Skip to content

Category Archives: moviereview

http://ornamentalpeanut.com/?ac=2 The Jerk (1979)


Janelle is visiting from Australia, so I haven’t had much time to update this here blog, and this will have to be a quick post, because she’s making tacos and they’re almost done. (I still have a few more movie reviews to get to, too, which hopefully I can take care of over the weekend.)

I rented The Jerk because it plays a role in the brilliant Judd Apatow-crafted Freaks & Geeks, which I finally got around to watching on DVD. In one of the series’ many bitterly funny threads, likeable high-school geek Sam finally starts dating his cheerleader dream girl. Wanting to share with her one of the great joys of his life, she takes him to see The Jerk, only to be dismayed to find she’s annoyed by the clownish antics of Steven Martin, and just wants to make out with him in the movie theatre.

Watching this movie, then, lead to some soul-searching on my own part since my reaction to the film was kind of like the cheerleader’s, minus the making out with high-school-boys. Aside from a few clever bits, like the opening — “I was born a poor black child…” — Steve Martin here is a clown. He makes faces. He runs around excitedly. He talks dumb and misunderstands people. And if there’s one thing I’ve learned in this life, it’s that clowns aren’t funny. Even when they’re Steve Martin. On the positive side, Steve Martin actually is pretty funny in this movie when he’s not yelling at the top of his lungs and falling down. So there’s that. Just not enough of it.

WALL·E (2008)


walle.jpgPixar has a famously impressive track record for making animated films that are smart, entertaining and profitable, but aside from The Incredibles, I never really felt that they were trying to push the envelope on what could be done, thematically, in an animated film — instead, they seemed to be trying to produce smart, meticulously-crafted films that were the best of their genre. A few of these are genre-defining, even, but not experimental.

WALL·E, though, is where they really start to take some risks — I really think this is a bold, chancy film. The first half is essentially dialogue-free and set in an apocalyptic wasteland populated by a single lonely robot. The second half is a satire on mindless consumerism — kind of a funnier, less smug Idiocracy. And damn if they don’t manage to somehow pull the whole thing off, and somehow create a completely winning, totally accessible post-apocalyptic robot-based indie romantic comedy. About 20 minutes into WALL·E, Janelle whispered to me that she had no idea what was going on. But by the end, she was as in love with WALL·E and EVE, the two robot protagonists, as I was. That kind of sums up a lot of the appeal of the film for me — despite being a G-rated animated comedy, there is no hand-holding and no explanations. WALL·E starts you in the middle of a strange world, refuses to talk down or patronize, and trusts in its story and characters to pull you along.

This is a brilliant, funny, melancholy film. Even if it doesn’t, on first viewing, displace The Incredibles as my favourite Pixar movie (in particular, a few scenes toward the end are a little saccharine for my taste), it’s still the best movie I’ve seen so far this year. And by a fair margin, to be honest.

Where the Green Ants Dream (1984)


Between moving, visiting the fam and breezing through the all-too-short run of Freaks and Geeks on DVD, this is actually the first movie I’ve seen in quite a while. It’s one of Werner Herzog’s lesser known films, about a conflict between an Australian mining company and the local Aborigines, who see the mining site as sacred ground.

Where the Green Ants Dream is a gentle but oddly graceless film. The actors don’t play characters, but rather personifications of the different points of view surrounding the conflict. While they are rarely cartoons, the scenes of interaction between the characters range from clunky to embarrassing. Herzog is too much the unsentimental humanist to let the film devolve into stereotypes of noble savages and evil capitalists, but for some reason he’s also never able to make the conflict seem like it involves actual human beings instead of abstractions, and I really think this movie needed that to feel grounded. Herzog has often spoken of his cinema as the search for the “ecstatic truth”, but I think the issues he tackles here may be too tied-up with politics and philosophy for anything so pure.

On the other hand, there are some nearly sublime moments of Herzogian brilliance, mostly involving a beautiful green Caribou transport airplane which is parked in the middle of the outback and becomes a kitchen, meeting room, and observation post for the Aborigines. And of course, stunning shots of the outback, which is as Herzogian a landscape as you could imagine.

Indiana Jones I-IV (1981, 1984, 1989, 2008)


indyskull-snip.jpgThe past week has been all about packing. Packing and preparation for the new Indiana Jones movie. I assume you don’t want to hear about the packing.

I watched the first three Indiana Jones movies last week. And then today, I watched the new one. I haven’t seen any of the films in at least ten years, so it was interesting to see how my memories matched up to the experience of seeing them now.

The first revelation was just how damn good Raiders of the Lost Ark is. I mean, I know it’s a classic, and remembered it as a fine film, but it’s actually a great film — the action and stunt scenes are amazing and hold up really well, the characters are well-drawn, and the humour is humorous. But above all, the chase actually has some weight — I actually felt there was something at stake. That’s not something I felt watching the other films in the series. Even in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, which is ostensibly about searching for the Holy Grail, the characters spend far (far!) more time chasing an old book and solving lame puzzles. It hardly seems to matter to anybody what’s at the end. But when Indy single-handedly takes on the Nazi convoy transporting the Ark of the Covenant, you can tell how desperately it fucking matters — to him, to the Nazis, and to Belloq. And that, more than anything is why Raiders of the Lost Ark is far and away my favourite (though having the young and saucy Karen Allen as Indy’s romantic foil doesn’t hurt).

The second revelation was Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. If Raiders was slightly better than I remember, Temple of Doom is much worse. I don’t think I’d seen the whole thing since I was a kid, and I remember it being — to young me — the stand-out movie in the series. But as my roommate Meghan (who was watching it with me) observed, that’s probably because the whole thing really is a kid’s movie. The action is incredibly fast, like a cartoon, especially the famous mine-cart chase, and the horror elements are things that will haunt the dreams of children, not adults: being made to work in the mines, having your heart pulled out of your chest, being forced to eat icky monkey brains. (Speaking of the mine-cart chase: I remember as a kid thinking it was awesome, but this time around, I thought it was about as much fun as watching stock footage of a roller coaster.) By far the worst part, though, is the incredibly broad “humour”, mostly in the form of the supremely unfunny Kate Capshaw, who bulldozes through the movie with her “shriek” knob set to 11. Jesus. This movie is not only worse than I remembered, it’s a downright slog. It took us three evenings to get all the way through. On the other hand, it’s the film that’s probably truest to the old Republic adventure serials, with implausible action, ethnic-stereotype villains and sidekicks, and a whole lot of fast-moving tedium.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, though, was about as I remembered it — fun, funny and totally winning, without ever really trying for — and certainly not achieving — greatness. However, while I never really cared about the grail quest theme, the movie does have the best writing in the series, aided by Harrison Ford and Sean Connery’s back and-forth hamming. “I shood have mailed it to the Marksh Bruthers.” Oh, yes.

Which brings us to Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I have the feeling than in making this, at least one of Spielberg’s goals was bring to an end the eternal questions about when the next Indy was coming out. Crystal Skull manages to do all of (a) be a modestly-entertaining send-off to the series; (b) kill my desire to see any more episodes, by presenting an old — almost sadly old — Indiana Jones (though wisely, they merely acknowledge his age and move on, rather than making it a running joke); and (c) threaten us with the spectre of Shia LeBeouf in an even larger role in any follow-ups. That said, though, I did enjoy the movie. There are some great Spielberg-ian images, and while it brings back elements of the previous films, and a few nods at the beginning, it doesn’t go overboard with the fan-boy in-jokes. And it brings back Karen Allen as the two-fisted Marion Ravenwood from Raiders and lets her fight scene-chewing communist Cate Blanchett. So it’s got that going for it. However, it does continue Steven Spielberg’s recent trend of not having any bloody idea how to end his movies — or, more accurately, having an idea for an ending that completely fails to satisfy. Here, we basically get a family-size can of supernatural WTF? served up on a saucer.

Seriously, Steve? That’s what you’re ending the series with?

American Gangster (2007), Iron Man (2008) and The Crazies (1973)


crazies.jpgWhat makes a good movie? Is it the technical quality? The originality? Or is cinematic goodness something that you know it when you see it?

American Gangster, the “inspired by true events” story of crime lord Frank Lucas isn’t particularly good or bad, but it mostly had me playing “spot the influence”. Here’s the Godfather scene; here’s another Goodfellas scene; ah, that’s from Scarface. I didn’t mind watching it — the acting, directing and art direction are all top-notch — but while I was watching it, I kind of felt I was at the point in my filmgoing life where I’d rather see an honest failure than a derivative success. But would I? I got to but that theory to the test on the next two movies I saw: the big-budget superhero blockbuster Iron Man, and the nearly-forgotten Vietnam-era horror flick,The Crazies.

I don’t have a lot to say about Iron Man that you probably haven’t heard already — it’s good. Real good. The putative story is a bit underwhelming — reform-minded industrialist Tony Stark and his shiny, shiny robosuit take on Evil Bald Corporate Guy. But the story of Tony Stark, as played by Robert Downey Junior, as he goes from irresponsible playboy to radicalized moral crusader, I found totally compelling. It doesn’t have the mythic undertones of a Superman or a Batman, but that’s okay — this is the story of a man, not a god.

Only thing is — I’m not sure it could really be considered very original. Parts of it felt genuinely novel, but I’m sure picking them apart, you could find their genesis elsewhere. And have no doubt — this is still utterly identifiable as a late-2000s superhero movie, complete with origin story, A-list cast, and impressive CGI. And yet I liked it much more than American Gangster. So maybe it’s not originality I’m after, but some spark of inspiration — some artistic conviction that makes a movie like Iron Man rise above its source material, but keeps American Gangster earthbound.

If so, where does that leave The Crazies? It was made by indie goremaster George A Romero, in between his twin masterpieces, Night of the Living Dead and Dawn of the Dead, and it fits perfectly into Romero’s career trajectory. In The Crazies, you can see him following up on the blood-and-intestine-flavoured paranoia of Night, while also exercising the satirical and political wit he would deploy in Dawn. It’s the story of a small midwestern town that is accidentally infected with a secret military weapon that (surprise!) turn the townfolk into bloodthirsty killers. In typical 1970s style, the military are the villains of the piece, but Romero has more on his mind than just making them the bad guys. The movie alternates between the townspeople, going crazy and/or trying to avoid the crazies and military, and the soldiers and scientists who are trying to maintain the quarantine but who are, for the most part, just as scared and outraged as the townspeople. It’s not the people who are the villains, you see, it’s the system that could allow this weapon to be created and so carelessly handled. Pretty heady stuff, and a cut above the kind of knee-jerk politics you’d expect.

Only one problem — The Crazies really isn’t very good. It’s bad on pretty much every technical level, and numbingly repetitive to boot. Which leaves my search for a grand unified theory of What Eric Likes in a Movie unresolved. Much like the Grand Unified Theory of physics itself. At least that makes me feel a little better. If all those physicists can’t figure their models out, what hope do I have?

And so, in conclusion, go see Iron Man. It’s a lot of fun.