets up with his <potential loner love interest> Kate Walker (Emma Thompson) having just fell out of a bad screenwriting book.  She for some reason keeps hanging around with the one person in the movie who keeps insulting her.  Continuing with the lost puppy theme, Harvey keeps following her until she talks to him, probably out of pity. I kept wondering why she didn’t just call the police, or scream, or beat the snot out of him.  Come on, you’re practically twice his size!  

Eventually, of course, things work out with the daughter, Harvey’s not really the bad guy, just unlucky!  The job that fired him wants him back, with a raise, probably. They have a near miss where he doesn’t show up for a scheduled romanitc meeting beside a fountain in front of a castle.  Oh-No!  He had a <insert medical problem here>!

Even the music, by Thomas Newman, my favorite film composer, was recycled from The Shawshank Redemption and other movies.   I’ll bet he didn’t even see the movie.  They just phoned him up and said “give us 10 minutes of sad music, and 10 minutes of more upbeat stuff.  We’ll just cycle through it and repeat where necessary.”  

If you have a bleeding heart, completely shallow values, and a fondness for stray three-legged dogs that get kicked to the curb, you might actually enjoy this saccharine nonsense.    Otherwise stay far away. 

What I liked: Imagining unusual and painful ways for the main characters to die.  

What I disliked:  Everything.  This film is the dregs, and I’m shocked it’s showing at the Ritz.  Dustin Hoffman sleepwalking through a role.  

Rating: 1 of 10

• Waltz With Bashir
• Wendy and Lucy

I have seen all but two of the movies out before today, so I’m in good shape to take in these films in the next couple of weeks. Wendy and Lucy is a one-week only event, so that will become the priority.

1. Best Picture
2. Best Actor in a Lead Role
3. Best Actress in a Lead Role
4. Best Actor in a Supporting Role
5. Best Actress in a Supporting Role

I continue to track which of these movies I have seen  in a file that I update every year, for all movies going all the way back to 1929.  It’s a pretty awesome list, and there are plenty of early years I have yet to see a single movie.  But it gives me a way to find movies I might otherwise not see, especially in the years long before I was able to see them.

This year there are 15 movies that take up those 25 slots.  They are:

1. Doubt (4)
2. Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3)
3. Milk (3)
4. Frost/Nixon (2)
5. Reader, The (2)
6. Wrestler, The (2)
7. Changeling (1)
8. Dark Knight, The (1)
9. Frozen River (1)
10. Rachel Getting Married (1)
11. Revolutionary Road (1)
12. Slumdog Millionaire (1)
13. Tropic Thunder (1)
14. Vicky Cristina Barcelona (1)
15. Visitor, The (1)

I have already seen 11 of them, which is better than I have managed in the past.  

I can’t say I’ve seen enough to declare anything in particular, but I’m sad not to see Synecdoche, NY in this list anywhere.  I think that’s a real shame.

  ]]> http://www.duke.schnolis.com/MovieWalk/?feed=rss2&p=154 0 http://www.duke.schnolis.com/MovieWalk/?p=147 http://www.duke.schnolis.com/MovieWalk/?p=147#comments Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:50:31 +0000 schnolis http://www.duke.schnolis.com/MovieWalk/?p=147 I enjoyed this movie.  It’s funny.  It has interesting characters.  The backdrop of Spain is downright breathtaking.  I could relate to a few characters, and found the dialog cute.  But I don’t really know what the movie about.  It was like the dream you have when you first wake up in the morning, kind of surreal and all the pieces don’t quite fit together, but all-in-all a pleasant time.

Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) are a couple of Americans who take a trip to Barcelona to spend a summer.  They’re complete opposites in personality, but both end up falling for the same guy in Spain.  His name is Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem).  He’s a rugged, handsome, wealthy artist brimming with confidence.  Their lives become a very tangled mess of relationships and interractions, all in the span of a few weeks.     

Obviously the whole story isn’t based on the real world.  Things happen in the movies all the time that never happen in real life.  This is probably a good thing.  Nobody I know wants to go to the theater and see their own ordinary lives on display without something extraordinary happening.  But it’s hard to suspend belief when you see ridiculously beautiful people acting and being treated like ordinary ones.  

What I liked: Barcelona.  Beautiful people doing emotional and idealogical things.  

What I disliked: The obnoxious overdub.  

Score: 7 of 10

But this movie does a pretty amazing job portraying Nixon (played by Frank Langella) as a guy who merits some sympathy. The story is told leading up to the interview Nixon gave to David Frost (Michael Sheen) a British television host in 1977. My lack of knowledge of history is probably a weakness in analyzing movies such as these. As I was only five at the time, I don’t remember any such interview, but I still enjoyed the movie a bunch.

David Frost is portrayed largely failing to make any real progress in getting Nixon to reveal anything in his interview. He fails repeatedly in all attempts to turn the interview into anything but an opportunity for Nixon to try to re-establish his reputation without admitting to any wrongdoing in the process. That is, until the last day of taping, of course.

The trouble with any historical movie is in trying to build suspense despite knowing the outcome of the event. This movie tried a little too hard, though. It was a David vs. Goliath story, sure, but the tables too turn abruptly and awkwardly to be convincing. Despite these troubles the movie plays well, and I left the theater gladly surprised.

What I liked: Nixon’s interesting and humanizing portrayal. A pretty well-told story and fascinating characters.

What I disliked: The overt foreshadowing through the documentary format. The documentary format overall didn’t really work very well, which I feel caused more confusion than in provided clarity.

Rating: 8 of 10

The Argentine is the first half, and covers the successful military takeover of Cuba with Fidel Castro.  The second half, Guerilla, shows the failed attempt at revolution in Bolivia and Che’s ultimate capture and execution.  Symbolically this division is quite powerful and important.  It gives us a comparitive view of the two campaigns, and a pragmatic assesment that things could have gone either way.  Yes, the revolutionaries succeeded in Cuba, but any number of things could have kept that from happening.  The end, of these struggles, though, is always death.  

Che is interesting in that it doesn’t spend much time with the historical stories of the respective struggles.  Each half of the movie simply show us Che in action.  We see him planning, thinking on his feet, taking care of the sick, and living with great honor.  He expects everyone to uphold a certain standard, and in turns encourages and punishes those who don’t.  We get to see what life with Che might have been as one of his soldiers or friends.  It was deeply personal, inspiring andbeautifully played by Benicio del Toro.  

What I liked: The execution scene.  Che dying was all of us dying.  

What I disliked: Part One felt chopped, like it was missing significant chapters.

Rating: 8 of 10

• Che
• Last Chance Harvey
• Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Three movies, but possibly four considering Che has 2 full-length parts. I’m a big fan of Benicio Del Toro and I am very excited about that film. Vicky Christina Barcelona is being re-released on the heels of its Golden Globe award, but I haven’t seen it. Last Chance Harvey gives us Dustin Hoffman teamed up with Emma Thompson again (previously in Stranger than Fiction).

Watching this movie after seeing Gran Torino was akin to seeing a ballet performed by a professional ballerina having just seen it performed by a robot with no knees or elbows.  Okay, fine, I’m exaggerating, but only a little.  Where Clint Eastwood repeats every significant event, presumably in case you missed in the first or second time, Stephen Daldry gives you suggestions that permit you to fill in from your own experience and draw your own conclusions.

Michael Berg (played by david Kross and Ralph Fiennes at different ages) is a young boy in post-world war two Germany. He meets an woman who shows him some kindness, and he becomes infatuated with her. Ultimately they develop a sexual relationship, which proves to be quite formative. While not a perfect relationshipo, when it ends abruptly he is distraught and affected. Years pass and he crosses paths with this woman again, this time while she is on trial for terrible war crimes in the Nazi regime. Michael’s internal conflict overwhelms him, and he battles this for the remainder of his life.

It is this conflict which ties the story together and makes it a challenging and beautiful story. While he holds an acute fondness for his first love and lover, he is simultaneously offended and disgusted at the atrocities she carried out before even they met. There is such humanity in this tale. Any one of us is capable of being on the wrong side of evil, and otherwise caring people sometimes do terrible things.

What I liked: Freedom and flexibility to come to my own conclusions about these characters. The well-handled touch of colorful ideas and expression of choices we face in society and how those choices can alter the future for everyone.

What I disliked: I little too much time-traveling. I don’t think it added much to the story and was a little distracting at first.

Rating: 10 of 10

Clint Eastwood plays Walt, a crotchety man at the end of his life. His wife has just died, he’s offended by all the new things he sees around him, and the entire world has passed him by. Almost. While protecting his personal space, he helps out some troubled neighbors and sets his path to cross that of some local gang members. He ruminates over his own private nature and lack of intimacy, but generally lives a good life.

The story isn’t groundbreaking, but it works well enough. We care about our irascible and biggoted hero despite his obvious flaws. Instead of just winding up Walt and letting the story unfold, though, Clint Eastwood bludgeons us with it. Yes, he likes racial slurs and epithets. Okay, he’s set in his ways and perceives his way is the right way. Sure, he’s got a drinking problem and doesn’t love his kids. Enough!

This is always my problem with Clint Eastwood movies. Nice enough story except for the interesting but needlessly over-stereotyped characters without any real nuance or subtlety. The bad guys are really just awful bad guys. The good guy has a granite exterior but a heart of gold. Put some random people in between and let it run. Except, of course, for the hammering maul of obviousness that keeps striking your brain whenever Clint thinks you might miss his point.

Worrisome to me is the knowledge that these movies are still terrifically popular. That’s fine. So every few years when another Eastwood movie gets released, I’ll just take my thinking cap off for a couple of hours and open wide for another force-fed morality lesson. I would skip it, but I enjoy talking about movies too much, even if that ends up being criticism.

What I liked: Fun characters. Cute story about a man finding his place in life and stepping into the modern United States.

What I Disliked: The bull in the china shop. Making a movie that needs to transcend stereotypes but then relying on those stereotypes to further the silly and insulting humor instead.

Rating: 6 of 10

The Wrestler

And as it happens, I have already seen it. There was a special preview showing on Wednesday that I will be writing about later, but that means I can focus on the other movies that have already been out.

Only one scene actually was. The two actors battled it out on screen for one long and very passionate scene, and it was everything I had hoped for from the beginning. I sat enthralled literally on the edge of my seat.

But the rest of the film just couldn’t maintain any kind of real tension or interest. The ending seemed a foregone conclusion. We never learned what happened between the closed doors. Honestly, though, I really didn’t care. I suppose I would have enjoyed this movie more if I did.

What I liked: Some powerful scenes with some really good actors. Brought back some memories of life in Catholic school for me. Amy Adams character was a really solid middle character.

What I disliked: A somewhat anachronistic story. Tried too hard to show itself and its characters on the cusp of major societal change.

Rating: 6 of 10

One one level, it’s a movie full of cliche. Jamal is confronted at every turn with malevolent people, rotten luck, and awful timing. He’s poor, dorky, has almost no prospects, and is hopelessly in love with a beautiful girl who is herself trapped by a wealthy loveless tyrant who doesn’t appreciate her. His only family, a brother, tries to steal her from him. Even people who seem to be on his side plot against him. I don’t need to tell you how it ends up. It’s that kind of movie.

How the story gets there, though, is another matter. In the details of how all of this happens this movie really shines. Jamal is impossible to dislike. The fantastic happenings aren’t too absurd individually so long as you don’t think about them all at once. Suspense is built and released so well through the entire picture. Visually this movie is stunning. I kept staring at the backgrounds of scenes taking in the sights of Mumbai like a tourist, loving the many panoramas and amazing sights.

Ultimately if you like love stories complete with happy endings, you’re going to enjoy this picture. It takes one of the most familiar stories and imbues it with so much flair and drama you just go along for the ride.

What I liked: The interesting stories and characters. Really amazing colored subtitles. Freida Pinto, the actress playing Jamal’s love interest, is beautiful. The bright colors used throughout the film. The landscapes.

What I disliked: Implausible scenarios happen too often. A little too much back and forth with the time machine tool. The kids were too hard to tell apart, especially the boys. With different actors playing three distinct ages, and other characters besides, I couldn’t keep up. This might be a deficiency of my own as I always have trouble telling characters apart. Speaking a foreign language really didn’t help.

Rating: 8 of 10

From the very opening credits to the final scene was a dark pleasure. At almost every moment it felt like a documentary. The camera stayed immediately behind Randy “the Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke) for much of the movie, like a side-kick. It felt intimate, personal and lonely. The wrestling scenes themselves were amazing, too. The camera stayed zoomed in tight on the action and highlighted the real exertion involved in producing such a dramatic and physically challenging show.

When I left the theater I didn’t think it was quite as good as the hype. I haven’t stopped thinking about it for days, though, remembering so many scenes and how well done everything was. This movie, like all the Darren Aronofsky films I’ve seen, is going to stay with me for a long time. Beyond all of that though is the most incredible spectacle of all: the physical transformation by Mickey Rourke into an aging, muscle-bound wrestler.

The story itself is pretty straightforward. Randy is a wrestler probably somewhere late in his 40s, certainly well past his prime. He was once on top of the wrestling world, but later falls onto harder times. Instead of playing to packed stadiums, he wrestles in front of miniscule audiences in community centers and signs autographs for pocket change in small gyms. The real story begins when his career is threatened by injury.

What I liked: The desperate realism, the attention to detail. Getting to like “The Ram”. The body transformation by Mickey Rourke is truly incredible; I forgot so many times this wasn’t actually a lifetime wrestler but an actor (however athletic). The opening credits sequence.

What I disliked: Scenes where the Ram was not directly involved. Nearly every scene in the film took place with The Ram in the scene or from his first person perspective. Scenes without him seemed out of place and made me remember I was watching a movie.

Rating: 9 of 10

I have mapped out my first day at the movies.  It will be Wednesday (tomorrow) and I’m planning to see the following shows:

1. Gran Torino at 5:20pm
2. Frost/Nixon at 7:20pm
3. Slumdog Millionaire at 10:00pm

There’s even an outside chance I’ll get to take in another film on Thursday evening, and if that happens it’ll be Doubt.  I’m fairly confident I can do all of these based on the timing and the schedule at home.  On Thursday I can even get the kids to sleep before I have to head out, with a late showing. 

I find all of this terribly exciting, and I’m looking forward to it.  Hopefully I can keep everything going this year and reach my goal.

• Doubt
• Frost/Nixon
• Gran Tornio
• I’ve Love You So Long
• Milk
• Rachel Getting Married
• The Reader
• Revolutionary Road
• Slumdog Millionaire

I have already seen three of these films, Doubt, I’ve Loved You So Long and Rachel Getting Married.  This is as spectacular a list of films you could hope to have.  There is not a film on this list that I’m not excited about seeing.

The road to election was a difficult one for Harvey. He needed several campaigns to finally make it to the top. But once he was there, it was a great, shining moment. At least for a little while. Harvey and the mayor of San Francisco were assassinated by another Board of Supervisors member Dan White (Josh Brolin).

The success of the film is due to the time spent detailing his daily life–how he lived and worked, the difficulties of running campaigns, raising money, etc. His relationships were vibrant and caring. He cared deeply for all people, but had a soft spot for people suffering from depression and oppression. That was the strength of Milk, the movie and the man.

What I liked: Sean Penn’s performance was lively, energetic, and moving. I think without strong showings by both Sean Penn and Josh Brolin this movie would have been truly mediocre instead of above-average.

What I disliked: Too much effort, especially in the beginning, to establish who the players in the movie are. Once introduced, many of them faded into obscurity making the introductions unnecessary.

Rating: 7 of 10

Rachel Getting Married has a terrific feel to it. Instead of being a fly on a wall or a neutral observer, I was brought in to the movie. I actually felt like I was part of the family, taking part in the wedding while observing the currents of emotion that swept everyone away from time to time. During the ceremony itself I felt closed in and tense waiting for the next explosion. I knew it was coming, but I couldn’t leave.

Eventually the wedding happened. And it was indeed the beautiful moment it deserved to be. The members of the family worked through their own issues and spoke their minds. When the disagreements were aired and the tension finally eased, everyone went on living. And that is really the whole point.

What I liked: The feeling of belonging. This might be the most emotionally involved I’ve ever felt in a movie. Anne Hathaway played a very tough, sulky role pretty well.

What I disliked: Too much anxiety. I’m not a big fan of weddings and parties; they make me a little tense and reserved. And I felt all of that while just observing this movie. That’s certainly hard to handle for too much time. I don’t think I would watch this movie again, but I am glad to have seen it.

Rating: 7 of 10

The movie opens with the reunion of two sisters. Lea (Else Zylbersein) travels to the airport to pickup her sister Juliette (Kristin Scott Thomas). Juliette has just been released from prison, and has nowhere to go. Though we don’t learn this until later, she spent 15 years in jail for the crime of murder. And to make it worse, the person she killed was her own six-year old son.

Juliette is distracted and reserved, unfamiliar with dealing with people anymore. Lea is simply looking to connect with the sister she lost when Lea was still a teen. We the audience learn about the tragic happenings slowly, amidst other tragedies along the way. Ultimately the love two sisters share seems to survive the baring of all their secrets, but the telling does come at a cost.

This movie is a bittersweet pleasure to watch, though. I couldn’t help but relate to the horror I know I’d feel for the death of my own children, something I doubt I would have understood before having any. I recommend this movie, but keep some tissue close by.

What I liked: A heartbreaking story told with tremendous drama and authentic characters. A very sparse musical score. Kristen Scott Thomas had countless expressions of grief, sadness, sorrow, mirth, etc. The look in her eyes carried several of the scenes.

What I disliked: Sometimes the drama went too far. It didn’t seem plausible that some of the unspoken things remained hidden for so long. It did enhance some dramatic tension, but other than that I kept hoping the characters would just talk already. The ending was a little too obvious, maybe.

Rating: 9 of 10

Getting out to see good drama, whether that happens to be the movies or the theater, is probably the most consistently energizing part of my life. Still, I feel like I don’t get out often enough. The fact that I’ve got twin daughters and a large old (but new to me) house to take care of might have something to do with that. Or maybe it’s the crazy search to find a parking spot in center-city Philadelphia where the arts house theaters are. Or maybe it’s just impossible to find the right time for everyone who wants to see a particular film.

In truth, there are always obstacles to overcome. In spite of them, I have decided to challenge myself to see every movie released at the Ritz Theaters for the calendar year 2009. There are 12 movie screens in the three Ritz Theaters, and anywhere from 10 to 14 movies showing at any given time (accounting for some movies showing on more screens and some movies splitting time). My guess is that there are probably three or four new movies a week. While I would love to see every one of those in the theater, I anticipate missing some (especially those with shorter spans in release) and will instead watch them in another theater (say, in Chicago) or in the home theater on DVD.

I addition to seeing the film, I’m going to write a short review of the experience. I’m not thinking much, maybe three or four paragraphs. I will include something of a personal style and have a short paragraph for things I liked and things I disliked about every film. To conclude each review, I will give a rating on a 1 to 10 scale. This scale is mostly arbitrary, but fairly logical. While I will try to do my best to stay accurate, I’m not sure that I won’t be swayed by mood on the day I attribute a score. It’s just part of the process, and no ratings scale is perfect.

I’m not planning to include any films that are part of a film festival. If a film is a one-day or single presentation event, I’m not including it. Likewise if there are some things showing that aren’t movies at all, like collected shorts around Oscar time, concerts, theater or symphony broadcasts, etc., I’m not including them. My challenge will be difficult enough without them.

I’m also encouraging comments. I’ve tried to open comments on every single post. Please write a note and let me know I’ve made a grammatical or spelling mistake. Or let me know if I’m completely missing the point, or if you disagree with my point. I’m posting all of this on the internet so I suspect people will ultimately find it, whether I know who you are or not.

The running list of films I’ve seen or am waiting to see can be found at all times on the TOP RIGHT corner of the page. It’s quite simply named “THE LIST”. The top section contains movies I haven’t seen that are out in the theater still. The second section contains movies I haven’t seen that aren’t out in the theater. Most likely these aren’t out on DVD either. The final section is for movies I’ve seen. If there name is highlighted, it means I’ve written a review. Just follow the link to read the review for that particular movie.