American Beauty (1999)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0169547/?ref_=nv_sr_1

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ycmmJ6rxA8

BEFORE THE VIEWING

I was 12 when "American Beauty" hit theaters. Although I had to wait until it hit home video release, I still caught it early enough to be rooting for it by the time Oscar season rolled around for the year. You would think that a 12-year-old would be most drawn to and affected by the younger folks in the story - the angsty daughter, the mysterious boy next door, the narcissistic best friend. To an extent, I was - and I expect to swoon a bit over Ricky even when I view this film in a few minutes.

But the story that always seemed so distinct to me was Lester's. Maybe it was just because Kevin Spacey was, and is, an incredible actor. Maybe it was just effective marketing. You wouldn't think that a mid-life crisis story would really capture the interest and enthusiasm of a 12-year-old girl, but somehow, it did.

Even then, I could see that the supporting cast of this film was rock-solid. Allison Janney, Chris Cooper, Annette Bening, Peter Gallagher...this movie was populated with faces I recognized from other, excellent things.

I also responded to the cinematography and overall style; slow, steady fantasy shots, pulled-back frames that conveyed the true emptiness of rooms and emptiness of lives with so much potential unlived.

In the intervening years, I get the sense that a lot of folks finally shook their heads, "coming to" after being slowly mesmerized by this film. On the other side of 1999, some of the magic seemed to dissipate. "American Beauty" fell into the bucket of award-winning films that we ended up facepalming ourselves for handing out (think "Shakespeare in Love"). For me, though, this film has always been a moody, artistic achievement that left me happy-crying at the end.

Let's see if that's still the case.

AFTER THE VIEWING

It still makes me happy-cry at the end.

This movie comes down to the characters for me. Part of it is how well they are crafted; they're all flawed, but you don't downright hate any of them. They all have redeeming qualities, but you don't love any of them. This movie doesn't judge its characters. It merely seeks to show you this tiny slice of suburban life. Honestly.

The other thing I love about these characters is how relatable they are. Ever wished you were anything but ordinary? Ever felt like life could crush you into silence? Ever felt sedated, and then suddenly something jolted you back to life? Ever admired a person for having the same goals and values? Ever wanted to quit a job and not give a shit? Ever psyched yourself up by blaring a great song in your car? Ever been caught up in a moment that looked totally mundane from the outside, but meant everything to you on the inside? Yeah, me too.

Of course, there are other great things about this film. Until this viewing, I never really unpacked the rose petals featured so heavily. They start out in the hands of Carolyn, symbolic of her attention to detail, her outer beauty, her poise. But they quickly become a central element in Lester's fantasies about Angela, suggesting sensuality, the blossom of her youth, the color of passion.

The music, too, deserves some kudos: a mix of classic rock, vintage crooning, and understated original scoring that seems to arrest your heart, but not to overwhelm it.

During the viewing, I ended up typing out several quotes - some wretched, some insightful. But I'm not going to list them out here, because honestly, they hit super close to home. But I will leave you the same way that Lester did, by telling you that some things in life - movies, a bag in the wind, a well-timed pint, a long conversation - can leave you thinking, "...I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life..."

And I feel pretty grateful for this film.

Overall rating: 4.5 out of 5

10 down. 288 to go.

Always (1989)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096794/

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxMZnKm-kAw

BEFORE THE VIEWING

So this isn't something I tend to share, but the internet is super private so here it is: my parents are divorced. The divorce was brutal. I was maybe 12 when things started souring in the house, but it reached its peak a few years later and by the time I turned 16, my parents were parting ways. The divorce dragged on through a series of legal proceedings that didn't stop until I was almost a sophomore in college.

But there was a time when my parents weren't so resentful, and I have some great memories attached to those days. One of those great memories was watching "Always" with my mom and dad.

This isn't a rom com, but it is romantic. And it is comedic. It's also about a dead guy, so there's obviously some drama, too. And even though romantic love is a big theme in this film, it manages to include a lot about work, friendship, mourning, sacrifice, and healing. It's a bit of a genre-bender in that way, although I prefer to just categorize it as a damn fine movie.

The whole cast is solid, of course, but I'm especially excited to see John Goodman in a role that is sometimes sloppy, sometimes stern, but always full of heart. I'll also see Audrey Hepburn circa 1989, in what I think is the last film she participated in before passing away in 1993.


AFTER THE VIEWING

Damn, this movie holds up so beautifully over time. From the opening scene, all the way through the closing credits, "Always" makes me giddy...and sad...and full of admiration.

I forget that it was helmed by Steven Spielberg, who (heh) ALWAYS excels at creating a well-rounded film. It's not as grandiose as "Jurassic Park", and it hasn't got the gravitas of "Schindler's List", but "Always" has a way of hitting me right in the feels, over and over again.

As a kid, I don't think I ever fully understood how tragic Pete's death was. It comes on the heels of him making some big, sweeping promises to the woman he loves, and happens right in front of his best friend's eyes. The tragedy of that, and of him having to come back and somehow recover and move on alongside them, creates a lot of powerful moments throughout the film.

And his mentor, Ted Baker, has never been such an interesting character to me. He always seemed a bit lovestruck and a bit on afterthought to me, but this time I tried to focus on his part in the film, and how good of a man he was, and I realized that there's been a lot of proof of that in this movie that I somehow blocked - probably because I spent so much time rooting for Pete.

Something else I noticed this time around that plays heavily into why this movie is so distinct for me as a love story is that it doesn't have a glamorous backdrop. These characters aren't ambling through Central Park or surrounded by glittering, elaborately-decorated backgrounds; this is a blue-collar crowd tromping through military-style barracks, hangers, and bars. The most intense scenes in the film take place inside of airplane cockpits. There's sweat and oil and fire all around, and that's just the way it is.

The last film I reviewed in this blog was "Along Came Polly", and as far as I'm concerned, "Always" is far superior to that film in pretty much every way imaginable. "Always" is a well-balanced, well-crafted, well-performed piece of cinema, and it gets the first 5 out of 5 rating I've given out. It's hard to find anything wrong with this film.


Overall rating: 5 out of 5

9 down. 289 to go.

Along Came Polly (2004)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0343135/?ref_=nv_sr_2

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTXS-5D_U8k

BEFORE THE VIEWING

Unlike the romantic comedy I just reviewed, "Along Came Polly" is a pretty standard rom com - one straight-laced person, one wild child, somehow making love work odd-couple style.

I don't remember much about this movie, other than Jennifer Aniston being a bit of a mess (but totally pulling it off), and Ben Stiller being a non-ironic, non-caricature of a person (but only kinda pulling it off).

The one thing that does get me excited about is the supporting role of Philip Seymour-Hoffman (RIP) who plays the chunky-but-lovable best friend in this movie. I remember him from so many grittier, dramatic roles, so it should be fun to see him in something different.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Okay, so this is gonna be super harsh...but this movie is sorta everything I detest about romances portrayed in film. Maybe my perspective is skewed, because I'm the child of a divorced home, but I have a pretty low tolerance for incompatibility, and the compromises that people end up making to try and salvage something that just...doesn't...work. The main characters of this film are just not going to fit, long term, but instead of having any honest dialogue about it, when the topic of being too different comes up, Polly just jumps Reuben's bones. Ugh.

Reuben (Stiller) also feels like a super hollow character to me, and not the type of dude I've ever encountered - someone who defines a first date as a "defining moment" in his life, and goes from thinking it could never work out one night, to considering marriage with the same person the next morning. What the hell? How about you have a life of your own, Reuben, instead of letting women define your every thought and emotion?

I had hoped that Philip Seymour-Hoffman would be a fun distraction from this trainwreck of a romance, but no; he ended up being a disgusting, washed-up has-been with on over-inflated ego who offered misguided advice to his dumbass friend, Reuben. The "sharted" joke was a particularly brutal scene to watch, because even though it was funny, it belittled the talents of an actor we all know was capable of roles with far more depth and humor.

The cameos I ended up enjoying most added up to about 15 minutes of airtime. First, there was the immensely-talented Hank Azaria, who played a SCUBA lothario at the beginning and end of the film. We also caught brief glimpses of Kevin Hart and Judah Friedlander, who scarcely had three lines between them as a pair of cameramen following Philip Seymour-Hoffman's character around for a documentary.

Will I ever watch "Along Came Polly" again? Honestly...probably not. As an adult, I find this film kind of fluffy and extremely implausible, not to mention a little gross when trying to be funny. If you haven't seen this one, you're probably better off.

Overall rating: 2.5 out of 5

8 down. 290 to go.

Alex & Emma (2003)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0318283/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1iOnLJlKns

BEFORE THE VIEWING

"Alex & Emma" is one of my favorite romantic comedies. I'm not ashamed to admit I've seen this movie plenty of times since I purchased it, probably very shortly after its release.

Luke Wilson and Kate Hudson are really interesting choices for this kind of film. In 2003, Wilson had played a lot of supporting roles in comedies or dramas; moving into a leading man position was new, and ultimately a very satisfying choice (sorta the same way I feel about Bill Hader in "Trainwreck"). Hudson had been more involved in dramas like "Almost Famous" and got a lot more traction for "How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days", which released around the same time.

But what I have always loved about these two is the cute, not-too-intense chemistry between them. Things don't really spark between them, or start off heavily contentious or sexual. The story plays out in what always felt like a more natural way; two people meet, and as they spend time together and get to know one another, a bond begins to form. Lovely.

Another thing I love about this movie is that it's really two separate stories - the present world in which Adam is dictating a book and Emma is transcribing it, and the fictional world of the book itself, which is peopled with the same actors in a very different setting. When actors can manage to play multiple characters in the same movie that are separate and distinct, I will always sit up and take notice; to me, that's a sign of genuine talent.

And the talent extends to the writing and directing, too. Maybe I should save this observation for after the film, but one reason I come back to this movie again and again is the concise and delightful storytelling. Minimal sappiness, witty dialogue, realistic characters, reasonable pace. It'll be a genuine pleasure to watch.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Yep, definitely a pleasure to watch, and indeed, a genuine one. I definitely respond to the grounded nature of this story - there's no excess of wealth between Alex and Emma, they're not letting loose in Vegas or turning a one-night stand into a love affair. Although they don't actually show the two characters doing their laundry together (a reality that Emma sees lacking in most sweeping romances), there's a palpable suggestion that Alex and Emma are for real in their affections, and have genuine and distinct misgivings about the possibility of things working out in their favor.

I always forget how much this movie makes me grin. There are a lot of clever lines and exchanges, like:
(Alex dictating a line for Emma to write down, after the character Elsa has accidentally poured hot water on Adam's crotch) "Adam left a disappointed, but resilient, Elsa like a man on a mission - a man on a mission with hot, wet, balls."
"Alex."
"Okay, lose the balls."

There's not much more I can add to this post; "Alex & Emma" is just a small, self-contained, and sweet bit of filmmaking. It's a film I turn to when I want to smile, engage with likable characters, and generally feel like love doesn't have to be grandiose to be worth my time.

Overall rating: 4 out of 5

7 down. 291 to go.

Airheads (1994)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109068/

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FD9a_EVDk-s

BEFORE THE VIEWING

There's a lot of star power in "Airheads". Maybe not stars at the time of its release, but by the time I picked up the DVD in some bargain bin, the three leading actors had enough skill in my eyes to be worth the 5-ish bucks.

I can see why this movie didn't make a killing commercially; it's hard to sell a hostage situation as a comedy. And there's a grainy quality to the production, probably because most of it was shot inside a radio station. Have you ever been in a real radio station? I interned at one, and while it was an interesting place to work, it wasn't exactly a glamorous or visually-stunning environment.

But the thing I always took away from "Airheads" was the importance of passion. These guys weren't stone cold thugs or heartless criminals, they were three guys who wanted their music to mean something. I saw that passion particularly well-played by Brendan Fraser, who's always had a little chunk of my heart (and who I'll gush about again in future posts for movies like "Bedazzled" and "The Mummy").

When I watched the trailer, I was reminded of some other surprise appearances. So whatever the quality of the film may be, I know I'm in for a good 92 minutes.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Man, Brendan Fraser and Steve Buscemi can rock long hair. I always forget how good those two (and Adam Sandler) looked in this movie. Chazz's low-slung belt over holey jeans? Pip with his pants around his ankles and a beanie covering his junk? Yowza. The overall looks of the characters (even the supporting ones!) are so well crafted; I'd never really noticed before.

And jeez, the supporting cast and crew in this film is spectacular. So many names and faces with long careers in show biz: Michael Richards, Judd Nelson, Chris Farley, Ernie Hudson, Michael McKean, David Arquette. And new ones that I noticed this time around - like Michelle Hurst (Yvonne), who went on to play Miss Claudette in "Orange is the New Black", and Carter Burwell, a composer who's been attached to three "Twilight" films, "In Bruges", "Being John Malkovich", and so many others.

But what about the actual story, the actual film? Well, there's a scene in which the radio DJ puts Chazz on the spot and asks him what he wants to say, and the best Chazz can come up with is an emphatic "ROCK AND ROLLLLLL!" It's a pure message, but not very sophisticated or meaningful...and that's pretty much how this whole movie feels to me.

That doesn't mean the film is bad, necessarily. In fact, a lot of movies that try to say something meaningful end up saying way too much, or nothing at all. But I guess maybe "rock and roll" isn't a theme that resonates with me, or other movies have done a better job of conveying what rock and roll is ("Almost Famous" or even The Monkees' movie "'Head'" are the two that immediately spring to my mind).

Still, "Airheads" isn't a bad way to spend an hour and a half.

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

6 down. 292 to go.

Aeon Flux (2005)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0402022/

Official Trailer: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8StIReu8NoA

BEFORE THE VIEWING

This film happens to be somewhat fresh on my mind. I caught the first half of it on a lazy afternoon of cable viewing maybe 5 months ago. For all that it'd been years since I even thought about Aeon Flux, I remembered a lot of the plot points vividly, and found myself kind of sad to shut off the TV halfway through to go out on an errand.

I never watched or read anything in the Aeon Flux canon before I saw this movie. However, I was always impressed with its execution. I couldn't speak to it as an adaptation, but as a science fiction film, it always stood out to me as a pretty solid depiction of a scientifically-advanced world in turmoil, with a kickass female at its core. I was sold on the concept alone.

Charlize Theron is always fierce, and even though I think her most riveting performances are "Monster" and the lesser-known "Trapped", I always thought she must've done justice to the original character of Aeon. Throughout this film, she's seen managing stunts with graceful ease and an almost bored expression; action is just her everyday situation. I'm excited to see her strut through the new-age sets and careen acrobatically on her way to justice against the evil oppressors.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Yeah, this movie is as good as I remember. As good as I remember, but not much better.

Costumes, the Monacan communications, and other concepts like the liquid surveillance system are so beautifully conceived throughout this movie. Sci-fi movies often struggle to convey the purpose of high concepts, but this film has a knack for depicting things clearly, despite the fact that we don't live in the same technological or social world.

The thing I struggle with is how the movie unfolds its story; it's more than an hour before Aeon's mysterious, hazy past comes into focus with any type of clarity. Aeon goes from sleeping with her enemy, to choking him; the Monacans go from friends to enemies to friends again. There's a lot of back-and-forth going on, and not a ton of explanation as to why. But as I watched, I started wondering: if Aeon's past life was made clearer to her sooner, would we struggle to believe it? Would we still be interested by the end of the film? Perhaps there's something to be said for a movie that slowly lifts the veils of mystery around its main character.

And speaking of the main character, I think I appreciated Aeon a bit more as a female protagonist than I have before. Aeon is pure in purpose. She's nearly unshakeable, but not so cold that she lacks emotion. As she and Trevor evade capture, Aeon leads rather than follows and supports him when he's injured. She's a breaker of walls, a changer of ways. While there is a romance element in the story, the movie is really about the world as a whole - where it was, where it is, and where it will go next.

Overall rating: 3.5 out of 5

5 down. 293 to go.

Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1994) and Ace Ventura, When Nature Calls (1995)

IMDB: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109040/ and http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0112281/

Official Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzxDlS6QY1s and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A99O84ct-WM

BEFORE THE VIEWING

I was chatting with a friend about this blog recently, and he asked me what was coming up next on my watchlist. I expected him to groan and roll his eyes when I told him it was an Ace Ventura feature, but instead, his eyes lit up and he immediately performed the best Jim Carrey impression I've ever seen. I was floored.

Although I loved these movies as a kid, I'm skeptical about how well they'll hold up. Perhaps because I loved them while young, the Ace Ventura films have a bit of a time capsule effect; they performed very very well in the moment that they were made, but seem firmly planted in the mid-90s and have been seldom thought of or talked about since.

And that's a bit of a shame, really. I was 7 years old when the first one came out, and it was my first introduction to Jim Carrey (having been too young to truly appreciate him in "In Living Color" or anything else he had made up to that point - did you know his filmography dates back to 1980?). His physical comedy, his full-on absurdity, the way he can chew on a line as simple as "Really?" - I can't remember seeing another performer, all these years later, that left quite the same impression on me.

Quite honestly, I thought he was brilliant.

Are these movies brilliant, though? Probably not. I'm excited to brush the dust off them and see how the intervening years have treated them, but braced for the possibility of jokes landing flat or performances seeming hammy. Still, it should be an interesting few hours reconnecting with our favorite - and only - pet detective.

AFTER THE VIEWING

Man, I'm glad to be done viewing these movies.

There's nothing wrong with them, really. Both films have decent plots, decent performances, a few funny moments. But they're just so bland - especially when I compare them to some of Carrey's later work. The comedy isn't nuanced, the characters lack depth, and there's just no reason to re-watch them; they're like popcorn for your brain.

Although I love Carrey's style, I feel like he didn't totally get to shine in these films as much as he has in things like "The Truman Show" or "Liar Liar" or "Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind." Perhaps that's due in part to a lack of stellar co-stars; Courteney Cox and Carrey displayed a distinct lack of chemistry in the first film, and hardly anyone in the sequel even bears a mention (except Ian McNeice, who made for an interesting sidekick).

However, this viewing reminded me that the Ace Ventura films fall into that very rare category of the sequel being better than the original. The original certainly had some high points, but it didn't really say very much beyond "Hey, here's this unconventional - but effective - detective."

The sequel actually provided some depth to Ace's character: not only did he seek spiritual solace after failing to rescue a pet in the opening sequence, but he had multiple opportunities to express his sentiments about those who treat animals thoughtlessly. The scene in which he knocks out a small man and tosses him about his neck, satirizing the fox-fur shrug a woman is wearing, lets him express his distaste of animal cruelty while remaining firmly in the absurd, comedic world in which Ace resides.

In addition, the sequel's conclusion allows Ace and his animal friends to retaliate against the main animal aggressor in a delightfully "neener neener" sort of way - there's a symmetry and a full-circle quality in the sequel that the first movie lacked.

Some unexpectedly delightful moments in these films included Ace pretending to be a German dolphin trainer, him singing "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang" while blundering through the jungle in a Jeep, and, in both films, Ace nibbling on sunflower seeds while we get the boring exposition out of the way.

I can't say I'll plan to watch these films ever again, to be honest. But if I do, they'll be a good way to pass a few hours, remember Jim Carrey's rise to stardom, and wince at some questionable 90's fashion choices.

Overall rating: 3 out of 5

4 down. 294 to go.