Review of 1997 Cannes Film Festival Winner for Best Screenplay, Independent movie "Henry Fool"

I recently watched Henry Fool directed by Hal Hartley, it was an independent movie made in 1997. Parker Posey plays the sister of the main character. Henry Fool is somewhat interesting, but I think that, is about the top praise one can give it. It won top screenplay 1997 at the Cannes Film Festival, which is probably the only reason it stands out as a film at all.

It's about a garbageman, Simon, who lives in poor, trashy neighborhood with his trashy sister and strange mother. A stranger, Henry, comes upon the household and weaves his inept charm and debauchery. Henry is a self-believing writer and convinces Simon, that he, Simon, is an amazing poet who has the ability to describe the world's true underbelly using the language of the street, pornography, etc. Like holding up a mirror to society.

The movie has some great dialogue between Henry and Simon that makes it worth checking out if you haven't seen it. A writer and a would be writer discussing the ins and outs of the creative struggle. Believing in your art, your vision, despite daily struggles of bills and family and non-believers. Which one is truly talented? Who taught who what etc. etc. It's a great relationship depicted between two artists. I like how in the beginning Simon is the one wearing a uniform and name-tag as Henry tells him this is not the way. Later it's Henry in the uniform and name-tag.

Unfortunately everything outside the relationship artistically between Henry and Simon, falls apart. There are too many holes in the story. The characters are not well fleshed out. In one scene now two people are married, the next scene there is a 5 year old kid. Not enough of why Henry befriends Simon is shown, for example. And the actor who plays Henry doesn't have enough grit to be taken seriously as a writer. He is too much like a guy in an 80's movie or something. His expressions sometimes are buffoon like, but maybe that is what the director was going for.

Final Synopsis for me is that the dialogue between two would be writers is really great, but the story and characters that are set up to promote this dialogue are thin, shallow, and not well fleshed out.

My Response to Watching the Movie "Film Geek" Directed by James Westby. Also Discussed, Why I am Also a Geek.

This is my response to watching the movie "Film Geek" directed by James Westby. There are probably some who watched this movie and couldn't get past it's simpleness, but for me, honestly, Film Geek is a truly magical film. It is straightforward in it's story and style but this is what helps provide a good way for the main character to stand out and shine with some hilarious unintended dry humor. This character, and great performance by Melik Malkasian, is what really makes the film a quality experience. His name is Scotty and he is a video store clerk and movie geek extraordinaire.

There are so many parts of this movie where I laughed so much I almost cried. It gave me that feeling one can get when you can't stop laughing and you are filled with so much joy, you feel released or something. It's what makes me love art, this power to move people. I like how despite everything that anyone else might say to Scotty, he always replies back with some already-ready obscure comment about an old French movie or his opinion on a random actor's performance from the past. It's like you're talking to some kind of odd fortune teller who is wearing retail worker clothes and who speaks in metaphors.

Watching this movie for the first time was one of those rare experiences that happens when I watch a really great film. It gets to you in a way that creates a new experience, or the feeling of one. Or the feeling of something familiar coming back. Like when you get lost in a new patch of forest for the first time and you're not sure of the way back or forward. Excited and nervous. That kind of newness can be conveyed in a quality movie I think and Film Geek did that for me.

Like Scotty I was a serial video store clerk, and before that I have him beat, because I was also a movie projectionist at age 16. Like Scotty I was also socially awkward and often when attempting to interject in a conversation, would make an obscure comment about a film director's style only to get an awkward stare in reply. Like I speak a foreign language. Upon reflection it's not the other person's fault of course, for not understanding, it's my fault for not having better social acumen. Obviously I can relate to the Scotty character. Not that I am a film geek to his master level, but there are some all too real and funny moments in this movie.

At the beginning of the movie when we see Scotty working at the video store (an out-dated construct), we see him sniff the newly shrink-wrapped videos. Whenever I get a new piece of paper to paint on or a new wood canvas stretcher bar, I always smell it thoroughly. I am trying to smell where it has been, even the tree when it was still in the ground. I know that sounds odd, I am trying to smell the original smell of the tree from which the paper or wood came from. I want to know that paper. It's like Scotty wanting to know every aspect of his movies. 

At one point in the movie, Scotty is on a sort of date, seeing an obscure movie at an old vintage movie theater called The Clinton (complete with old school tile billboard).  Scotty and the girl are the only ones there and they comment on the old smell of the theater. (I know the smell of an old movie theater read my post Tribute to the Trailridge Dollar Theatre). Sidenote: that is something Scotty would say, noting a reference to an essay he had written about the subject.

Well Scotty and his dream girl are waiting for the movie to start, alone in the center of the room,... the lights dim and he turns to see the old projector light up from behind the glass, shooting it's ever widening cylinder of light from up above and behind their heads. All the pieces of dust within the lit cylinder of light in the dark room are made visible, swirling in the air through the cone of light as it projects the movie onto the screen ahead. The dust looks like tiny fireflies, caught in the light of a car's headlight, in a frenzy of a midnight summer's sky.

In this moment the movie is so simple; it's brilliant. That moment,... THAT moment is so good. To elaborate on my experience noted earlier, I was a projectionist at an old dive theater that had outdated projectors from the 70's. So I like when we see the old school projector shine it's cylinder of light through the empty, dark, and seemingly ancient room. The usher closes the door, the smell of old candy, pop and popcorn think in the air, a slight stickiness when walking with your rubber sneaker on the floor, (no matter how hard you scrub it won't come out),  mixed with a musky scent of dust and decades past. Creaky seats and a choppy film spliced together reel by reel by the sketchy long-haired projectionist.... lol. Anyways. This was a great movie.

Scotty has his webpage, Scottysfilmpage.com, and a ballcap he always wears with that text simply displayed. It should be known at this point that I have t-shirt(s) with my art webpage on it - edsartworkshop.com. He has his essays on obscure movies of the past, and I have my essays here on this blog, over 250 worth about weird artists from the past and my approach to the creative experience and culture. This is just one of the many ways I can relate to the Scotty character.

At one point in Fim Geek, when Scotty is hanging out with that same girl, and she asks him, "why do you like movies". Scotty starts a nobly, but somewhat monotone sounding speech about why he does. She responds, "that was well thought out." He replies back, "Yeah I wrote an essay titled Why I like movies on my webpage, ScottysFilm Page.com". This movie has me written all over it.

A simple movie, but one which creates an amazing character, and admirably captures a brief moment in human history. A moment when once,... people would have to go to a store to get a movie to watch. And someone there would have to be the one to rent it to them. An obscure moment of culture to be sure. Lost in time - the video store clerk, ramblings of a madman?

Review of Independent Movie: APART

I recently watched an independent movie from 2011 directed by Aaron Rottinghaus called APART. On one hand it is a basic teenage love story with common elements like trying to keep two star-crossed lovers apart, with jealousy, etc. That part of the story is kind of basic and underdeveloped, but for me the twist to the movie is far more important. The two main characters are both schizophrenic and able to produce or see shared delusions or visions when around each other. Like polar opposite magnets with explosive effects. You could say the movie is a teenage love story with esetoric and horror aspects to it.

I am willing to forgive the weaker elements because those delusional moments are so interesting to me purely on an aesthetic level. The times in the movie when the shared delusions, or whatever they are; happen. I enjoyed the way that those intense moments are expressed with symbolism and metaphor. Simple - yes, but also very poignont I thought. Things like time standing still with frost and ice forming, right after a relationship ended. Or the way that the two perceived space/time as seeming to slow down and speed up or crash together with their thoughts,  when one of those moments was about to happen. APART straddles science-fiction, horror, and drama. Using metaphorical elements to portray intense emotional and pyschological states were the key moments for me.

People who like well made music videos will like this movie. For me it's those moments that make the rest of the usual trite stuff almost unimportant. Those that want a great arching story or romantic comedy might not like it.

Tribute To the Trailridge Dollar Theatre

I was watching a movie the other day  with my wife, streaming it from an online service. In the struggle that happens with my wife in selecting a movie on Netflix, it gave me the thought that, as far as picking out a movie goes, online digital selecting is just as annoying as selecting at the video store was back in the day. I should know, I was a projectionist at a dollar theater when I was 16, and worked at three video stores (not at the same time) up until age 19.

In my mind at that age, for some reason those were the ideal jobs for me. Maybe it was the fact that my family got a VCR for the first time when I was about five or six years old. I understood then, that now we could pick our own movies out, and to me that was amazing. Looking back I suppose those were the best jobs for me. I have always considered movies as one of my main sources of artistic inspiration. I am far from the first to talk about how movies can transport you to other realms. They are even magical sometimes if you are a child, and sometimes when you are an adult too.

I enjoyed working around movies and people who enjoyed them. I liked being able to see and recommend eclectic, unique, movies and most of all I enjoyed seeing the best parts of all the movies each time I projected them. Seeing that plethora of movies at that time in my life affected my painting style and viewpoint as an artist in ways I am sure I will never fully realize. It was a great time in my life, even if to some people, it was just a few crappy video stores and an old dollar theater.

The videos stores were fun, but the projectionist job had the most impression on me though. I don't even know when Trailridge Theater was built; for as long as I can remember I always knew it as the dollar theater down the street that my friends and family and I would go to. I saw Return of the Jedi there, and Karate Kid, amongst others. (The original Karate Kid with Mr. Miyagi). It had old, barely working projectors from the early 1970's; which must of been the last time that theater was current, (I worked there in the mid 90's). Running them when I was 16 and 17 was really fun. Learning how to seam the 6 reels together onto the projection platter and then break it down when it was time for the movie to go, threading it through the projector, etc. One projector had a missing cover for a section of buttons. Once in a while I would forget to grab a pencil with an eraser to push the one malfunctioning button and it would shock the shit out of my finger.

Then or now it is hard for me to imagine the theater running first run shows, or being new, or clean, or functioning properly or efficiently. I will never remember Trailridge Theatre in any way but musty, out-dated, old-fashioned, dusty; reeking of a smell consisting of ammonia mixed with ancient-sticky-pop and sickly buttery popcorn. The smell that no matter how much you cleaned it never came out. No matter how much you scrubbed the floors, they would always be sticky. But that is why it was glorious too. It had a kind of rustic, spooky, tragic, charm to it.

Going there as a kid I was still  thrilled about it even though I knew it wasn't a first run movie theatre. It had that Stephen King-like feeling about the place. You know; something about childhood friends meeting at the old local dollar theater where they discuss such and such phenomenon or something. That's how I thought about it anyways, a musty, glorious relic of the near past. The metal squeak of the seats covered in a slightly sticky red fabric, with every 12th one or so somehow broken; the sound system that still worked well, with good acoustics. The yellow and orange walls and dark brown wood, the multi-stained carpet, I remember it well. Changing the Marquee with a set of mismatched, odd letters, using letters for numbers and vice versa when necessary. Who knows or even cared the last time the set was current; little things like that throughout the whole building made it somehow creepy. Like we were stuck in an episode of  Scooby Doo with a mystery at the old haunted movie theater in a backwoods town, or something.

I am not one for ludicrous ghost stories but the other employees that worked there will also tell you of odd things would happen from time to time. Footsteps in the projection booth when no one was up there (a hallway above the main lobby), lights seeming to flicker when ghosts were mentioned. It did have an odd energy about it, a kind of pathetic, last truck stop, end of the world, nothing to lose vibe about it. And that's not just me, the other people that worked there felt it too, we were part of it. It was awesome and odd to go there as a kid, then work there as a young man.

I went back one day years later to see it, and some Russians who barely spoke English had bought the place and were still showing the crappiest, oldest, movies. Soon after that it became some kind of bingo hall or church or something, I don't know. It didn't matter at that point, it was no longer Trailridge Theatre, one of the magical portals of my childhood and young adult life.

Modern Classics: Ralph Bakshi's "Wizards"

When I was a child, I would usually spend a couple weeks or so of summertime with my cousins who lived a few hours away by car. When at my Aunt's and Uncle's house, I would sometimes sleep on the floor in a sleeping bag in my older cousin's room.

The posters in his room always fascinated me as a young kid; Pink Floyd (the poster with Pink from The Wall, his face shaved and pressed against the frosted-glass shower door). Iron Maiden (the skeleton in a cockpit), and also a poster featuring the character Peace from Wizards, riding on his camel/horse creature.

It's this last poster that brings me to the topic of this article, Ralph Bakshi's 1977 film: Wizards. Maybe we should call this Modern Classics.

It' set in a post-apocalyptic future where after many years, magic has re-emerged, and at the same time, separately, so has technology.  It's a battle of opposing twin brothers/wizards in which lies the fate of the world, struggling to survive and avoid another holocaust. Magic versus technology.

Maybe it's because it was made in the year I was born (1977), or because I always wondered about the mysterious red figure on the horse as I was falling asleep, but for whatever reason, the movie held a great mystique for me. A mystique which carries over until this very day. Maybe it was because it was a span of years from when I was very young and saw the poster, until I was actually able to see and understand and appreciate the movie.

Bakshi directed 9 animated movies (writing 5 of them) in the span of 20 years (1972 - 1992). Togother it forms a cohesive body of work that spans many themes while remaining true to the nuances of the director's style. A feat which many artists never accomplish.

I really like Wizards the best of all his movies, because of the very stylish elements specific to this movie. The simplified use of color to show form and shadow, the loosely drawn but interesting characters, full of detail but just the right amount. Some details are left off, not for lack of technical skill, but as part of the style. It has a very interesting balance of storytelling and efficient, creative, design.

Compared to today's animated movies (made with advanced technology) maybe some would think Wizards is not much to look at. But that is exactly what gives this movie it's power (and a kind of ironic statement on the theme of his movie too). It's stylish, hand-drawn charm gives the movie a right from the sketchbook of an interesting artist playing with abstract figures and forms feel to it.

Some say good art should reflect the time it was made in. Well I think in this movie this is true (while staying true to Bakshi's style also). The kind of mellow, spacey, 70's rock soundtrack, the magic vs. technology theme, the minimalistic use of color and design in a very urban, symbolic, and organic way. To me, it speaks volumes creatively, I really love it. It draws me in and speaks to me in a way that only some art does.

Review of Jarmusch's "Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai"

I just watched Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai, on Netflix. A movie from 1999 Directed by Jim Jarmusch, (who is one of my favorite movie directors).

I saw this film when it first came out but have not even watched a second of it since then. I remember small parts of it and that overall I felt it was just okay. I remember thinking it was not nearly the experience I had when watching Jarmusch's movie Dead Man. (In my top tier of all time favorite movies). I must say this second viewing I was much more impressed.

I really liked the nod in Ghost Dog to Dead man; A character played by actor Gary Farmer is on a rooftop with pigeons when the mobsters are looking for another similar guy, (Ghost Dog). Of course Farmer plays the wonderfully acted and fascinating character Nobody, in Dead Man. And after the mobsters shoot one of his pigeon he whips out Nobody's classic line. . . . (watch the movies you'll appreciate it better than me telling you, or if you have then you know the line).

There are more parallels between these two movies by Jarmusch than I first thought. The western woods of  early industrial America (Dead Man) is replaced by an urban inner city ghetto and mobster hangouts. Instead of cowboys wastefully shooting seemingly endless buffaloes from a train, Ghost Dog comes across modern white man shooting black bears because "there are not that many of them left" (see the irony?). The 'dead man' this time is Ghost Dog. But of course, unlike William Blake (John Depp's character in Dead Man) Ghost Dog already knows he is dead. (Effectively dead, a chain of events has been set in motion that is irreversible). For Ghost Dog this happens when he is a young man and saved by death from a Gangster. He at some point (assumingly) absorbs the Japanese Book of the Samurai and later returns to the gangster to resolve his debt and become his retainer (assassin).

So the protagonist this time around is much more aware of his own destiny and his own fate. He is much more at peace and sublime than the transformational and traveling William Blake is. Which kind of makes sense this being the later movie of the two. Also there could be another layer to the 'Nobody' reference in Ghost Dog. This time around the incarnated soul does not need the guide and protection of Nobody, he is on an equal level as he is (they are both rooftop pigeon handlers). So the two movies are not as far apart as I first thought they were, or at least in my viewpoint, I now see a lot of layers between the two. And together they form quite a pair of works from whom I consider one of my all time favorite artists in Jarmusch. It makes me want to quit painting and make movies, because his movies are like wonderful large modern moving paintings. What I do is nothing comparatively.

I wrote last post about how when you see a piece of art (or poem or movie or song, album, work of an artist, etc) sometimes it doesn't grab you the first time. Only later (sometimes years later) do the realizations come of what might be some of the deeper intent that the artist put in their work.  For lack of a better phrase, this time around you really 'get it'. You understand the piece. Or at least you are filled with a sense of awe and a bit of understanding you didn't have before. (Ideally your mind is blown, which is a wonderful starting point for creativity to sprout).

So I watched the movie again just now for the first time in over a decade and I feel like I did not even see the same movie as before, but obviously it has to be the same movie (mind blown right now). It is a much more subtle movie in a lot of ways as compared to Dead Man. One way to look at it from a personal level is that a bit older now, I appreciate some of the simpler things in life, like in the movie. The scenes with Forrest Whitaker for example commanding his troop of carrier pigeons from his ancient Japanese-looking shack on a roof in the ghetto. I mean it's not a lot of drama on the surface of that moment but there is a lot that is going on. Releasing the birds from the pen, and they charge out to Ghost Dog smiling. They all storm into the air into formation with each other. He whips his red flags around and they respond accordingly to Ghost Dog's (and mine) delight. You feel the freedom of the birds in the sky and the unity between themselves and Ghost Dog. A very brief but poignant moment. The first time around I just did not appreciate the more simple but eloquent parts of this movie like that.

Or when he is sleeping on his rooftop with bird seed and pigeons all around. It's Forrest Whitaker and the ghetto but it's also a samurai in ancient Japan. I mean the reference is clear and brilliantly drawn out for us. Beauty in simplicity. One aspect I think I understand and appreciate about Japanese culture is that simplicity is a valued quality, like short but poignant Japanese poems. They say a lot by saying a little. Obviously that is part of what Jarmusch was going for in drawing parallels between this hired gun mob assassin from the hood and ancient Japanese samurai culture, "Sometimes the ancient ways are best, ..old school ways.", says Ghost Dog near the end of the movie.  It really hits home (at least for me it did) the aspect of honor in war.

There is a lot to contemplate in Ghost Dog and it is a beautiful film. One little thing I liked is the old cartoons the mobsters are watching in different scenes of the movie. In one instance where Ghost Dog is in a forested area hiding when he is distracted by a woodpecker, the scene switches and in the same moment it's the mobster's hangout, one of them is watching a Woody Woodpecker short where he is confronting a ghost. I mean the reference is obvious I just missed it before.

That is how i see this movie now. It is like a lyrical poem (in a direct way - using the quotes from the Book of the Samurai) but also in a visual and playful sense also. Like the cartoon thing above, there are a lot of simple, cleverly woven threads in this movie that together make a very poetic movie. It is my opinion that these  two movies (Dead Man and Ghost Dog) are definitely like paintings in a series. I recommend all of Jarmusch's movies and these two specifically.

The Book of the Samurai is an interesting view of ancient Japan from a warrior's perspective. Some of it can be dismissed as inconsequential, but a lot of it is interesting general wisdom that can be taken out of context and applied to many universal situations. I will leave you with a quote from it that was not featured in the movie. This has not a lot to do with the movie but it's one of the passages that grabbed my attention. It also ties into the sentiment expressed at the end of the last post. (I am not saying I agree entirely, but it is very interesting, much like a lot of the book).

"When in a more sophisticated area it is natural that one's disposition be affected by different styles. But it is vulgar and foolish to look down upon the ways of one's own district as being boorish, or to be even a bit open to the persuasion of the other place's ways and to think about giving up one's own. That one's own district is unsophisticated and unpolished  is a great treasure. Imitating another style is simply a sham."

 - from Book of the Samurai, by Yamamoto Tsunetomo

Two Independent Movies Worth Watching: "Special" and "Ink"

A while back on Netflix streaming (independent movies section) I saw two really great movies, Special, and Ink. Both of these movies reminded me how great a movie can be when unhinibited by large corporate interests.

Special is from 2006, written and directed by Hal Haberman and Jeremy Passmore, starring Michael Rapaport (yes that guy). I really really enjoyed Special on two different levels, one as a dark comedy starring a struggling vulnerable man, and the other as a surreal visionary statement about the working man versus the corporation. Anyways I don't want to make mountains out of molehills but maybe this molehill of a movie, is a mountain, at least in my eyes.

Rappaport stars as a working man with low self esteem who reaches out to a pyschological drug study and seemingly finds some kind of answer he has been looking for; in the drug.  He seems to have super powers which gives him a new-found confidence and purpose in life. He goes on to attempt to battle crime and later comes across the makers of the experimental drug he has taken.

For lack of a better segway, I go back to the two levels thing, this movie has a gritty realness to it and also a surreal dark comedy edge to it also, it works on both levels. It's also a personal story but in some ways (directly and indirectly) the story of a lot of working, struggling people.

I laughed so hard in some parts of the movie, literally rewinding and watching some moments three or four times just losing it, laughing. Like when the main character experiences some side effects of the drug, is a good example. On one hand he thinks something wonderful is happening (him gaining super-powers), but in reality you see that this is not the case. There is an obvious disconnect happening with the guy's pysche and reality. But you find as the movie goes along his sheer willpower and focus overcomes much, despite or becuase of the drug, he becomes what he wants to become. Definitely worth a watch, especially if you are into dark comedy dramas. Goes to the top tier of my favorite movies of all time, I liked it that much.

Ink was the other movie I watched, from 2009 directed and written by Jamin Winans. This movie intrigued me because it dealt with a lot of ideas that I have had about dreams, and dream-walkers and how they could (theoretically) interact with reality etc. etc. It starts out with a young girl and her dad playing together,  in some kind of flashback or memory or something. Flash forward the father is alone and doesn't see his daughter very much, he gets a call from his ex-father in law that his daughter is in a coma.

He has a personal morale journey to go through and at the same time are these kind of guardians, who are trying to help his daughter out of the coma she has fallen into. So they try and make the dad see what is important to him. These guardians can walk between dreams and reality and into the netherworld or whatever you want to call it, the inter-connected unconcious dream-world.

Ink is definitely a kind of morality tale, but one that is told in a very unique, very interesting way, with the guardian dream-walkers, and their 'dark side' equivalent - techno-demon suit things, working against them. I didn't mention those guys, they are creepy. In the netherworld are these men with visual screens for faces and dark suits plotting against the girl and her soul, and her father, and their 'guardian's.'

The visual effect of the movie is astonoshing, the character's futuristic outfits clashing with the gritty and real city, the surrealness and realness are mixed very well. All in all a great movie with an albeit predictable (still surprising though) but satisfying storyline that really shines against a phenomonal job of cinematography with well styled, unique characters.

My Review of Terry Gilliam's "The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus"

My last few posts have been book and movie reviews. For a long time I wasn't as active in watching movies and reading books as I have been the past several months or so, and you'll probably be seeing some more of these in the near future.


The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus boasts quite the lineup -  it's directed by Terry Gilliam, stars Tom Waits as the devil (or a kind of devil), Christopher Plummer, Heath Ledger, appearances by Johnny Depp, Colin Farrel and Jude Law. Performances by newcomers Andrew Garfield and Lily Cole are what stole the show for me though. This movie has so much going for it - an amazing cast and crew, fantastic cinematography, scenery, surreal effects, costumes, it is masterful in many ways. Unfortunately the storyline falls apart at the end which can be somewhat understood because of the demise of actor Heath Ledger. I am not sure though, how this storyline could of been summed up in a satisfactory way, had Ledger been there until the end.

Don't get me wrong, the story line of The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus is incredibly intriguing, but quite incomplete and a bit incoherent at times. The story is basically that there are two old kind of friends or adversaries depending on how you look at it; the Devil and Plummer's character Dr. Parnassus. The devil tries to show that ignorance is bliss, temptation can't be avoided, etc etc. while Parnassus tries to show that the power of the imagination can overcome everything, despite the fact the he himself has fallen into the devil's traps more than once in his long life. What's interesting though is that the way the story is presented, it seems to me that "Dr. P" would not have advanced his philosophy at certain points in his life without the interference of the devil.

 ''People on the outside go, 'Oh, he's a mad genius and nobody understands what he's thinking, nothing could be further from the truth — he's so good at communicating."      

-Matt Damon on Terry Gilliam, Entertainment Weekly Aug. 2005

Dr. P has a kind of small travelling mesmerist show that operates out of what appears to be a magical caravan. Inside the caravan is his "Imaginarium"; which is a place that, once you walk through it's door, feeds on your dream-power and off of Dr. P's mind. Some of the sequences inside the Imaginarium are quite fantastic, breathtaking even, and does maybe the best job I have ever seen of a movie portraying the dream state. This movie really does make you think, presenting many philosophical starting points and boasting an amazing cast and cinematography. But that's the problem. It only presents the starting points for conversations and doesn't take it much further. It's like an amazing lecturer who starts out with several great points and that just stops his lecture and walks away.

There are too many holes in the storyline and too much information left out to make it a complete movie. I still highly recommend you see it though, for the reasons I mentioned above - the dream sequences, the cast, the costumes, the cinematography - all are exquisite.

Scorsese Delivers a Masterpiece with "Shutter Island"

The recent DVD release of Shutter Island  reminded me of just how much I enjoyed this movie. I was really surprised at how it grabbed my attention immediately and never let go. Part mystery, part suspense, part detective-movie, part mind-bending thriller; - it entertained me more than I have been by a movie in a long time. Before I watched it I read some people's reviews of Shutter Island around the web and reviews by the mainstream critics; from what I could tell it got somewhat of a mixed result, ending on the positive side. I though, was honestly blown away - fantastic movie. I was really drawn into it, which was great because I was on a very long and very noisy flight, so this was a great distraction.

Warning, spoilers ahead, if you haven't seen it yet, I am pretty much just going to skip to my thoughts about the twist ending of the movie.

The Twist at the end of the movie was genius in my opinion. And once you realize that the entire movie Teddy is really Edward Laeddis the whole thing makes total sense, like you're given the key to a giant puzzle/mousetrap. I mean of course you want "Teddy", as the presented hero, to emerge victorious somehow, but I think in a way he does (well aside from the tragic end where the doctor, right before the lobotomy, realized Edward is lucid and just wants the orbiting cycle of his memory/reality to end). It's like he's coming down from a really intense bad acid trip and slowly realizes what real reality is and what has been going on for God knows how long, but this is not the first time he's 'come down' to reality. (In a way that is exactly what's happening because they kept him on anti-pyschotic medication for so long). 

For me the ending and the entire movie make total sense and the puzzle that was weaved throughout the film was pretty masterful. I have no clue why so many critics are quick to bash this movie. Coming from a self-appointed culture cynic, It's a five out five star movie. The storyline, the creepy old and somehow very American gothic lunatic asylum, the storm,  the entire dark, luminous, and mysterious feel of the scenery. Going back through and rethinking the scenes from the perspective that everyone else on the island is in on the ploy to get through to Edward, makes for some interesting thought, a great thought-provoking movie, and a reason to watch it again. A triumph of a work for DiCaprio and Scorcese.

"Paranormal Activity": Paranormally Bad

I recently finally watched the movie Paranormal Activity. I had high hopes for a good creepy movie seeing as how I am still settling into a new house. The buzz around the movie was tremendous when it came out in theaters several months ago. I am an admitted fan of some of those often lame ghost hunting shows on cable television, one of those guilty pleasures I guess you could say.

What I saw with Paranormal Activity was Blair Witch Project - the crappy indoor version. The fact that they made an insane amount of money from two goofy kids and a camcorder kind of blows my mind though, if anything is scary it's that. If you haven't seen it yet I would not waste your time, unless you're looking for one of those Mystery Science Theater 3000 - 'make fun of the movie' type things, in which case it's great.

Last year in theaters I saw the movie A Haunting in Connecticut. Another ghostly movie but this one is supposedly based on a true story. The research doesn't pan out though with the story - the author of the book admits he made up a lot of it and the owner of the house (which was a rental) doesn't back up any of it. Yes maybe a family had some weird experiences in a house but nothing to the extreme of what happened in the movie obviously.

But at least with A Haunting in Connecticut you have a decent cast (Kyle Gallner I thought was very good as the boy at the center of the hauntings) an actual story, atmosphere, mystery and entertainment. Paranormal Activity is just a waste of time, one of those movies where you really hate the fact that you're just sitting there watching it, unsure wether you should continue.

   
            

Some of My Favorite Movie Directors

With this post I would like to pay tribute to some of my favorite artistic movie directors. They are all current filmmakers whose work ranges from the past 20 years or so. They all have tremendous vision and the ability to execute that vision from the biggest to smallest detail of all their movies. While not all of them are mainstream Hollywood, (thank goodness) they are definitely directors who have made a name for themselves in the field of cinema.

Some of my favorite movies are ones that are more like dreams; where a straightforward storyline or narrative is not necessarily necessary. Films like - Lost Highway (1997) and Mulholland Dr. (2001), from David Lynch. Some of Lynch's earlier works include Eraserhead (1977), which is an insanely crazy movie in black and white, (1986) Blue Velvet, and Dune (1984).

"Films are like magic. They take us into new worlds. And that should be protected at all costs." - David Lynch quoted in Entertainment Weekly, February 22, 2002

In this post I mentioned Julian Schnabel, check it out for more on this great painter turned movie director. In addition to Basquiat, which is in my top 5 movies of all time he has also directed the movies: The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007), and Before Night Falls (2000).

Next on the list is Tim Burton. He directed my second favorite movie of all time - Edward Scissorhands. Also Big Fish, The first two Batman movies (the best ones by far, the only mistake was casting Michael Keaton as Batman), Beetlejuice, and Nightmare before Christmas, just to name a few. I mean come on, who else would make a full-scale insane clay-mation movie with a gothic/fantasy theme... no one else I can think of besides Burton. (The 2005 movie Corpse Bride was also in this vein).

Burton is a director whose movies have no wasted space. There are no parts however small, that weren't carefully thought out. All the directors mentioned here share that attribute; a masterful eye for detail, and a masterful eye for the larger picture.

"So if too many people like my films, I might get scared and think I did something wrong. Honestly.” -Jim Jarmusch

Next up is Jim Jarmusch; who directed Dead Man (1995), my most favorite movie of all time. Truly a visionary masterpiece, It stars Johnny Depp and Gary Farmer. (Yes I am a big Johnny Depp fan, but less so now that he has gone all super-Hollywood on us with Pirate shenanigans 1, 2 and 3.) I did like Depp's controversial take on Willy Wonka that many disagreed with. For those of you that haven't actually read the books by Ronald Doahl, Depp's take on Wonka is much closer to the book version than Gene Wilder's was. I am not taking anything away from Wilder, just saying it wasn't as true to the book. But back to Jarmusch; besides Dead Man he has also directed Ghost Dog, Coffee and Cigarettes, and Broken Flowers to name a few.

M. Night Shyamalan is another one of the better current directors out there right now. He has had some big hits but he has also taken risks. A lot of people didn't like his fairy tale - Lady in the Water, I thought it was a fantastic movie though. Shattered was a great movie, and Signs was very creepy. Shyamalan definitely has a storyteller kind of take with his style. He directed a live action movie of the animation series "Avatar" due out later this year. (Which is totally bogus that James Cameron produced a movie called Avatar, knowingly capitalizing on the buzz around the Last Airbender movie).

"I think I take what you might call a B-movie story, deal with B-movie subjects, and I treat it as if it`s an A-movie in terms of my approach, my crew, my actors, my ethics and so on. I guess that`s my trademark or one of them anyway!"
- M. Night Shyamalan

The ending of the Avatar: The Last Airbender series kind of disappointed me, but it was still one of the better modern fantasy stories out there currently, and I liked the diverse, inclusive feel of it. It will be interesting to see Shyamalan's take on it, considering that much of that diverse feel was supposedly taken out in his casting of the movie.

I didn't go too in depth with my analysis of these directors and their fantastic works, but for those that haven't seen some of these movies mentioned, I leave the magic there for you to discover for yourself, without my perception clouding your experience. Feel free to comment on all the movies that these guys directed that I failed to mention, or about anything you want, as always.