The Most Important Movie Announcement You Will Hear This Season!

Starting in November (That's tomorrow) "Jeremy and the Movies" wiil embark on its most ambitious project to date.

With the winding down of this year, means we are finishing up the first decade of the new millinium. And of course that means lists among lists of the Best Films of the Decade, and "Jeremy and the Movies" has decided to ride on everyone elses coat tails. That's right, by the end of the year, you will indeed see "THE ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY NO DOUBT ABOUT IT BEST FILMS OF THE DECADE!!! My list will be revealed December 31st (A Date that is to be written in blood so I will keep my vow.)

However to celebrate THIS decade in movies, I have decided to turn back the clocks, and give you all of my top ten films starting with the 1930s. However I have restricted myself to one guideline.

Each director will be limited to one film per decade, I've decided to do this because that would give me the chance to focus on different kinds of films of said decade. So even if some directors were very prolific in one decade (ie. Frank Capra in the 30s or Jean-Luc Godard in the 60s), I would only focus on one of their movies.

So starting in November, each week will be dedicated to a different decade untill the unvailing of this decade's group of films. Each week, I will write a piece about each decade, and highlight three random movies from my lists. At the end of each week, the top ten lists will be revealed.

The fun thing about this is you guys can join in the fun by telling me what your top ten lists are, although they would of course be inferior to mine, since mine are Absolutely, Positively, no doubt about it the best.

To give you a run down of how each week will look, here is a schedule:

November 1st-7th The 30s
November 8th-14th The 40s
November 15th-21st the 50s
November 22nd-28th The 60s
November 29th-December 5th The 70s
December 6th-12th The 80s
December 13th-19th The 90s
December 20th-26th Christmas Holidays (Heightened anticipation this way!)
December 27th-31st The 2000s

Favorite Horror Movie Moments!

1. The Spinal Tap scene in "The Exorcist": Yes yes all that demon possession, head turning, cross masturbating stuff that goes on is in fact very scary, but remember when Reagan's mom was still trying to figure out what was wrong with her? She sent her to a doctor and had to undergo the painful ordeal of the spinal tap. For me this was one of the most horrific scenes in the film as director William Friedkin shows us the procedure in almost clear view. Anyone afraid of needles would probably put this scene above all the other supernatural stuff in the film, probably because it's something that is very real.

2. Quint gets his in "Jaws": Much is talked about the boo! factor in Spielberg's masterpiece horror, but the scene that I always couldn't take was the end when we see Robert Shaw's Captain Quint go to his watery grave. It's not just shocking in the fact that he dies at the hands or mouth of the monstrous fish, but that he is a character we have come to like and adore. Quint is the toughest man in the film, but once those mighty jaws have him in his clutches, even he screams in terror. Spielberg would never kill off another lead character again in any of his films in such a gruesome way.

3. The Bride screams at the sight of the monster in "Bride of Frankenstein": An outlandish moment of pathos in a horror movie isn't seen very often, but after Elsa Lanchester's famous bride is brought back to life, and rejects Karloff's monster, we can't help but feel for the poor guy. Just goes to prove, horror movies have feelings too.

4. The hand coming from the walls in "Repulsion": Roman Polanski times his horror classic so well to give the right effect. At times it's almost as if we're waiting to be scared. In this moment near the end of the film, Carol is looking at the wall, which soon turns into a giant hand that grabs at her. She is soon surrounded in a hallway of hands grabbing her from the wall. It's a terrific moment of horror, in a metaphysical sense, and also a "GOTCHA!" sense.

5. The "You Eat Like a Bird" line in "Psycho":The moment we see Norman Bates, we know something is just a little off about him. My favorite scene is with him a Marion Crane as he watches her eat dinner. There is something off putting about this line that still creeps me out. Norman on the outside looks so wholesome and innocent, but the way this line is delivers makes us wonder about what's on the inside.

6.Allan Gray is looking at the world through a coffin in "Vampyr": The most famous scene in Dreyer's horror experiment comes when our hero sees himself dead inside a coffin. As it is taken away to be buried by the film's villains, We get a point of view shot from inside the coffin. It's as if Dreyer is giving us a sneak peak at what's in store when we all die. The images are disturbing because it does look like indeed we are the ones in the coffin!

Unconventional Horror: Vampyr

One thing horror can do very well in genre is mess with our perceptions. One thing the films I've focused on this past week have in common other than having a link to horror is how they distort our reality of how we actually see things. Things are exaggerated or reinterrpreted as if we are watching a dream. What we expect from reality is undermined. Film has the power to distort our senses and boggle our minds better than any artform which is why horror is such a compelling genre for the cinema, yet how often we take it for granted.

In 1932, famed Danish director Carl Theodor Dreyer made a different kind of horror, something that today would probably be scrutinized for not following the conventional patterns of the genre. "Vampyr" is less a comprehensive film, than it is a daring experiment, it stretches the boundries of horror and creates a complete though sometimes reckless film.

When I say reckless I do not mean to put the film down, on the contrary, Dreyer made bold and surprising choices with his film that put it in a class by itself.

The baffling plot of "Vampyr" is an exercise in subjective point of view. We follow a young man named Allan Grey, a student of the occult, as he encounters one fantastic event after another. One of the first images he sees is a shoreman who evokes the image of death. He lodges with a family who has an ailing daughter, we soon learn that a local aged woman is in fact a vampire and may be the cause of her sickness. What Allan is experiencing has been argued as sort of a heightened reality, or his own imagination since he is obssessed with this dark world.

You may judge for yourself when you see the film, much of the film is seen through Allan's point of view as he sees many shadow images on a white wall, all of which don't seem to have an owner. We do however follow one peg-legged shadow as it reconnects with its human form in one of the most memorable moments of the film. Dreyer refuses to explain what we are looking at and why such things are happening. It's almost like he uses the horror genre as a springboard in order to show these images.

Though Allan is our main protagonist, we are under the impression that this may all be his overactive imagination, but sometimes the film switches focus, and Allan is no longer in the picture. In a wonderful audio commentary that comes in the recent criterion release, film scholar Tony Rayns argues that the film may be all about subjectivity. After watching the film myself, my own theory is that Dreyer is trying to test our perceptions. "Vampyr" is the kind of film that challenges the audience in wondering what are we in fact looking at. This is not conventional horror by any means, it dares to go further than even innovative films such as "Nosferatu" even did. "Nosferatu" at least had a narrative structure, that followed a certain pattern, Dreyer instead moves around with narrative in a very playful and experimental way. In a lot of ways I would say "Vampyr" is the forerunner of filmmakers such as David Lynch who also stretched narrative structure in different ways. In that way "Vampyr" is in a class by itself among horror films, it cannot be categorized as anything else, yet it can also not be thought of as a standard.

Carl Theodore Dreyer is a director I am not much accustomed to as of yet. He was not a polific director, mainly due to financial problems with his films. "Vampyr" was not successful in its initial release, probably due in part by some of the reasons I mentioned above. Becomes of the film's failure, Dreyer would not go on to film another movie for ten more years, and he would only make a small handful more before his death in 1968. The power of his original voice can be seen all over "Vampyr", which is why it is remembered today as a truly innovative work.

"I WILL NOT CELEBRATE MEANINGLESS MILESTONES" From the Blackboard of Bart Simpson. HAPPY 300th Blog!

I've been doing this blog for a little over two years now, just a friendly reminder, I'm not stopping anytime soon.

Kubrick's Horror: The Shining

It took me a long time to see "The Shining". I had always wanted to see it, I had seen everything else Stanley Kubrick had made, but for some reason, this film always eluded me. I first saw it about two years ago, and like all of Kubrick's films in my opinion, I had to see it a second time to see if I really actually liked it.

Since "2001: A Space Odyssey", Kubrick's films seemed to go at some similar pace. His films became somewhat calculating in this way, which lead to much criticism of his films being rather cold and heartless. To these critics, Kubrick seemed to be more about showing off his technique rather than telling a story. This would also seem why he's more praised by directors even to this day.

Many people passed "The Shining" by in its first release, and Jack Nicholson's performance was deemed too over the top, but like many great films, it was soon given the appreciation it deserves over time. It is indeed a sight to behold, Kubrick is firing on all cylinders in creativity bringing this ghost story to live.

The story begins with Jack Torrance (Nicholson) a writer who takes a job as caretaker to the Overlook Hotel for the winter. The hotel is vacant for the winter which would leave only Jack, his wife Wendy (Shelley Duvall), and his young son Danny (Danny Lloyd). During the interview, Jack is told that the hotel has a bit of a shady history. It seems one of the former caretakers went mad during the winter, and murdered his family, we also find out that the hotel itself is buried on top of a sacred Indian ground (never a good sign). Jack of course believes he and his family will be fine and reassures his employer nothing with overcome him.

However, that isn't the only supernatural activity the film focuses on. We learn that little Danny has a special power known as The Shining. Danny's ability enables him to have telekinesis as he soon learns when he meets the hotel cook Mr. Holloran who also has this power and tells Danny what it is. However, with The Shining, Danny can also see things that others can't, such as ghosts. Holloran warns Danny to stay away from room 237 in the hotel which is the place where the caretaker's murders took place.

"The Shining" goes along in a unique way that isn't usual for regular horror films. It becomes evident that we are indeed in Kubrick territory. Kubrick sets up his horror piece in the beginning with many mundane scenes, almost too mundane. The job interview with Jack would be terribly boring if it were filmed straight. Much of the dialogue is everyday, and even the information about the hotel's past comes off as more of an aside. Kubrick instead focuses on atmosphere, and the actors take the cue by making these mundane lines into stylized performances.

The ghost story soon comes into play, as we Jack's mood change almost right away. The whole idea of Jack becoming possessed with the spirit of the hotel stems from his very real resentment toward his wife and child. The film never really shows Jack as a loving husband and father, and even in the few beginning scenes where he is "normal", Kubrick and Nicholson hint at the character's pure contempt at his family through some subtle sarcastic dialogue aimed at Wendy and Danny.

We learn Jack does have an alcohol problem, and there was an incident where he dislocated Danny's arm unintentionally. His descent into madness is true horror for his family who don't even recognize him. Stephen King who wrote the original novel actually used the story as an analogy of the horrors of alcoholism. King actually found redemption with Jack Torrance in the end, however Kubrick goes another direction, where the hotel completely engulfs Jack where there is no coming back. There is even a murder in the film of a major character that wasn't in the book just to show the audience there is no turning back for Jack.

The look of the film is eerily beautiful, as Kubrick and his creative team pull out all the stops in giving us a highly stylized horror film. The most famous shots are probably those used by steady cam, such as Danny rolling his tricycle down the never ending corridors of the hotel, or the climactic chase through the complex garden maze, it all adds to the atmosphere.

"The Shining" is the kind of film that demands your attention at the very first moment with the graceful helicopter shots. Kubrick keeps your interest with his deliberate pace, and his unique style. "The Shining" is a horror masterpiece, and makes you wish Kubrick made more of the genre.

Carol's World: "Repulsion"

I have only just recently gotten familiar with Roman Polanski's "Repulsion", after purchasing the "must own" criterion DVD. I first viewed the film a little over a month ago, and have just re-watched it again to re familiarize myself with its world. What Polanski does so well with this film as well as any of his other effective thrillers/horrors is how he's able to catch the audience off balance. We are not sure what we are looking at until it is too late.

Knowing very little about the film going into it, I was sincerely puzzled as to where it was going, the first act of violence truly took me by surprise. However the thing that is really terrifying in this film aren't murders, but the world inhabited by Carol (Catherine Deneuve). Carol is the main character in the film, and is mostly through her eyes we see it, however not much is told about her.

Carol is introduced at the beginning of the film as a pretty blonde manicurist. She is mostly very timid and shy towards the people around her, which includes her co-workers, her boss, and even the man in her life Colin. Carol lives with her sister, who is having an affair with a married man. Carol is upset when she finds his things in their bathroom. Her sister although sympathetic tells her to mind her own business.

Throughout all this, we sense something is a little off about Carol though. She walks through streets as if in a daze, and she seems to zone out in a sort of day dream from time to time. She forgets her date with Colin, leaving the poor fellow waiting for her for over an hour. She also seems very disturbed at the sound of her sister having sex with her lover in the other room next to her.

Polanski keeps things wonderfully ambiguous for us, only hinting at what Carol's real character is about to unleash.

Things start to unravel rather quickly when the sister goes away on a trip with her lover, leaving Carol alone in the apartment. All through the first act, Carol seems petrified to have her sister leave, and we as the audience through what we have observed seem to have a sixth sense that she would not be safe alone.

For people who have yet to see "Repulsion" I will not reveal the hidden depths of Carol's character, I would like you to be as shocked as I was at my first viewing. This was the first of what many people peg to be Polanski's "apartment films" or "apartment trilogy" (the other two on the list are "Rosemary's Baby" and "The Tenant") Polanski seems to revel in the claustrophobic terror of a small place. Carol seems to build herself her own prison in her apartment, where the outside world is kept at a distance. The apartment itself becomes an extravagant set piece as it becomes more and more distorted and grotesque through Carol's eyes. The effects themselves become even more impressive as Polanski states in a documentary about the film, that their budget was so small, they couldn't afford extra special effects. Much of what we see is brought to life by collaboration with cinematographer Gilbert Taylor, as well as an excellent sound design.

There is still a fascinating mystery about "Repulsion", and that's the true character of the film's heroine Carol, played wonderfully by Catherine Deneuve. Deneuve wasn't a big international star yet, and it's a credit to her performance and Polanski's direction that keep us interested in someone we barely know, yet spend a whole film with.

Much is said about the final shot of the film which depicts a close up of a family portrait. Some might argue it would explain everything, others would say it explains nothing. What I think is another device Polanski uses to keep the audience on the outside. In the documentary Polanski says not to ask him to explain his movie, I believe he says this because we wants us to fill in the blanks ourselves. The film offers us everything we need to know, we just have to look closer, and that's the handprint of a great director.

Psycho: A Transition of Terror

I wanted to watch a really good horror film today, something good but something a bit obscure, maybe something I haven't seen before. I perused my extensive film library for a really good obscure horror film, but when the cards were down, what I really wanted was "Psycho".

I don't know what to say about "Psycho" that hasn't already been said. I'm not sure how many times I've seen "Psycho", other than it's been a lot. I'm not as shocked at it as I once was, but it still keeps me in absolute awe. Today as I was watching "Psycho", I was pretty much watching it casually like I do with most films I've seen a hundred times. It's a comfort in some ways to know what's coming, even though it takes away from the shock. I perked up the moment Anthony Perkins appeared on screen, his performance, one the greatest in screen history, is one of the things that still does surprise me. Each time I see him as Norman Bates I see something new that he does. I wonder how much freedom Hitchcock gave to Perkins with his performance. Hitchcock has never been given much credit for being an actor's director, yet he's responsible for some of the best performances ever put on film.

The scene that I could watch over and over again isn't one that is talked about often. It's the discussion Norman Bates has with Marion Crane over dinner. They are alone in Norman's parlour with all of his taxidermy trophies surrounding them. The chit chat becomes delightful, but there is an air of mystery and suspense with the character of Norman. When he sees Marion eat, he states, "you eat like a bird", kind of a strange thing to say to someone you just met. But Norman is very disarming and likable, he's very easy to gain sympathy with in this scene. But things suddenly turn dark, when Norman's mother is brought into the conversation. Norman soon becomes defensive when Marion suggests he should put her into a home, or "some place" as she puts it. We know right there if we hadn't picked up on it before that something is indeed wrong with Norman, but again not sure what.

Most people would point out the famous shower scene is the film's turning point, where Marion is killed and the role of lead character is shifted to Norman. I would say that it is the dinner scene, where Hitchcock is beginning his new story with Norman as the main character. By the end of it, it seems Norman has done Marion a favour in convincing her unknowingly to return to her home and give back the money she has stolen. It is the first part of the film's resolution, Marion's story is wrapped up, and you could say is symbolically wrapped up with her murder.

It's pretty much a seamless transition from Marion's story to Norman's, which is part of why this is one of the perfect films.

I'll never get tired of "Psycho", even though I don't think it could ever frighten me the way it did the first time I saw it. I'm left with a film that I admire greatly, and could watch again and again because I know I'm watching something from a master of the medium, and I'm watching one of the greatest performances ever on film. I'm sure when I watch the film again, I will zero in on another moment or scene in the film, but for now, that will be all.

Frankenstein and his Bride

This week, leading up to Halloween, I'll be focusing on some of my favorite horror films.

When it came to horror films as a child, I was pretty much a coward. I remember going to the video store and seeing mostly slasher films like "Friday the 13th" and "Nightmare on Elm Street", there was no way I was going to see those movies. "The Exorcist" was one film in particular I wouldn't see mostly because it was the one film my dad said actually scared him in the theatre.

I suppose my first entry into the horror genre was with the classic universal monster movies. My mom let me see "Frankenstein" because it looked harmless enough, and I was fascinated with classic films so it just seemed like the logical fit.

I remember vaguely my first encounter with "Frankenstein", I don't remember being scared necessarily but it did have an impression on me. I remember mostly the performance of Boris Karloff as the monster, with his famous make up. The scene that I remember most vividly was the monster reaching out to the sky as he sees the sunlight for the first time, then seeing his body react as the sun turns to darkness. It's a poignant and sad scene, that sets up right away the monster's tragedy.

"Frankenstein" became one of my favorite movies as a kid, I preferred it over the other monsters like "Dracula" and "The Wolf Man". I think my love for it mostly came from Karloff's performance. Unlike the other monsters, Karloff turns his into someone who is sympathetic, he's misunderstood, and the real monsters in the film are the towns people who turn into a lynch mob at a moment's notice. As a kid I was also in awe of Frankenstein's laboratory, not knowing much about film history at the time, I had a sixth sense that the famous sets held a certain importance.

Today I'm still fascinated with "Frankenstein", although I am now fully aware of its shortcomings. It suffers from being an early sound film with no musical score which would've helped immensely. The sets can be seen clearly as Hollywood backdrops, which probably accounts for the film not being that scary. However "Frankenstein" does have things that I think are taken for granted by today's horror movies, and that is real Gothic atmosphere and true artistic originality. The Frankenstein make-up which is arguably the most recognizable face in horror movie history is something to admire and has influence many make up artists even today. The film is highly stylized, which may be another reason people today don't find it scary. Today's horror films seem to come from real life, which can sometimes take away from its sense of wonder. "Frankenstein" may be a bit rusty on the outside, but it still has the power to inspire.



A few years after I saw "Frankenstein" for the first time, I was finally able to get my hands on its even more famous follow up. "Bride of Frankenstein" is truly a great film, and perhaps my favorite horror film of all time. It is one of the very few exceptions to the rule that the sequel is never as good as the original. Much of this has to do with director James Whale. It was said that Whale did not want to make a sequel perhaps because he felt he had nothing left to say about the monster. However he relented after he was given a bigger budget and more control over the script. As a result the film is a 100% lavish production with a nice blend of horror and humour.

"Bride of Frankenstein" is more of the work of an auteur. In a recent documentary about the film, one historian says it's almost like spending an evening with James Whale himself. Whale was a bit of an outsider himself but also a creative genius. In the golden age of his time with Universal he was given a lot of freedom by producer Carl Leammle Jr. Whale was known as a very witty, with a very wicked sense of humour, which comes out often in the film.

With "Bride" Whale is able to add upon things about the monster that perhaps weren't as well thought out in the original. The Monster is again the sympathetic figure, but perhaps even more so this time. In a poignant scene involving a blind old hermit, the monster finally finds a friend who can accept him. It's somewhat a variation of Chaplin's "City Lights" where the monster can only gain acceptance by someone who can't see the real person. It's a touching scene and one of the best depictions of loneliness in cinema.

The hallmark of this film is of course the creation of the Bride, which is given even more extravagance and style than the original creation scene in the first film. Whale pulls out all the stops using highly stylized lighting and sets to fulfill his climax. It wonderfully demonstrates what a great asset black and white film was in those days, the movie wouldn't be quite the same without it.

"Bride of Frankenstein" was the pinnacle of the Universal horror movie and horror movies in general. Looking at it you can see the influence it had on directors such as Joe Dante, Sam Raimi, and John Landis. It's visually stunning and downright hilarious. It's a treat to see each time I view it.

After "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein", Whale would not go on to direct the third film, and Karloff only appeared one more time as the monster. Most of the magic was gone, however Universal pretty much soaked the franchise dry in the 30s and 40s. There would be nothing to come close the brilliance of Whale's early work, and the others can pretty much just be appreciated on a campy level. No matter how bad the later movies got, I always go back to the first two for pure enjoyment.

Summer Wrap Up Part Four: August

Well we have now come to it, the final month of the summer movie wrap up. August is mostly known as the month the studios decide to dump their leftovers. In August you don't normally see the anticipated blockbusters like you do in May, June, and July. However this time, I found August to be the most interesting month.

I began the month strangely enough with a rather lightweight raunchy comedy. "The Goods" came and went with very little fanfare, which is a shame because even though it didn't hold a candle to entertaining romps like "I Love you Man", and "The Hangover", it had its own goofy charm.




Jeremy Piven stars as a cutthroat salesmen who with his team of cutthroat misfits take up shop at a used car lot and try to sell every car there on the July 4th weekend. Pretty much every comic actor who has made a name for him or herself shows up in either a substantial or cameo role during the film. The laughs are aplenty, but there is never much cleverness to them, but if you would pay to see Will Farrell jumping out of an airplane in an Abe Lincoln suit, and holding on to a sex toy, then this film is for you.

I admit it's a stupid premise, but I was looking for a laugh that night and I got it.

Now here's something unusual in the summer: a special effects extravaganza with an intriguing story, and is not a sequel. That's just what we found when "District 9" rolled into town.



The film takes a clever satirical premise by having actual aliens from outer space take the role of refugees who take up residence in district 9 a camp of sorts situated in Johannesburg South Africa. The start of the film takes on the mockumentary feel, and the aliens themselves are suppose to parallel actual South African refugees. Soon one of the immigration employees who's duty is to give the Aliens a moving notice is struck with a virus that makes him turn into one.

The rest of the film has him becoming an unlikely hero, as he tries to find a cure for himself as well as help the refugees return to their home planet. The film opens well and keeps you interested, but then gets lazy in the end by becoming a clone of "Iron Man", still this was one of the most intelligent blockbusters I saw all summer.

Now we have come to "Inglorious Basterds" Quentin Tarantino's latest about a a squad of WWII American Jews who are given the mission to hunt down and kill Nazis. Their special brand of killing is scalping. Brad Pitt plays their commander, Christoph Waltz is the villainous Nazi nicknamed "The Jew Hunter", and many intersecting stories are going on, and finally connect in the big finale.



This is the only film I saw this summer where I knew I had to watch it a second time in order to have a full opinion of the film. That's the type of filmmaker Tarantino is, his best films are so rich with detail, it's hard to catch everything once. The first time I saw the film, I thought it was somewhat messy, with some brilliant individual scenes within it. However seeing it a second time, I was enjoying myself a whole lot more. Tarantino is one of America's best directors working today, he knows how to construct a movie, and how to assemble a big payoff. As a cinephile, this was the most anticipated movie to see this summer, and is one of the best films of the year.

As the month was winding down, not much came to my neck of the woods that interested me. I debated seeing Rob Zombie's "Halloween 2" since I was actually a fan of his first one, but I decided I wasn't really in the horror mood. No I can honestly say my final film of the summer was somewhat of a light effort. I decided to take in Ang Lee's "Taking Woodstock", about the real life trials and tribulations of the people involved who made the legendary concert into reality.



Innovative comic Demitri Martin stars as the young man who had the fortune of having a permit to put the concert on and thus saved Woodstock. The film is rather an unassuming comedy with many heartfelt performances. I got into the spirit of things by re-watching the "Woodstock" documentary before seeing the film, and I was able to appreciate the slight touches Lee adds as an homage to the legendary film. I had a good time at the film, but I felt the real conflict in the film regarding Martin's character and his mother played by Imelda Staunton is done with a whimper and not a scream. Others might be disappointed to find that any music from Woodstock is only heard from afar, but being how this is a behind the scenes look, I can forgo that.

Yes, all in all, the summer wasn't all that bad. Even though not all films were memorable, I can't say I saw one that was extremely bad. After all this, I can finally put the summer movie season of 2009 to sleep.

Summer Wrap Up Part Three: July

Summer in July started off quite strong I thought. One of the most anticipated films I was looking forward to was the release of Michael Mann's "Public Enemies". The film follows the somewhat fictional/factual exploits of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) through his years of infamy right up to the point of of his demise. The film was given quite a cool reception for the most part, although some found it to be well constructed in the usual Michael Mann way.

While I do not consider this to be as strong as past work from Mann, notably "Heat" and "The Insider", I was fascinated with the docudrama tone the film took. The film tends to withdraw from emotion and show us a man at a high point in his life. We see his successes and failures, and in the end, although not much is revealed about the man that we already didn't know, we get a sense as to why he was such a charismatic figure. Depp gives a great performance as usual and I felt it was one of the stronger films to come out in the summer.



Next up for me was "Bruno", Sascha Baron Cohen's follow up to "Borat". As a film it became quite clear to me right away that "Borat" was by far more clever and funnier, however that's not to say "Bruno" didn't have his moments of inspiration. I film balances nicely the idea what people do to become famous as well as a challenge on public perception of homosexuality in general. Cohen's hi jinx work beautifully in some sequences, no better than the climactic finale which has Bruno in a wrestling ring with his gay lover much to the chagrin of onlooking spectators. However in some parts the film falls flat. Cohen seems to focus more on shock this time, and less on comedy, which I think is why some his stunts aren't pulled off as well. However, like "Borat", Cohen continues to challenge our prejudices and I give him kudos for his bravery.



"Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince" was the primary movie to see in July. So far it is second only to "Transformers" in the box office race. It seems hard to believe that Harry Potter has gotten so old. The first film is nearing its ten year anniversary, it's getting to be a tradition. I was not that impressed with the last Harry Potter film, however there is something endearing about this unique mythology that is hard to ignore. The fact that Harry grows older with every film, it's an interesting experiment in the history of film.

The only thing "The Half Blood Prince" has against it, is its familiar world. This being the sixth film, we pretty much know what to expect, but the great thing about this franchise is how it can surprise us even in this late stage. That being said, I would say this entry is one of the funniest ones, yet also one of its darkest. There is a particularly humorous sequence where Harry drinks a potion where everything brings him good luck, which he uses in order to gather information. Of course those familiar with the story will find the ending satisfactory as it sets us up for the final two installments which will no doubt be an event unto itself.



"500 Days of Summer" was this year's indie movie sleeper hit, it had a sweet gimmick, and two appealing stars, however I found it somewhat too cute for its own good, but still fairly clever. The story follows the rocky relationship of Summer (Zooey Deschanel) and Tom (Joseph Gordon Levitt). Tom is a hardcore romantic who sees Summer as his ultimate soulmate, however the film tells us almost out of the gate that things don't turn out so well. Summer is a more realistic person and even tells Tom at the beginning, she's not looking for anything meaningful. That doesn't stop Tom from falling in love with her right away.

Although the film is an anti-romance, it's never cynical or depressing, it has a hopeful message for anyone who thinks they have lost the love of their life, it even has a musical number and a parody of foreign films. However the cuteness factor wears out its welcome sometimes, but it's all very harmless and likable which made me kind of ignore all that.



The month ended with "Funny People" which was a huge disappointment. I give credit to Judd Apatow and Adam Sandler for stretching their talents, however that can't take away my feeling of utter boredom at the last part of the film.

The movie opens promising enough, with Sandler a self-absorbed comedian who finds out he's dying. A young up and coming comic (Seth Rogen) becomes his assistant. We are taken through the world of a comic's life that hasn't been depicted at all. It's only when Apatow takes a detour towards the domestic life of Sandler's former flame that it derails completely. The last third of the film should've been shorter, but Apatow dwells too long on the blissful life that should've been Sandler's had he not been such a jerk. Other sub-plots are either given too quick a resolution, or aren't referred to at all, and you have to wonder why they were put in the film in the first place.

Apatow always has a problem of adding too much weight in his films, the one time all his ideas came so perfectly was in "Knocked Up". I appreciate what he did, and I know he will make another great comedy again, but this was a misfire.

Summer Wrap Up Part Two: June

June proved to be yet another slow month movie watching wise. Not much came out that interested me, but I was busy with other things to even notice the amount of cruminess that was coming our way. About mid-June I mozied back to the movie house to see "Up" again but this time in 3-D. I found it to be somewhat of a waste of money. "Up" was still the same wonderful film I saw the first time, however I regretted paying the extra dough for those 3-D glasses. I have to say that I'm leaning towards the anti-3D minority, I haven't seen one shred of evidence so far that has caused me to think this is the way movies should be made for future audiences. However I was delighted to see "Up" again and it proved to be the highlight of the month.

Around the same time, comedy came into the forefront yet again with the release of "The Hangover". The story concerns four buddies, one of whom is getting married, who spend an unforgettable weekend in Las Vegas. Three of the men wake up one morning to find out the groom to be is missing. The rest of the film is one surprise after another as the three piece together what happened the night before. I had a fun time at "The Hangover", it is one of the best comedies of the year. Some people seemed to moan and groan at the somewhat simple solution, yet the film itself is full of so many convoluted happenings, it would be hard to come up with an ending to suit all that. This is the kind of film where you sit and enjoy the ride and I did.



The final days of June ended with a sigh of relief for most critics when an actual intelligent film made its way in mainstream theatres. "The Hurtlocker" is an Iraq war film unlike any other. It focuses on a squad who's job it is to dismantle bombs. The film has been hailed by critics as one of the years best. While I agree it was more intelligent and pulse pounding than others, the one fatal flaw was its overuse of handheld camera techniques. For some, this would be an example of effective use of the handheld camera, however I didn't see it as that. There is a grittiness to this film however, but I felt it interrupted the flow. Sometimes it interrupted the flow, and the character's faces were lost in pivotal moments. That being said, there were moments of extreme suspense and action that were some of the best I saw this year.