AFI Top 100 - What Were Those Guys Thinking?

Thanks to Dede for alerting all to the new AFI Top 100 list.

Now that the ballots are in, what say we post up the five movies we thought should have been on the list and weren't and the five that were there and shouldn't have been? That should bring on some good discussion.

Here's mine, not in any particular order.

A. I Couldn't Believe They Left Out:

1. Fargo

2. Woodstock

3. Ball of Fire

4. Being There

5. Patton

B. How Could Anyone Have Voted For:

1. Toy Story

2. Rocky

3. Tootsie

4. Platoon

5. The Sixth Sense

Cheers,
Dan.

Dan on DVD - "To Die For"

(Note: Since most of my movie viewing is done through the magic of digital media I thought I'd drop up a review from time to time of a DVD I've recently throw in the player. Hope it works for y'all. Dan.)

To Die For

Released: 1995
Director: Gus Van Sant
Starring: Nicole Kidman, Joaquin Phoenix, Matt Dillon, Alison Folland

This is the movie that changed my opinion of Nicole Kidman. Before this film I thought Kidman was just more Hollywood phluff that would be long gone once the novelty of the cheek bones and the red hair wore off. Ten minutes into this flick and I knew that she was for real. She took home a Golden Globe for this part and I think it was a crime that she didn't get an Oscar nomination too. I guess Days of Thunder was just too fresh in people's minds back then. I think her work in this film is matched only by her roles in The Hours and Birth. It's definitely one of her best.

Here Kidman plays Suzanne Maretto - the world's all-time grand champion female narcissist. Suzanne's so self-absorbed and manipulative that she schedules her honeymoon with young hubby Larry (Matt Dillon) to coincide with a television convention where she hopes to find fame as a network news anchor. Suzanne's got the looks, the drive and cute little dog she needs to make her a star. Her only problem is that to be successful as a narcissist you have to have enough brains to pull off your lies. In this respect Suzanne's clearly lacking. She's bright enough to manipulate those less intelligent than her but not smart enough to realize that most people can see right through her schemes. The result is an arrogant, ruthless and yet clueless psychopath who's just capable enough to be destructive of everyone she touches. In the end she becomes so self-confident and preoccupied with her grandiose self image that she willingly participates in her own doom.

Kidman plays this part so perfectly that even psychiatrists would be fooled. She switches from cold-hearted puppeteer to carefree seductress in the blink of an eye. You really need to despise Suzanne for what she is and Kidman makes sure you do. At the same time she plays the part in a way that's so fascinating that you can't wait to see what Suzanne's cooking up next. It would be easy for you to just hate Suzanne and give up on the character half way through the film. Kidman keeps you coming back for more. Suzanne is as creepy, dangerous and irresistible as Hannibal Lecter. I think Kidman nails her as well as Hopkins did the good doctor.

Also excellent are the performances of Joaquin Phoenix and Alison Folland as Suzanne's naive minions. Phoenix in particular stands out opposite Kidman as the not-too-bright teenage loser that Suzanne molds to her scheme through sex and psychology. They say it's hard to play a character that's not as smart as you are. If that's true then Phoenix should have taken home an award or two himself.

The rest of the movie is flushed out with strong performances from the likes of Illeana Douglas, Dan Hedaya and Kurtwood Smith. I thought Matt Dillon was somewhat miscast as Suzanne's tragically infatuated husband, but I honestly can't think of someone who would have been better. I guess some parts just can't be properly filled. The only disappointment for me was a short cameo from writer Buck Henry who pulled a Quentin Tarantino and seriously overreached in a minor part he wrote for himself.

The story is tight and Van Sant does wonders with a disjointed timeline that keeps jumping back and forth over several years. The editing keeps the story rooted and you never lose your place even as you hop from the beginning to end of the storyline in a single cut. Less interesting is the cinematography which I found a little plain-jane. There's some brilliant camera work in a few scenes but art film this is not. It's a lot slicker looking than Drug Store Cowboy and you can see that Van Sant came a long way between that film and this one. Even so, the characters stand out so much that you don't really notice the background until the third or fourth viewing anyway.

People talk about this movie as an indictment of America's cult of fame. I like it better as a character study of how one mildly disturbed individual can explode inside the lives of so many others. I think it's better as pure fiction than as social commentary. Your mileage may vary. Either way it's a keeper. Highly recommended for the DVD shelf.

Dan's Disc Rating: 8.5 outta 10

Cheers,
Dan.

Best of 2007 so far?

Last week Richard Roeper hosted guest critic Christy Lemire on the Ebert & Roeper show to discuss their favorite films of 2007 thus far. Each offered 5 choices -- see if you agree. You may find some good options for movies to check out at the theater, library, or video store. I have personally seen 6 of the 10, and would recommend them all. "The Hoax" was a bit less compelling than I'd hoped, but "Away From Her" (now playing at Sundance) was really exceptional. I'd add both "Wristcutters: A Love Story" and "Severance" (from the Film Fest - to play in town later this year, I hope) to my own list of favorites.

Richard:
The Lookout (top pick)
Grindhouse
The Hoax
300
Zodiac

Christy:
Knocked Up (top pick)
Once
The Lives of Others
Away From Her
Hot Fuzz

Chaos & Order at Sundance

So, it was a hot afternoon, and I decided to take in a movie at Sundance. Gritting my teeth as I picked out a seat for the show (so much pressure to get the perfect spot), I found an open seat in Row F (the first row of the back section, with a railing to put your feet on during the show - a hint my ticketeer told me on my first trip), nestled in between two unknown movie goers. I was able to go to my theater (no waiting in the lobby for an undesignated amount of time this trip), and sat in my cushy chair. A fellow came & sat on one side of me (with a seat distance between), followed shortly by a group which sat on the other side, also leaving a space. The head usher came in & gave his speech about the high quality control of the movie, and the lights went out for the previews. Soon afterward a couple came in & it became apparent that their assigned seats were in my row, but other bodies were now sitting there (presumably because everyone had chosen their own spacing scheme). I was secretly delighted to see the system fail, but nonetheless followed the couple with my eyes to make sure they found good seats (I did feel a little responsible).

The movie was entertaining (I'll discuss that another time), but about 3 minutes into it I noticed a fiber (hair?) projected on the screen. Where was the usher that promised to ensure quality control by checking back periodically?!! I don't think I've ever seen anything quite as distracting in a theater setting, but felt better after reporting it to the usher after the show.

Perhaps I am too hard on them, but after a long discussion last night with Samara Kalk Derby of the Capital Times, who wrote a less-than-glowing review of the Sundance restaurant in Rhythm this week, I was primed for an honest look. Somehow the prices invite criticism.

I must say, I am still VERY impressed with the concession stand, as long as you go during off hours. The coffee (Peets) is terrific, and as I discovered today, they even offer one free refill of a very reasonably priced cup. I have now tried several of their baked goods, and all were excellent, too. The lobby is comfortable (especially if you have really long legs - you can't sit on the couches otherwise), the WIFI is fast, and the staff very friendly. Worth the extra service charge? Still not decided on that, but I keep coming back.

Knocked Up

Let me preface this by saying that I find very few Hollywood comedies funny. In fact, I can probably name them on one hand - "Airplane", "Animal House", "The Pink Panther","Roxanne", "There's Something About Mary", etc. (okay, so I might need a few more fingers). Of course, some others offer an occasional smirk or guffaw, but generally are too stupid, or obnoxious, or rely on slapstick or gross-out humor for laughs. So, despite the terrific reviews for "Knocked Up", I did not have high expectations.

I can't say I'd put this on my list of all-time favorites, but it was definitely much better than I'd imagined. I stayed awake for all but a second or two (my ultimate gauge of a good flick), I laughed a lot, I cried a little, and was generally amused. Parts of it were annoying, made no sense (he didn't remember sleeping with her, but remembered NOT putting on the condom), or were generally unlikely (pretty much the whole movie), but the dialogue was witty and the characters interesting. I didn't really care much about the plot or how it ended, but I was fascinated by the ride. Katherine Heigl ("Grey's Anatomy") and Seth Rogan ("The 40 Year Old Virgin") did an outstanding job, but I was intrigued by the acting of the supporting cast and bit players even more. The sister (Leslie Mann) and brother-in-law (Paul Rudd), as well as roommates, co-workers (Kristin Wiig, especially), doctors, etc. were hilarious. I'm still wondering about the baby pictures at the end, though - wish they had captions for those.

Overall, on the ZZZ scale (0 being total snoozer and 10 being wide awake), I'd give it an 8.