The mailman came today...

The mailman came today and he brought me this.

Then I almost came. Because I thought I was going to jizz in my pants... from the orgasmic rush that was watching "Easy Rider" for the first time on blu-ray. Good God! that was fucking awesome. But more on that later.

Anyway, two films in, my first impressions of the Criterion box set America Lost and Found: The BBS Story is that it's great. The overall packaging is awesome for a set of seven films and a book providing detail and insight to all of the films.

While there will be a lot said, no doubt, from me on these movies ... especially for two of my favorite films "Easy Rider" and "The Last Picture Show" ... so far, I find BBS Productions to be quite interesting. 

"Head" is a very trippy film and showed a lot of panache and very awesome effects on the film itself to create this movie. I never was a big fan of The Monkees. My impressions have always been that they were some type of joke band from a TV show that was popular. Well, they are... sort of. The Monkees are just one big parody of other bands of that era and "Head" allows them to poke fun at themselves while goofing off in the movie. It was actually quite nice to see a new side of the group and learn something new about them than my knowledge that they had some type of lame variety show and that everyone's mom was in love with Davy Jones (who isn't even the star of this show... nope, it's Micky Dolenz and Michael Nesmith who are absolutely fucking hilarious the entire movie). It was also nice to see a new side of Dolenz as my only knowledge of him prior to this film and knowing he was a Monkee was seeing him on Broadway in "Aida" (which sucked). The cameos in this movie were kind of fun to see too... like Teri Garr or Jack Nicholson (who wrote the movie) and Bob Rafelson (who directed it) showing up in one scene or, best of all, Frank Zappa walking a cow. And Ray Nitschke make an appearance for you Packers fans...

All I ever thought I knew about The Monkees was that they were kind of lame. But this movie changed my entire perception of that. And I get it. They are a joke. And they're meant to be a joke. And it's kind of funny...

As for "Easy Rider," I said, GOD DAMN! I've owned the standard DVD of this film for close to 10 years now. And this is by far the best I've EVER!!! seen this film. I'm sure that the Criterion remaster on standard DVD is awesome because Criterion does very good work when they give the treatment to new movies in the collection. They always do a wonderful job. But in blu-ray? WOWSERS!

The crystal clear picture on blu ray is amazing. I'm noticing things I never saw before because the standard def versions of the film were either so blurred that I was missing details in the picture or because I was watching on a tube TV. The colors are much more vibrant and there's more brightness to it so you can see what's going on, especially in scenes that are and were poorly lit, like the campfire scenes.

The big thing about BBS is that these were experimental films back in 1969. This is guerilla film-making at its finest where you give a guy or a small crew some filming equipment and what you get is a gritty, realistic movie that isn't sanitized like the shit the stuffed shirts in the established studios were producing. These were independent films getting picked up. And because of the lack of good lighting available for the camera, it's amazing that Criterion was able to pick out the detail on the original negatives for these scenes. But, aside from the technical bullshit, it's just awesome that they were able to brighten it and get the rich details in the dark, which were hard to decipher on the standard edition. That faces are easier to see in these scenes and no one is getting lost in the shadows.

The movie stays the same... that doesn't change. Which is too bad, because I was kind of praying that Peter Fonda would finally get his way and cut out the city kids trying to grow crops in the desert scene. But that didn't happen... :( jk.

That's OK, though. This film -- camera tricks, soundtrack, story, acting -- it's just plain awesome. And even my wife, who walked into the room midway through the film, was like this soundtrack is awesome. It features some of the best songs from 1969 and Dennis Hopper, Fonda, Jack Nicholson ... they don't disappoint.

Thanks, Criterion!

I am sorry, Dave

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★ ½   (out of 5)

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Rated: none. 141 min.

No. 22 on  AFI 100

No. 15 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 86 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Keir Dullea,
Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester

“2001: A Space Odyssey”: No. 22 on AFI 100;
No. 15 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 86 on IMDB Top 250

When it comes to science fiction, this film is Mecca.

The story – although long, drawn-out and a little boring at times – offers up very little dialog and relies on demonstration to get its point across throughout the entire film. The story covers human evolution, artificial intelligence (with a human-like computer that runs an entire spaceship) and life outside of Earth.

While some consider this film an epic, due to its story mixed with a classical score and broken into three different parts, the special effects for space travel are what make this movie epic in its magnitude.

There are several memorable scenes in this film, most notably a spaceship docking at a space station, spinning in motion to the sounds of Johan Strauss II’s “Blue Danube Waltz”; Dave Bowman shutting down the HAL 9000 (more on this later); and the final scene transition where Bowman travels through a time-space continuum to ultimately what we can presume is his death and rebirth.

The special effects for 1968 are astonishing, really.

But this is a work of art and it’s arguably the pinnacle of Kubrick’s work (although I’m just as big a fan of “Dr. Strangelove,” “Barry Lyndon” and “Paths of Glory” as I am this piece).

To me, the best science fiction element in this entire film – and it’s an element that seems to be the common thread of most science fiction – is the HAL 9000, or Hal, the computer that controls the ship (and the mission) in Act III, Jupiter Mission. Rated at No. 13 on the AFI’s list of best villains, Hal starts off as a likeable, artificial intelligence character. He converses with astronauts Dave Bowman and Frank Poole aboard the ship and he keeps them company for the long duration of their trip.

But when they suspect that Hal is malfunctioning and plan to shut him down, they take the precaution of making sure he can’t hear them – but overlook the fact that this A.I. is so advanced he can read their lips.

As Frank is out performing some maintenance on the ship, Hal severs his oxygen and lets him drift into outerspace. Dave goes on a rescue mission in a pod and doesn’t realize that Hal is responsible until he arrives back at the ship and Hal informs him that he isn’t going to let Dave in because the mission is too important to be jeopardized by the humans. (Hal also kills the remaining crew members sleeping in their cryogenic chambers aboard the ship.)

Dave then bursts his way into the ship in the airlock with a manual override and without a helmet, holding his breath all the while. He then proceeds to shut Hal down – with Hal pleading for his life the whole time. Once shut down, Hal’s messages for the crew about the purpose of their mission start playing once the ship begins its final approach of Jupiter. Dave is finally informed of the perilous mission at hand – that a monolith (extraterrestrial life) has been found and that the last expedition sent to investigate mysteriously disappeared and that his mission was to help the Hal recover data from the monolith.

Upon descent into Jupiter, it appears you – the viewer – has taken some LSD, as strange, vibrant colors float around the screen. I’m kidding of course and the bad trip ends when Dave awakes in a bright, white, pristine room. He sees something and walks to the door where he sees himself eating and suddenly he becomes the Dave he sees. Then he drops his fork, and as he looks up, he sees himself as an old man on his deathbed and he again becomes the Dave he sees. Then he sees the monolith, and in an instant, he is dead and being reborn as we are taken to the image of a fetus in outerspace looking at Earth.

The themes and elements of science fiction are at the top of their game in this film. And despite all of that, the most impressive element to me is the special effects, since the majorities were performed by hand with miniatures, models, etc. since this movie was made pre-CGI.

Kubrick really made a masterpiece here, despite stretches that seem dry and mundane as there is nothing happening in the film.

A boy's best friend is his mother

Psycho (1960)

Adam’s rating: ★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Rated: none. 119 min.

No. 18 on AFI 100

No. 14 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 24 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Anthony Perkins,
Janet Leigh

“Psycho”: No. 18 on AFI 100, No. 14 on AFI 100 (2008);
No. 24 on IMDB 250

To the casual film viewer, this movie is the most recognizable of Alfred Hitchcock’s work.

What this film does have going for it is the shot selections, cinematography and the character development. In terms of developing characters, it takes the entire movie for us to realize that Norman Bates has a psychological disconnect in which he is both himself and his mother. I’m not a fan of the film’s final scene where this is described to us while Anthony Perkins is looking at us in his cell like a psycho, but nonetheless the character development of Perkins’ character Norman Bates is top-notch suspense throughout the film.

As for shot selections and cinematography, the signature scene in this film is hands down when Norman Bates kills Marion Crane (Janet Leigh) in the shower. While pushing the limits of the Hayes Administration (don’t worry, we’ll have articles on that later) by having Leigh cover up any full-frontal nudity, Hitch has Bates – dressed as his mother and in a jealous rage – kill Crane, a guest at his motel, while she is taking a shower. The surprise scream of Leigh is iconic as is the shot where she is lying on the shower floor in a pool of blood that is flowing down the drain in a circular motion. Hands down, the most vivid and best artistic scene in the entire film to get such a signature shot that has been the subject of parodies and praise.

Unfortunately, this movie is about as far as some people get with Hitch. For those who don’t get past the tip of the iceberg, they are the ones who are missing out. “Psycho” is OK. I think in terms of its elements of suspense and plot twists that it’s far from Hitch’s worst film and it’s actually a good film. However, having gone a little further down the rabbit hole, I’m not left satisfied with this film in terms of overall story like I am “Rebecca,” “Shadow of a Doubt,” “North by Northwest,” “Rear Window,” “Vertigo,” “To Catch a Thief,” “Suspicion,” “Notorious,” “Spellbound,” “The Lady Vanishes,” “The Man who knew too much,” “Saboteur,” “Strangers on a Train” and “Dial M for Murder.”

I feel that several of Hitch’s previous works weave a very satisfying web in terms of suspense, plot, a murder or some type of crime, and a motive, etc. Some of them keep you on the edge of your seat while the others are just very fulfilling in their entertainment factor of a good story. I also feel that “Psycho” is too simple; it’s too easy and too point blank where it revolves around some woman who stole money, decides to skip town, realizes she made a mistake, decides she’ll go back but gets murdered before she can leave and the money goes missing forever in a series of unfortunate events.

Yeah, it’s an OK story … it’s just not as deep or interesting as his previous films.

And sadly, the film’s popularity, I would argue, is what earned it such a high spot on these “lists.”

Trick shots and fake suicides...

Vertigo (1958)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Alfred Hitchcock

Rated: none. 128 min.

No. 61 on AFI 100

No. 9 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 43 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: James Stewart, Kim Novak

"Vertigo": No. 61 on AFI 100; No. 9 on AFI 100 (2008);
No. 43 on IMDB Top 250

I absolutely love this movie and it is one of my favorite Alfred Hitchcock films. As the master of suspense, Hitch proves it with this film.

The movie is about John “Scottie” Ferguson (Stewart), a San Francisco detective hired by an old friend to tail the strange activities of his wife. He investigates, but becomes strangely attracted to the point of obsession with the woman. I’ll stop right now before I spoil the entire movie for you, but the story is rife with mystery and suspense.

While I love the story, it tends to lull at points while it is establishing itself for what’s to come. The story is one that is still very interesting, but when it feels like the film is dragging along just to go from point A to point B, it’s hard to give this a five-star rating.

The other aspect of this film I wish to discuss is the effects. Hitchcock was a genius with camera effects before the use of special effects or CGI in movies. And possibly the most famous effect in this movie is the “vertigo” effect – also known as a Dolly zoom – which Hitch pulled off masterfully for this movie. Basically, the way the effect works, is you pull the camera away from the subject while zooming in on the subject to create an effect where the subject stays the same size but everything around the subject is in motion or is blurred. In the film, the effect is used every time Jimmy Stewart’s character has a bout with his acrophobia, or his vertigo.

It’s these technical shots – revolutionary for 1958 and 1950s American cinema – coupled with the story and the acting that make this film one of the best in American cinema.

Fake Criterion: Star Wars

I found a gallery of Fake Criterion fan art so I decided to make some of my own.


Criterion once released the Star Wars Trilogy on Laserdisc. Who knows? Maybe they'll one day get the rights from Georgie Porgie and give 3PO the treatment again? Here's my Star Wars art...

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

 

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Let's release new cuts of this movie every 5 years

Blade Runner (1982)

Adam’s rating: ★★½  (out of 5)

Director: Ridley Scott

Rated: R. 117 min.

Not on AFI 100

No. 97 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 116 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer,
Sean Young, Edward James Olmos,
Daryl Hannah, William Sanderson

"Blade Runner": No. 97 on AFI 100 (2008);
No. 116 on IMDB Top 250
 

This is one of those movies I didn’t really love, but I didn’t really hate. While I understand the film’s importance in the entire genre of sci-fi movies, I didn’t feel that the acting or the story was the quality it could have been.

The film falls into the archetypical sci-fi film: humans interacting with a machine (whether it’s a computer, droid, robot or human-like droid, in this case called a replicant) that goes rogue and proves that it has a mind and will of its own.

Basically, you have a group of human replicants that decide to leave whatever planet they are on doing work and come to Earth.

There is a test administered to one of these rogue replicants in order to decipher whether or not he’s human and when he realizes he’s going to be found out, he kills the human tester. Then, the shit hits the fan and Harrison Ford’s character has to track these replicants down and as the movie drags on, he eventually takes them out and bla bla bla and as he takes down all the evil replicants he falls in love with one of the replicants (depending on which version of the movie you saw) who is more human and knows how to beat the test and who knows how they had their little half-breed human/replicant babies?

The story is a out there – but then what science fiction story isn’t? Technologically speaking, the movie is pretty cool for its time. (In fairness, it has to be judged by 1982 standards, despite the fact that there are about 27,000 different versions of this movie floating around every time technology updates and Ridley Scott or whomever wants to make a few more bucks off of this cash cow.)

Overall, though, I feel that the director (Ridley Scott) has done better. Quite possibly with “Alien”? But definitely with “Gladiator.” What helps this film’s cause is the name recognition of Harrison Ford – despite the fact that this really is far from his best role. Coming off of two roles as Han Solo in “Star Wars” and “Empire Strikes Back” and then Indiana Jones in “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” before he would reprise Han in “Return of the Jedi” and Indy in “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” this is like having turkey burger when you’re used to eating sirloin.

I more or less felt like I was watching this film simply because it’s on a list I’m trying to complete. And I wasn’t extremely impressed with it as I was films that preceded it (“Alien,” “2001,” “Planet of the Apes”).

In a nutshell: Basic Instinct

The basis of this article -- and those that follow -- is to illustrate, parody and make fun of a scene, scenes or an entire movie. Most likely, the parodies will be about nudity or sex because -- quite frankly -- those are often times the funniest scenes in film.

So... Here's how "Basic Instinct" works.

 

Basically, Sharon Stone is brought in for interrogation because her character is suspected of murder. So she puts on a slinky dress and the rest is cinematic history as she uncrosses her legs baring it for all to see and the guy who played Newman gets so hot and bothered he decides to go get a Diet Coke. But instead he shuts down all the electricity at a theme park on a remote South American island, thus letting loose thousands of dinosaurs who attack and kill the humans on said island. All because Sharon Stone spread her legs in an interrogation...

OK, not really. But Wayne Knight gets about as sweaty as the time Wilfred Brimley turned the heat up on him in "Seinfeld" for refusing to deliver mail. Instead, the guy who really needed to watch out was Michael Douglas in this film as he was busy fucking Sharon Stone AND Jeanne Tripplehorn -- and the latter was trying to kill him, while disguised as Sharon Stone.

"OMG! What an amazing movie!?" you say? Yeah. No.

The problem is Paul Verhoeven makes shitty movies. The plots typically suck. And the only reason anyone really watches his films is A.) nudity, B.) simulated sex scenes, C.) hot actresses showing their breasts and D.) hot actresses showing their breasts while having simulated sex. Aside from the novelty of seeing Sharon Stone spread her legs when you're a horny teenager, who gives a fuck? The overall film is terrible. 

But then again, what do you expect from the director who brought you shit sandwiches like "Robocop," "Showgirls," and "Basic Instinct 2"?

OMG! An epic Adam actually likes...

Ben-Hur (1959)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★ (out of 5)

Director: William Wyler

Rated: none. 212 min.

No. 72 on AFI 100

No. 100 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 154 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Charlton Heston,
Jack Hawkins

"Ben-Hur": No. 72 on AFI 100; No. 100 on AFI 100 (2008);
No. 154 on IMDB Top 250

I typically don’t have a lot of nice things to say about epic films. Mostly, I feel that they are a waste of money and the majority of the film’s notoriety comes from its big budget, the press and publicity surrounding the film’s release – especially in the old days before CGI animation because of the number of people it took to make the movie and then of course elaborate set designs and costumes.

Also, I dislike most epics because it seems like they are a dime a dozen. If Hollywood wasn’t busy pumping out low-budget, B-movie quality westerns and other movies that were forgotten by the wayside in the late 1940s and 1950s, then they were making epic films which survived and gained notoriety because by comparison, they were better.

Not so with this film, though.

I really like this movie. Sure, it has its prerequisite epic cheesiness. But Charlton Heston shows his acting chops in this movie. I prefer him in “Planet of the Apes,” but he plays badass Judah Ben-Hur and he’s super bad ass in this movie. He’s rich, but as a Hebrew he is sold into slavery. He doesn’t complain. In a “Gladiator” like move, he becomes a gladiator himself, rises up and makes his way back home to confront his boyhood friend and betrayer. And the action and some of the scenes in this film are simply amazing – even if they are kind of hokey (like the scene where he gives Jesus water while Jesus is carrying the cross; it was like, “Yeah, right… that happened.”). In a lot of ways, the film is very much like my other favorite epic from this period, “Spartacus.”

The chariot race of course is the scene stealer in this movie. Watching Ben-Hur and his boyhood friend turned nemesis Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) duke it out in a two-wheel cart being dragged by horses is what sets this epic apart from the rest.

Overall, it was a good story and Wyler got his main characters to deliver in the acting department. The sets, the costumes, everything was believable.

Vanity Fair's "Magnificent Obsession"

This article says way more about the film, "The Magnificent Ambersons" than I could ever hope to say. I would really hope some negatives could be found one day of this movie in its 132-minute format and that Criterion could possibly release the film so that it is available on a quality DVD and not some rag tag Korean bootleg.

The Vanity Fair article, "Magnificent Obsession" can be found here.

Raging Snooze

Raging Bull  (1980)

Adam’s rating: ★★1/2  (out of 5)

Director: Martin Scorsese

Rated: R. 129 min.

No. 24 on AFI 100

No. 4 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 75 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Robert DeNiro,
Joe Pesci, Frank Vincent

"Raging Bull": No. 24 on AFI 100;
No. 4 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 75 on IMDB 250

I generally like Martin Scorsese’s films, even when everyone else doesn’t. Among family members, I’m one of the few that like “Casino,” I really liked “Goodfellas,” and I love everything he’s done in the last decade. And I’m a big fan of “Taxi Driver,” even if it is a bit over-rated.

But I strongly dislike “Raging Bull.”

I think the best word to summarize how I feel is “over-rated.”

For a long time before I had first seen the film, all I heard was people saying, “Have you seen ‘Raging Bull? Have you seen it?’ And it’s possible that the hype from friends raised my expectations a bit. It’s also possible that had I seen the film when I really started to get into movies as a young adult, I might actually think differently of it.

I was completely underwhelmed. And I hate the story.

I realize that it’s a biography and there is not much you can change. But the story of Jake LaMotta, while unique to him and for the time period it is set in, is nothing all that new. For what it’s worth, it’s my impression that with the exception of Muhammad Ali and a select number of other fighters, that all boxers rise to the top of their game at some point and when they’ve reached that pinnacle and finally are no longer the champ, something spirals out of control.

It comes as no surprise that a boxer is violent by nature and that the violence might possibly lead to estrangement from one’s wife, children and other family members. Add drugs and alcohol to the mix as they might turn to these substances to curb the depression of being knocked so far down from their pedestal and you have a recipe for disaster.

Excuse me, but this story is one of no shit, Sherlock.

But don’t take away from Scorsese, DeNiro and Pesci. The acting is superb; it’s believable and the techniques and some of the elements of the film are tremendous. The choice to shoot this in black and white was a fine one and the results are perfect. This film is filled with rich blacks and shadows throughout and it accentuates the overall feel to the film and is worth watching for this fact alone.

Do the Right Thing. Watch this movie to complete your list ... even if it's bad.

Do the Right Thing (1989)

Adam’s rating: ★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Spike Lee

Rated: R. 120 min.

Not on AFI 100

No. 96 on AFI 100 reissue

Not on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Danny Aiello, Spike Lee,
John Turturro, Martin Lawrence,
Samuel L. Jackson, Rosie Perez,

"Do the Right Thing": No. 96 on AFI 100 (2008);
Criterion No. 97 

It’s been years since I’ve seen this film. We watched it once – and that’s really all it took – in a college sociology class. And, while the film left a good impression, I liked it enough to give it a three-star rating but I’m not absolutely in love with it either.

The film has a good message about race and racism at a time when “racial harmony” was being preached extensively – and considering it was only a few years before the L.A. riots, despite the fact the film is based in New York, the message sent by this movie was a good eye-opener for white America, which I think often times overlooked black people’s argument.

I’d like to think that 20 years later, we’re in a better situation and that we’ve come closer to following Rodney King’s advice of “Can’t we all just get along?” but I don’t know if we have?

Say what you will about Spike Lee’s “joints;” most of his films I have disliked. But this film has a strong message shown with strong action between race relations. It is very culturally significant for not only the time in which it was made, but the tension all across the country as a few other quiet social revolutions took place in the 1990s. And it was very revolutionary for its time – which is not only why it was released into the Criterion Collection (Spine No. 97), but was also voted into the AFI’s 10th anniversary list.

The only thing I dislike about the movie is I the riot scene. The controversy surrounding the scene, of course, stirred publicity and got more people to see this film. But I dislike it – even though it’s central to what I see as the point of the entire film – for another reason.

The scene is this: Buggin’ Out, a black guy in the neighborhood, gets mad because the local pizzeria, which is owned by an Italian (Danny Aiello), has photos of famous Italian-Americans on his wall. He wants to see photos of black people. But instead of having a civil conversation, he gets angry and excited and the argument escalates to the point that the black man organizes a boycott of the pizzeria – which, of course, makes the pizzeria owner and his oldest son (John Turturro) mad and racial epithets are spoken, which in turn leads to more fighting. Later, Buggin’ Out comes back to the pizzeria and starts a confrontation that quickly escalates into the riot scene.

I get that the scene is necessary for the plot’s climax. The problem is – and I have always felt that this is the point – is that it’s so ludicrous to start a riot over something so innocent as whose picture is on the wall of a fucking pizzeria. First of all, who the fuck cares? The business owner is Italian and he can decorate his business however he sees fit. That’s why it’s his business. Second, it’s completely stupid for someone to lose their head over something like this to the point that they incite a riot.

But that’s the point. It is stupid. It is getting carried way. It is taking things too far. That’s why I feel the message in this climactic scene is that you should “do the right thing” in settling this like two adults and having a civil conversation and not let your emotions cloud your judgment and let the events get out of control.

And even though the message is somewhat significant, it’s a crappy movie.