Howard the Duck

Year: 1986 (USA)
Genre: Sci-Fi Comedy
Directed: Willard Huyck
Stars: Lea Thompson, Jeffrey Jones, Tim Robbins, Ed Gale, Chip Zien, Tim Rose, Steve Sleap, Peter Baird, Mary Wells, Lisa Sturz
Production: Lucasfilm


The first five minutes of Howard the Duck (1986) has Howard (played by a multitude of little people) and his recliner being beamed into space by some unknown force. Confused and screaming, Howard lands in (of all places) Cleveland, Ohio where Beverly (Lea Thompson) takes pity on him and takes him home. As the plot wears on we discover Howard’s trip was the result of a laser beam experiment perpetrated by scientist Walter Jenning (Jeffrey Jones) and his assistant Phil (Tim Robbins). Can Howard find his way home or will he be captured on earth for slicing, dicing and sautéing.


It’s not that Howard the Duck is a bad film. Sure it’s on the level of Waterworld (1995) and John Carter (2012) for being a big, huge miscalculation on the part of the studio. And sure the story of an alien anthropomorphic duck causing trouble on Earth seems like something a twelve year old would come up with after learning to draw in the lines. The acting is terrible, the dialogue very much phoned-in and the special effects…well you got me there.

Character originally cut from Xanadu

Yes Howard the Duck despite all its faults is a tremendous spectacular mess with some pretty impressive set pieces. In fact Howard the Duck should probably be in a film industry museum, studied by wannabe special-effects gurus. One scene involving a roadside diner is basically a crash course in effects work involving stunts, miniatures, photo animation, prosthetics, animatronics, air cannons, squibs and light computer effects. After the diner scene there are two more massive and impressive set pieces, one involving an Ultralight and another involving a gigantic monster done with clay and stop-motion. With a bloated budget of $37 million dollars it’s easy to see where that money went.

Originally children were cast which really made the romantic
scenes hella awkward

If only more money went into making the character of Howard look more real. The fault was not entirely on the creators who I’m convinced did what they could but if Peter Jackson can make Meet the Feebles (1989) a no-budget Muppet parody that same decade and make the characters much more believable, I’m sure George Lucas and director Willard Huyck could have come up with something better than “let’s stick a bunch of little people in a stuffy duck suit.”

Actors’ career’s like Lea Thompson and Howard’s voice Chip Zien never really recovered from Howard the Duck. Likely because Thompson’s new found niche for characters falling in love with odd things (Her son in Back to the Future (1985) than this?) is a bit too narrowly tailored. Willard Huyck’s career also took a tailspin which started on a high note with screenwriting credits for American Graffiti (1973) and Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984). Somewhat ironically Ed Gale, one of the seven little people stuffed in the aforementioned duck suit has said that he gets more fan mail from his performance in Howard the Duck than any of his other movies which includes Spaceballs (1987), Child’s Play (1988) and O Brother Where Art Thou? (2000). Then there was the relatively green UCLA graduate who later made waves. I’m talking of course about Tim Robbins who went on to win an Oscar for Mystic River (2003). As for Jeffrey Jones; the less we say about him in this review the better.

The unbelievably clunky execution of the duck in conjunction with a bad script and horrid acting deservedly puts the film in bad movie territory. Yet deliberately and knowingly making a movie of this caliber naively thinking it’s going to be a big hit does not a “worst movie” make. It’s almost like the film was done on a dare. I can imagine the back story to how this foul picture got made is similar to The Producers (1968). Let’s go all out and make a profit out of the worst idea that could be found. Was it callowness; gumption; hubris? Who cares we got a train wreck of a movie out of it which for many including yours truly, isn't altogether the worst thing.

Just very close to it.

Final Grade: F

One, Two, Three

Year: 1961 (USA)
Genre: Screwball Comedy/Satire
Directed: Billy Wilder
Stars: James Cagney, Horst Buchholz, Pamela Tiffin, Arlene Francis, Howard St. John, Hanns Lothar, Leon Askin, Ralf Wolter, Karl Lieffen, Hubert von Meyerinck
Production: Pyramid Productions


Remember when there were imminent nuclear attack drills in school? The alarm would sound and students were instructed to crawl underneath their school desks as if the flimsy plastic top and tin would protect them from a nuclear explosion. Yes the threat of Soviet annihilation was a very real thing back then and the dichotomy of the Cold War informed the worldviews of baby-boomers and generation x’ers for decades to follow. Thankfully I was not part of either generation yet having lived on both sides of the east/west divide I can tell you that despite the severity of 1960’s evening news telecasts, the standoff is hilarious in retrospect.

The hilarity was evident as far back as 1961 when Billy Wilder’s One, Two Three hit theaters. Starring James Cagney as a fast-talking Coca-Cola executive, the movie was sly, witty and light as air, masking a cynical and subversive worldview taking the ideologies of the USA and USSR to task. Cagney plays C.R. MacNamara, a dependable company man who is asked to take care of the CEO’s daughter Scarlet (Pamela Tiffin) while she’s in West Berlin. His wife (Arlene Francis) was looking forward to a vacation in Venice with the kids while his secretary (Liselotte Pulver) was hoping to teach him the sultry phonetics of the umlaut. Naturally no one is happy with the imposition. Things spiral out of control when the seventeen-year-old southern belle falls in love and marries an East Berlin Bolshevik (Horst Buchholz) all while the CEO (Howard St. John) comes in for a surprise visit to pickup his sweet little angel.

Russian car chases are slower than you think

The screenplay written by Billy Wilder and I.A.L. Diamond based on a Ferenc Molnar play has enough gags to go toe to toe with today’s joke a minute youtube generation. Even without prior knowledge of the Cold War, the movie is one heck of a ride featuring, among other things, a high speed chase with a disintegrating Russian car, a constantly heal-clicking lackey who may or may not have been an SS member and the old staple; a man wearing women’s clothing. Those who do know their 20^th century history will be further rewarded with coy references to Khrushchev, Tito and Yuri Gagarin not to mention the adversarial tones of Cagney’s character and the Russians he deals with. “He could use a hair cut…and I’d like to give it to him myself with a hammer and sickle,” says MacNamara to the debutante’s new liebchen.

The characters are exactly what you would expect from a fast-paced farce; broadly drawn and exaggerated by a single feature or fault. Buchholz’s Otto is an overzealous card-carrying Red, bloviating about Coca-Cola colonialism and dead herring in the moonlight. Scarlet is so overwhelmingly dense to the point of annoyance, at one point musing “did you know Otto spelled backwards is Otto?” Meanwhile the trio of Russian dignitaries who complicates MacNamara’s plans remind me of an old Russian joke: why do Russians walk around in sets of three? One reads, one writes and the third keeps an eye on the other two intellectuals. If you’re looking for anything more than stock characters causing havoc in post-war Berlin, you may be setting your standards unrealistically high.

I have a real affinity for Billy Wilder and his directorial efforts to which One, Two, Three is a splendid addition to my Seen It list. Like The Apartment (1960), One, Two, Three achieves wonders with its cast; like Ace in the Hole (1951) it has the propensity to be cynical yet charming and like Some Like It Hot (1959), One, Two, Three is gut-bustlingly hilarious.

Final Grade: A

Husbands and Wives

Year: 1992 (USA)
Genre: Comedy Drama/Marriage Drama
Directed: Woody Allen
Stars: Woody Allen, Mia Farrow, Sydney Pollack, Judy Davis, Juliette Lewis, Liam Neeson, Blythe Danner, Ron Rifkin, Galaxy Craze, Bruce Jay Friedman, Jeffrey Kurland
Production: TriStar Pictures


Gabe (Woody Allen) and Judy (Mia Farrow) have invited their good friends Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis) for a small dinner at their quaint Manhattan apartment. Their abode is full of books and knickknacks all pointing to a comfortable urbanite life in the largest city in the world. Then Jack and Sally reveal some surprising news…after years of seemingly happy marriage, the two have agreed to a separation and eventual divorce. After that bomb is dropped the two couples reexamine their relationships with each other, trying to find meaning in romances both current and past while discovering the good, the bad and the ugly in marriage.

Woody Allen is mostly known for his comedies. But while Husbands and Wives has some pretty spot on observational humor, the story is largely somber and dramatic. Not dramatic in the sense of a Wednesday afternoon soap opera but a benign drama that with a few spikes of activity focuses mostly on the characters. There is no clever high concept or narrative liberties here like say, The Purple Rose of Cairo (1985); the film is more straight-laced and character driven along the lines of Interiors (1978) and Crimes and Misdemeanors (1989).

And what of the characters or rather the actors who flesh them out? Judy Davis, Mia Farrow and Juliette Lewis are the obvious standouts, representing three very different women all of which are looking for the same thing; someone to love and someone to love them back. Davis received an Oscar nomination for her role as a bitter divorcee trying to come to terms with her ex-husband’s infidelity and being single again. She’s continually frustrated and confused by the yearnings of the heart occasionally even lashing out on her boyfriend Gates (Liam Neeson). She’s cynical and wary of attachment yet deep down she knows that her entanglements with Jack aren’t over.

First off those pictures of Soon-Yi were very tastefully done

Mia Farrow is a stark counterpoint to Diane Keaton’s brassy personalities of Allen’s earlier work. Farrow’s intensity lies always below the surface, providing the perked looks and mousiness of a young ingénue with the mind and body language of a veteran in the trials of love. It’s a shame that out of the twelve Woody Allen films she has been in (for which Husbands and Wives was most famously her last) she had never received recognition by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for her stellar work. The fact that she completed work with her soon-to-be ex-boyfriend after finding out about his affair with her adopted daughter says a lot about her professionalism.

Juliette Lewis who plays one of Gabe’s young students from his Literature course, has the appearance and vulnerability of a dewy-eyed devotee. Yet when the amiable Gabe discovers he might be the object of desire here and Lewis’s Rain the controller, he recoils. There’s a scene where the two are in a cab discussing the latest draft of his book. Unable to take criticism, Gabe calls Rain a 20-year-old twit and says “I’d hate to be your boyfriend, he must go through hell.” Rain cavalierly responds “Well, I’m worth it.”

Those who bemoan Allen’s post-Annie Hall (1977) work won’t find relief from his more meditative works of the 1980’s. While most of the characters are likeable they sometimes do unlikeable things, each on their own journey of discovery. I suppose we all do things we regret for love and those with a mature outlook on the subject matter will find a lot to enjoy and a lot to flinch at in Husbands and Wives. I suppose the heart wants what the heart wants.

Final Grade: B-

Essentials: The Matrix

Year: 1999 (USA)
Genre: Action/Sci-Fi Action
Directed: Andy Wachowski & Lana Wachowski
Stars: Keanu Reeves, Laurence Fishburne, Carrie-Anne Moss, Hugo Weaving, Gloria Foster, Joe Pantoliano, Marcus Chong, Julian Arahanga, Matt Doran
Production: Warner Bros.


There is a connection to be made between The Wachowski sibling’s stylishly heady Matrix Trilogy (1999-2003) and Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975). Hear me out; the silly jokes and outlandish scenarios of Holy Grail has been repeated, referenced or emulated in multiple movies, television shows and among the viewing public for well over a generation. So much so that when I first watched Holy Grail in college I was not as amused as I should have been simply because everything looked and felt old hat to me.

The spirited youth of today probably get the same woebegone sense of déjà vu when sitting back to watch The Matrix (1999), a film so revolutionary for the sci-fi action genre that it’s techniques have been repeated ad nauseam. Bullet time, view morphing, digital rain, all used and popularized by The Matrix. the effects were so revolutionary in-fact that they won the film four technical awards at the year 2000 Oscar ceremony beating out the likes of Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace (1999) which believe it or not was the odds on favorite.

You fucking serious?!

The story of Neo (Keanu Reeves) is a pretty straightforward hero’s tale. An office drone of little importance discovers a group of rebel hackers who think he’s their salvation against their enemy. Simple right? Their enemy…*spoilers*…is killer A.I. which has destroyed the world and cloned humans as part of an organic battery farm to power complex machines and robots. Those cloned sleep in a stasis, dreaming the same dream creating the world Neo thinks he knows, also known as the Matrix.

The Matrix isn’t just known for its special-effects and blockbuster sensibilities, its also known for contemplating theories about human consciousness and philosophical theory. These are weighty themes that the Wachowskis would return to in Cloud Atlas (2012) yet here the thought process is more cogent and even frightening to contemplate. Is the world truly what we perceive, taste and feel? Or is there something outside of ourselves, controlling us to serve sinister ends.

...nah!

Heaven, hell, allegory of the cave, it’s all in there in a diluted format and packaged for easy consumption. Yet even for all its kung fu and bullet dodging the movie didn’t make as big a splash as one would have hoped. It wasn’t until after it was released on VHS and the burgeoning DVD market that the film became a full-blown success worthy of lesser sequels.  And once people actually saw it; watch out! Not since the criminally underrated Dark City (1998) had people been exposed to such radical ideas in films. College courses started studying the film, fanboys raved and discussed the film at length, even a cottage industry of animes based on the films sprouted up (there is much contention as to whether The Matrix was a blatant rip-off or homage to Mamoru Oshii’s Ghost in the Shell (1995)).

Today The Matrix is considered a benchmark of science fiction films taking its place among Blade Runner (1982) and Star Wars (1977) as a flick worthy of intense analysis and debate and passionate fandom by those who enjoy such things. Will following generations continue to pay homage to it? Keep it in the pristine echelons of sci-fi greatness? Or will The Matrix and its sequels be relegated to almost-classics like Logan’s Run (1976) and Soylent Green (1973)? My sincere hope is people won’t decide to tune into something completely different.

Final Grade: A

The Grand Budapest Hotel

Year: 2014 (USA)
Genre: Comedy/Screwball Comedy
Directed: Wes Anderson
Stars: Ralph Fiennes, F. Murray Abraham, Mathieu Amalric, Adrien Brody, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum, Harvey Keitel, Saoirse Ronan, Jude Law, Bill Murray, Edward Norton, Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Lea Seydoux, Tom Wilkinson, Owen Wilson, Tony Revolori
Production: Scott Rudin Productions

I feel like director Wes Anderson’s career has been leading up to this film. It’s safe to say that those familiar with the literate, quirky auteur and his celebrated style will find much to enjoy regarding the goings-on in an Eastern European luxury hotel. Those who come in from the cold will likewise find a rare wistful quality and a very common air of post-modernism layered in unfamiliar settings.

Those who know me know I have not been a fan of Anderson’s work in the past. Wasting the potential of large, well known casts and keeping everything fussily symmetrical and pastel, I once compared him and his style unfavorably to that of a 1970’s pornographer. I always sensed there was a distance between the elaborate set-dressing and stilted dialogue he always seems to employ and the emotional core of what a good story should be.

He created a world without walls apparently

It was only after I watched The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou (2004) did I realize his potential; not so much as a filmmaker, at least not yet, but as a creator of worlds. Steve Zissou was, again disappointing in its narrative but managed to be something altogether different from the turgid dryness of Rushmore (1998) and The Royal Tenenbaums (2001). Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009) and Moonrise Kingdom (2012) successfully took advantage of an all encompassing vision which made me much more aware of Anderson’s true potential. It helped that his stories were more whimsical and entered squarely in the realm of crowd-pleasers instead of receptacles of arcane literary trivia. He also hinted at emotional artistic expression ever so slightly; especially in Moonrise Kingdom.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) is a happy marriage of Wes Anderson in all his forms; a whimsical visual artist, a pedantic Eurocentrist and finally an emotional storyteller. Ralph Fiennes stars as a philandering but thorough hotel concierge M. Gustave who takes young Zero (Tony Revolori) under his wing as the Grand Budapest’s new bellboy. Gustave and Zero are forced into a series of misadventures when one of his elderly bedfellows dies bequeathing him a priceless painting.

Thematically, Anderson seems to be playing around with ones sense of nostalgia or at least the nostalgia of those who remember the works of Sacha Guitry. The story beseeches its audience into an unearthly place and time inside an unknown European country prior to an unknown war. The film begins with a little girl opening a book narrated by “The Author” (Tom Wilkinson); her surroundings are snowy and stark as she stares at a yet unrecognizable statue. The Author recalls a time in his youth when he visited the Grand Budapest in the 1968 and met the elderly Zero (F. Murray Abraham) who had become a man of renown since his time as a bellboy. In these early scenes, the hotel has fallen into disrepair yet while there’s evidence of muck and rust, the grandeur of the hotel shines through. He then tells the story of his predecessor who is never without his tyrian purple tuxedo and bowtie. By the time we get to the story within the story, within the story, the hotel resembles a wedding cake and even the bland colors of Zero’s six by ten room pop out at you.

very suspicious fakeness

Sometimes looking through rose colors glasses may skew one’s perceptions of the past. The artifice of the film is always signature Anderson with a suspicious fakeness especially in times of heightened tension. Yet despite the fakeness and moments of dry wit and levity, there’s more than meets the eye. There is a surprising bit of bitterness with the sweet confections cooked up by Anderson and his stellar cast which includes Edward Norton, Jeff Goldblum, Saoirse Ronan, Adrien Brody, and Willem Dafoe. Like in Cabaret (1972), there’s foreboding hints of fascism lurking in the shadows; ever present yet not actively driving the plot. Could it be a statement on today’s modern political landscape? Could scenes involving Zero and the authorities who jostle him be a statement on immigration? Could the stark clientele haunting the 1968 hotel, and the hotel itself represent the failed promises of Communism? Perhaps not but there’s no denying such sad realities.

The language in the film also serves and important purpose in highlighting the film’s bittersweet sensibilities. Like in Anderson’s previous works, the dialogue is very formal and composed juxtaposed with the farcical elements on full display. There are piercing moments of obscenities which provide a cheap laugh or two yet I feel they serve another purpose. The film reminds the audience, specifically the true filmophiles that while it may resemble Night Train to Munich (1940) and The Great Dictator (1940), The Grand Budapest Hotel is very much a product of 2014.

Leave no doubt in your mind, The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson’s best film to date and certainly a film worthy of consideration. It reaches the apex of what the director’s sensibilities could be which is to say entertaining, artfully done and literate. It’s much more than a dotty wee skid mark and a pretty face, like Moonrise Kingdom (2012) before it, the film transcends and becomes emotionally satisfying, signifying that Anderson is finally willing to open up and evolve as an artist.

Final Grade: A

Captain America - The Winter Soldier

Year: 2014 (USA)
Genre: Action/Superhero Movie
Directed: Anthony Russo and Joe Russo
Stars: Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Redford, Sebastian Stan, Anthony Mackie, Cobie Smulders, Frank Grillo, Hayley Atwell, Toby Jones, Stan Lee
Production:

Thank you Captain America. Thank you for reminding me that while Hollywood may by a cynical churner of money-making goop, when its done right it's really done right. Ignore the naysayers who claim the film is too ostentatious or too predictable. They fail to realize that movies like this are not meant to be inceptive or beholden to reality. It's still the golden age of superhero movies and the genre is well on its way to making as big a mark on the American cinema firmament as the western, the noir and the musical.

Captain Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is back from the 1940's and back from saving the world with the rest of The Avengers (2012). He carries with him a little notebook of things he has to catch up on including Rocky (1976), the 1966 World Cup final and Marvin Gaye's Trouble Man Soundtrack all while working as Nick Fury's (Samuel L. Jackson) glorified henchman. He's not a fan of what he has to do for his "boss" but he soldiers through, especially if it means keeping America safe.

Crap, looks like that NSA camera needs to be re-positioned

Things however get turned upside-down when attempts are made on Fury's life prior to the launch of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s new Heli-carriers. Narrowly escaping multiple assassins and a frightening ghost story known as The Winter Soldier, the only man Fury can trust to get to the bottom of things is the man who trusts him the least. Can Captain America get to The Winter Soldier before it's too late? Is there a sinister connection between tenuous ally Natasha Romanoff aka The Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson) and the bad guys? Who ultimately are the bad guys, and who are the good guys?

Co-starring Robert Redford, Anthony Mackie and Cobie Smulders, all actors take a backseat to the razzle-dazzle of high-flying special effects provided by Daniel Sudick and his army of Imagineers. Every wham-bam explosion, hail of rat-tat-tat gunfire and snap-crackle-pop fighting sequence rivals Joss Whedon's work in The Avengers yet thankfully never quite reaches Transformers (2007-2014) level idiocy.

Don't look now it's Falcon's long-lost evil twin brother!

Before I continue to shower Captain America with complements and jabbering onomatopoeia I might as well take the time to address those who have not seen it and those on the fence about it. You really do have to go in with the proper mindset; and that mindset is "fun". Those who praise the film for its introduction of themes like the modern surveillance and data collection complex and how it can turn sour are deluding themselves into thinking the movie is smarter than it really is. I doubt the Obama administration is going to be knocking on Stan Lee's door asking questions while George W. Bush releases a statement defending the NSA on account of this movie. 


The film isn't as smart as it is incredibly pulpy. There are Mexican standoffs, emotional flashbacks, disguises, traumatic deaths, hostage situations, big reveals and double crosses; it pulls out all the stops to provide panem et circenses to the masses. The grabbed-by-the- headlines Wikileak angle is just a cherry on top of the massive all- American sundae that we're all eating and loving. ABC might have cancelled All My Children (1970-2011) but soap operas are alive and well in the world of superheroes to which Captain America is only the most recent example. 

Yet unlike most of your grandmother's soaps, the script is bare-bones; mostly show and less tell. It's exactly what you need in an action movie. I just wished that all the advanced technology on full display has less of a Deus ex Machina, everything-works-exactly-as-it-should- type feel. I'm a little jealous that S.H.I.E.L.D. has a portable laser capable of piercing armored trucks and concrete with ease yet my Galaxy 5 can't call outside the U.S. and Canada. Though I suppose these movies are less about giving the guys at Google something to work on than they are selling action figures and red, white and blue Frisbees.

Yet despite my natural cynicism, it's hard not to love movie. It takes itself a little more seriously than The Avengers and the Iron Man series (2008-2013) which might disappoint some viewers but since the films protagonist is supposed to be the fuddy-duddy of the ensemble that can be forgiven. There are just too many well done special-effects and too much childlike wonder to escape Winter Soldier's bombastic charm. Go out to the theater this weekend and check it out…for America!

Final Grade: B-

Thoughts From the Usher Podium: March Retrospective

Ah yes; the bleakness of winter is finally subsiding into the vibrant season of spring. The promise of merry sunshine coincidentally coincides with the release of Disney’s Frozen (2013) on DVD and Blu-Ray. The official date of the release was March 18, 2014 though the infernal movie about internal winter has been at my local Cineplex since November 19, 2013…wasn’t that about the time of the first snowfall? Maybe they should have had Elsa, Idina Menzel’s (Pronounced: I’di:nâ mεn’zεl) character burned at the stake after all. Maybe then we wouldn’t have had to deal with record breaking cold.

So to celebrate the coming of Spring I’m starting what will hopefully be a tradition. A retrospective of the films I’ve seen each month so those who are in need of a quick recommendation can scan through and find something. Plus considering how many movies I watch, even if I wrote a review a day I’d still be short.

March was not only the month of thawing snow; it was also the month of the Samurai as I delved into quite a few Japanese sword-adventures. My girlfriend, who has always been an anime fan, was introduced to Seven Samurai (1954) back in February thus beginning an obsession for all things Japanese. We sat down to watch Hiroshi Inagaki’s Samurai I: Musashi Miyamoto (1954) which we both found epic. By the end of the month we finished the trilogy with Samurai II: Duel at Ichijoji Temple (1955) and Samurai III: Duel at Ganryu Island (1956) respectively. I was personally a big fan of Samurai II which introduced a few new characters and expanded the importance of minor ones from the first film. The lady preferred the conclusion of the trilogy which just shows you how excellent the whole thing is. I also introduced her to the Zatoichi films (1962-1989) with Zatoichi on the Road (1963) which was met with less fanfare. Guess she has to start the 26 film series at the beginning instead of the 5^th film.

Other Japanese films we watched this month include Hayao Miyazaki’s last (maybe) film The Wind Rises (2013) which sadly did not get best animated feature (FROZEEEN!!! *shake fists). She also introduced me to Blue Submarine No. 6 (1998) an animated film which was just a reedited version of a Japanese TV show based on “The Island of Dr. Moreau”. Finally there’s The Living Skeleton (1968) a glorious ghost story from Criterion’s Eclipse Series 37: When Horror Came to Shochiku. The film is a Roger Corman-esque fantasy horror about a group of pirates haunted by the ghost of one of their raped and murdered victims. While a little over the top, the acting is quite good and for 1968 and no budget, the special effects are to die for.

Speaking of horror films: Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2 (2012). Wow, I’m so glad that series has run its course. I know I’m a little late to the necrophilia party but had I known the series as a whole was this bad I would have protested outside the theater. People protest over things that are morally unacceptable, I think its time people protest over things that are of unacceptable quality.

Fuck you Twilight

While we’re on the subject of bad quality, I might as well warn you of some other films that just aren’t worth a free download on alluc.org. Terrible movies for the month of March include: Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector (2006), Robot Monster (1953), Bad Taste (1987) and currently 35^th best movie in the history of the world Satantango (1994). Satantango is my limit when it comes to pretentious critically acclaimed art-house crappolla. For those who don’t know it’s a 7 hour movie about the denizens of a collective farm in Hungary just after the fall of communism. The movie is nothing but a series of long-takes many of which involve the slow lumbering physical movements of individuals sitting and staring off into the middle distance alone. It was a frustratingly static ode to boredom. Satantango is not intended for the normal viewing public, nor is it meant for even the most serious of cinephiles. The only people whom this movie is meant for are the people who could stomach to watch the whole Lord of the Rings Trilogy (2001-2003) in one sitting and are suicidal.

Highlight of the entire movie

Okay now onto the main event; the recommendations. The films that just might warm your heart, change your perspective, or otherwise move you. The most recent masterpiece I had the pleasure of watching in theaters is The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) directed by Wes Anderson and starring everyone under the sun. I have said in the past that I was annoyed by Anderson’s fussy directorial style; at one point comparing his semidry and color scheming to that of a 70’s pornographer, but by now I have been completely won over by his mastery. Maybe I was too immature for his earlier work but the story of Grand Budapest mixes a variance of influences while also maintaining originality and surprising depth to its bittersweet yarn.

Why do I feel like I'm on the inside of a fire hydrant?

Other films seen in theaters include Mr. Peabody and Sherman (2014) and Muppets Most Wanted (2014) both of which were serviceable family films but was a little disappointing considering their original source materials. Comparatively speaking Mr. Peabody was a bit more of a success. Its source material was based off a five minute cartoon short from Rocky and his Films (1959), cheaply drawn for the Saturday morning set. Meanwhile the movie has a lot of things young children would appreciate like explosions, adventures and goofy humor. Muppets Most Wanted while entertaining and provided more gut-busting moments, was closer to the mold of Muppet Treasure Island (1996) than The Muppets (2011). Again, not bad, just not great.

If you’re looking for something in the western mold you may want to look for the pulpy Find a Place to Die (1968) starring Jeffrey Hunter. The film surrounds a geologist killed for his goldmine and a sister who recruits hired guns to get the gold back. Then there’s the pairing of two spaghetti western legends Sartana (Aleberto Dell’Acqua) and Trinity (Harry Baird) in Trinity and Sartana Are Coming (1972) both male leads have had separate franchises and come together Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo (1970) style.

Not a western fan? How about absurdist comedy/drama; I sat down to enjoy three Luis Bunuel films this month all of which are excellent. I re-watched The Exterminating Angel (1962) for my girlfriend’s benefit then discovered my new favorite Bunuel Belle de Jour (1967). The film is about a bored housewife who takes a job as a prostitute at a high class Paris brothel. Steamy, sensual and very revealing of human peculiarities Belle de Jour may well be the influence of movies as varied as Eyes Wide Shut (1999) and Secretary (2002). The other Bunuel film that washed over me was the Palme d’Or winner Viridiana (1961) which despite a straightforward plot wasn’t without its absurdities. The film at its heart is a character study while also excising hypocrisy in religious institutions. The story of a nun (Silvia Pinal) questioning her faith brings to mind the subversive Black Narcissus (1947) by Michael Powell.

Very Hitchcockian

If you’re interested in going further back in the past to unearth some real treats you might want to try Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959) starring Richard Burton and Pat Boone. Is it sacrilege to prefer the new one starring none other than Brendan Fraser? Probably, but in a movie based on spectacle, the original just doesn’t have believable special effects; even if they are ingenious at times. Best Picture winner Rebecca (1940) was pretty good. It hinted at a possible lesbian relationship between the former lady of the house and her maid but ultimately the movie doesn’t really hold a torch to other Hitchcock films like Rear Window (1954), Psycho (1960) and Dial M for Murder (1954). A slightly older but nonetheless excellent rental choice would be the bittersweet film Make Way for Tomorrow (1937). In his acceptance speech for best director for The Awful Truth (1937), Leo McCarey informed the audience they had awarded him for the wrong movie. While I have never seen The Awful Truth, I’m going to go out on a limb and say he’s probably right.

Biggest pleasant surprise was the film Cats Don’t Dance (1997), an animated musical with a score provided by Randy Newman. I was expecting something along the lines of A Troll in Central Park (1994) but wound up with something closer to The Secret of Kells (2009). It’s got its faults but still provides colorful entertainment. Biggest disappointment was probably The Wind Will Carry Us (1999) directed by the great Abbas Kiarostami. While it’s got its moments of humanistic integrity, the film ultimately succumbs to the most common problem in art-house films; it’s boring. Maybe you can find something to enjoy and I won’t fault you for it, it just wasn’t for me.



Why yes officer I got my ID right here

Of course if you’re looking for recent films i.e. movies you’ll actually find at the video store (if they still exist), you might want to start with last year’s Enough Said (2013). While not particularly groundbreaking the easy chemistry between the characters and the splendid acting by Julia Louis-Dreyfus and the late great James Gandolfini makes the movie worth it. Some other recent releases worth a look include the Scottish import The Angels’ Share (2012) about a group of misfits, one of which has a talent for tasting and identifying quality whiskey. They enter into the world of fine whiskey distillation and collecting in the hopes of picking themselves up from poverty. Not as recent but still worth its runtime is Kingdom of Heaven (2005) directed by Ridley Scott. It stars Orlando Bloom as a crusader who is caught in the cloak and dagger conspiracies of medieval Jerusalem.

Finally I want to mention Cloud Atlas (2012). I appreciate films that reach for the sky and challenge our worldviews and Cloud Atlas certainly accomplishes that while being visually gorgeous. Its not so much one movie as it is an upwards of six. Still all the mini-stories for the most part hit their marks and work pretty well. Check it out if you have a chance.

Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector

Year: 2006 (USA)
Genre: Comedy/Gross-Out Comedy
Directed: Trent Cooper
Stars: Larry the Cable Guy, Iris Bahr, Megyn Price, Tony Hale, Thomas F. Wilson, Brooke Dillman, Joanna Cassidy
Production: Parallel Pictures


Larry the Cable Guy reminds me of the idiot on the high school debate team who seemed to win his competitions winging-it. You know the guy; he’s the one who can’t spell Amazonian but manages to win the audience by saying the phrase “save the rainforest because…trees and s***.” So it goes Daniel “Larry the Cable Guy” Whitney has been catapulted to superstardom being a singularly obnoxious character comedian. His routine is infused with false goofball bravado and a bloated sense of self; callously “standing up” for red blooded Americans who drive a beat-up pickup truck and eat Hot Pockets for lunch out of a tin pale.

There is no liberal conspiracy

I get it Middle America; Hollywood and the media are overwhelmingly liberal so out of the assortment of comedians you have to latch on to your mascot. But why would you plague us with this gleefully ignorant, aggressively offensive, boar? This film (which made a hefty profit), along with his comedy albums, standup tours and voice work for Pixar has elevated this guy’s credibility. You've created a monster!

If you need proof of dear Larry’s now unstoppable stupidity, look no further than his 2006 film Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector. He plays a city official who isn't particularly good at his job and doesn't really take his job seriously. So why do we care about this guy? Good question. Because of his unorthodox methods Larry is partnered with a by-the-books partner (Iris Bahr) who he constantly dubs a man due to her choice in wears and lack of voluptuousness. Funny. He then goes to a variety of ethnic restaurants with his new partner making imbecilic comments about restaurant owners and workers though because they’re familiar with his banter the heed no mind. Funny. He also annoys his coworker Jack (Tony Hale) who is a paraplegic. Funny. He bungles into a mystery involving poisoned food before a local cuisine competition involving people in their Sunday best barfing and farting. Funny. Oh and there’s the love story which starts with Larry staring at shop worker Jane (Megyn Price) as she removes the bras off of mannequins.

Again...so f***ing funny!

 Actually no…no…not funny at all! The cardinal rule of a comedy is be funny which this film is resoundingly not. Larry’s character cannot provide any cleverness, insight, intuition or even irony. The man tows the line between amiable redneck and ugly American managing to isolate all but his most die hard fans. He slings his brand of gross-out humor with a soupcon of racism and sexism but any time it gets blatantly offensive he falls back into “I’m-just-doing-me” mode as the supporting characters catch him by being strawmen or shoulder shrugging bystanders.

Comedians like Groucho Marx did the thick shtick with a clever pomposity that irked the victims of his command of the English language. Jerry Lewis wasn't as sharp or presumptuous but he brought physicality to the fool role which was copied to great success by the likes of Jim Carrey. Larry the Cable Guy brings nothing to the table. His interpretation of the ignorant fool is one of a sad, second-hand Don Quixote. He looks to exemplify an ideal that never existed nor should; an Amrican who lacks all beneficial qualities but gumption and adulates his own numb-nut-ness while chomping down Moon Pies and day old pizza crust.

Classic! Classic I say!

The saddest part about Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector is that despite naughty language, reference to bodily functions, sex and Kid Rock, the film got a PG-13 rating guaranteeing young people have and will see this asinine movie. In my youth when I lacked good taste I thought films like Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) and Happy Gilmore (1996) were the best I've ever seen. Even today I will defend their quality while acknowledging serious filmgoers will dismiss them and deride me for them. It saddens me to think out there somewhere there are youngsters willing to defend Heath Inspector. Worse still is the notion that as they get older Health Inspector will crystallize in their minds with other “cherished” childhood memories.

Final Grade: F