HLJ's Movie Blog

Blog-O-Matic Entry for The Boondock Saints

A History of Violence

The man looks up from the table and looks into his wife's eyes. She looks back. His expression changes. What did he see in those eyes now, after everything that has happened? That question lingers on our minds as the scene cuts to black.

There are many looks exchanged in A History of Violence, many words, smiles, punches, and gun shots are also exchanged. But not history, not truth. That comes walking in through the front door of Stall's Diner and tries to rob it. Tom Stall reacts - as he thinks anyone would - by killing the two men that try to rob the diner. That one act of violence leads to another. Mobsters come to town to pay Tom a visit. To them, Tom is someone else, someone named Joey, a man who used to be very good at killing people. Soon Tom is killing more people. Tom's son is getting into fights and then killing people himself. Now Tom must open up about his history, his truth to Edie his wife. Eventually that truth brings Tom/Joey back to his past. The violence continues until almost everyone is dead, except Tom, or, it Joey that lives?

At the end, when the man, not even sure himself if he is Joey or Tom, looks at his wife, he's looking for the love he has been able to see in her eyes for him. Does he see it? He doesn't expect it when he walks in the door. He lingers there in the doorway, waiting. Sarah, his daughter, sets a plate for him, he sits down and waits, looking down a the table. The son passes the food to the father. Both children forgive. But what about Edie? Her look, is it anger, is it love through sorrow? It's difficult to decipher, as is the look on Tom's face when the scene cuts out. By cutting to black before words can clarify how she feels, the audience is given an open ending to ponder. It is the most important part of this film. It does not tell you if what he did is right or wrong. Was it wrong for him to lie about his life before Edie? Did he make up for any of it by being a good husband, a good father, and a good citizen after he stopped being Joey? It doesn't matter. None of it matters unless his wife, Edie, can love him.

Despite that fantastic ending, there is a lot of useless crap in this movie. The beginning, where the thugs murder two people and a little girl at a motel was extraneous. Couldn't we see that the two of them were crazy just by how they acted when they tried robbing the diner? We didn't need to see that they were on a murdering spree. That was only and easy way to make Tom's actions seem justified. When the little girl wakes up complaining about "monsters" and her father tells he there are no real ones, well, you know he will be proven to be a liar in a matter of moments. And in what family does everyone get up and comfort the little girl when she wakes in the middle of the night? I guess only those in happy small town land. Couldn't they all just have had breakfast and said how much they loved each other instead of that crappy scene? But worst of all of the Tom and family scenes was that horrible love scene where Edie and Tom act out teenage shenanigans that they never had. Why would anyone want that? Maybe all of these scenes were actually made to seem false because, in the diegesis, they were false. Tom really wasn't the happy family man. There are monsters, and Tom probably had wild teenage sex with some other girl, even if he does deny it later. At least the angry sex scene later was better at conveying both of their mixed emotions after Tom came clean to Edie about his past.

What I think I'm trying to convey is that this movies is sometimes hard to decipher. It's hard not to like it because of that ending, but it can so easily be interpreted as a sloppy piece of film making. Watch it and decide for yourself.

Twister

Jo walks up to the cafe counter to order a coffee. She comments, mostly to herself that nothing changes. Melissa is sitting at the counter and hears her. She asks what she means. Jo explains that Jonas, the man she was just talking to, will wait to see what Bill does. Of course Melissa wants to know why. Instead of listening in as the two women talk about Bill, the movie cuts to him standing outside. He squats down and grabs a handful of dirt. He lets it sift through his fist. He watches if fall and contemplates the sky. Back to Jo and Melissa, we've missed the whole conversation. Jo has explained what Bill can do, but all we catch of the conversation is Melissa's summary, "So you're saying Bill knows what the storm is thinking?" We see how he reads a storm instead of hearing it explained. Show, don't tell, the mantra of any screen writer, demonstrated perfectly in the movie Twister.

Monster movies were always about conquering fear. In the 50s, it was mass social anxiety played out before us. Maybe even today, we are still working out our collective anxieties in monster movies. In Twister, however, it's just one character overcoming her fear of a single monster: a tornado. The monster comes and snatches away Jo's father. It sneaks up silently, stalks her and she must chase it down and conquer it in order to conquer her fear of it. Jo also has to overcome her own emotional hurdles with Bill, her soon-to-be ex-husband. Both stories may be conventional, but are interesting in combination because it begs the question, would she overcome her fears if she couldn't learn to accept love?

All this deep analysis is really tiring. What I really like most about this movie are the characters. We get to know them quite well by the end of the movie. There are a few that only have a moment or two, but in general, the characters are vivid and have their own life in the story. I love Dusty, played by Philip Seymour Hoffman. I could watch this movie a hundred times just to laugh at his quasi-surfer dude character that always calls Bill, "the Extreme! It's the Extreme." Or Rabbit, constantly pouring over maps, letting everyone know that his directions are spot on ("Rabbit is good; Rabbit is wise.") I could go on and quote a bunch of other lines from the movie, but I won't, just to save you some time.

Also, to save you some time, I love this movie. Just skip all the stuff above and read this line.

Get Smart

Would you believe that they made a movie out of the television show Get Smart? How about the fact that they actually made it pretty well? It's true, it's not a bad movie for summer fare. It won't win any awards, but I didn't feel cheated out of $6 for the matinee.

Viva Las Vegas

After watching Viva Las Vegas, I'm convinced that Nicole Kidman is a clone of Ann-Margaret. Maybe not a clone, but a close relative.

I remember being mesmerized by Elvis as a kid. Watching this movie now, I realize that he wasn't much of an actor, and wasn't that good looking, but man could he sing. As stories go, this is probably one of the better ones that he starred in. I could be wrong though. I have a few more to go in the Elvis collection that I got last Christmas.

Bionic Woman

Okay, so this isn't an entry about a movie, but rather the new, re-imagined Bionic Woman television series. I was a big, albeit small at the time, fan of the original Bionic Woman. I loved it because it was inspiring to watch a woman kick ass. I loved Charlie's Angels, Wonder Woman, and Electra Woman and Dyna Girl all for the same reason. But this new version, I'm not so sure about. I did like the fact that there was a nod to how young girls like I was once are inspired by images of women doing amazing things. During the show, Jaimie Sommers (a.k.a. the Bionic Woman) goes racing through the woods as she escapes the secret biotechnology lab in which she was being held captive. A mother and daughter are driving along and the girl sees Jaimie running at incredible speeds. When the little girl tells her mother what she has seen, the mother dismisses it ("Didn't I tell you not to make up stories?" or something stupid like that.) The little girl, rather than feeling bad about being scolded, says, "I never knew a woman could do that." Ha! How many times as a little girl - if you ever were a little girl - did you ever think that?

That one bright moment didn't do much to make me like this new series. The actress who plays Jaimie Sommers was obviously picked because she's pretty and has sparkley eyes. She can't act, or run or fight for that matter, so it had to be her looks. Another bright moment is, of course, the fantastic Katee Sackhoff as the evil bionic woman Sarah Corvis. Hopefully, she will be a regular on the show and serve to complicate Jaimie's loyalties to whatever agency she's just made a deal with at the end of episode one.

The two things that bothered me greatly about this opening episode are: 1. why did they make her pregnant and then lose the baby, 2. why did her boyfriend have to be the one to "save" her? The lost pregnancy probably would have made more sense if she was actually upset about it. She didn't seem too upset about it, but who knows where that plot point will go in the future. Hopefully it will go somewhere. I'm also hoping that the boyfriend dies. They've already setup that the men in this story just think with their little heads (one of the other men at the biotech firm was Sarah's lover). I guess I don't want every episode to be a series of romantic entanglements or conflicts. Especially since the one in this episode was really in poor taste. Jaime and her boyfriend are kissing when she states, "That's not me." He replies, "Yes it is" and they proceed to do it. Ummm, thanks for letting me know that she was concerned about him sticking his dick into a robotic vagina.

In general, more action, more old v. new bionic woman, more "you go, girl!" moments and I'm a new fan. Keep up the kissy faced stuff and I'm never watching this show again.

Mr. Bean's Holiday

When I was in London this last spring, Mr. Bean's Holiday and Hot Fuzz were playing in theaters. I really wanted to see Hot Fuzz while I was there, so I resisted the temptation to see Mr. Bean. It was actually a tough decision. Mr. Bean was playing in the theater right in the neighborhood I was staying at, while Hot Fuzz was a tube ride away. It was worth it to see Hot Fuzz before anyone else could here. What I should have done is see them both. My son and I just went to see Mr. Bean's Holiday and I loved it! It was fun and clever. There was a great scene in which Mr. Bean, a kid and a woman are all riding in a car. The women is speaking French, the boy Russion, and Mr. Bean, well, he's not really speaking much. But the boy and the woman carry on this conversation with him as he responds with, "Oui!" Of course the boy and the woman get two completely different meanings out of, "Oui," and Mr. Bean is none the wiser. It was really humorous to watch. Also, the end, where Bean makes his Cannes debut is brilliant.

Mirror/Mask

I'm not quite sure what audience Mirror/Mask was aimed at. If it was made for kids - it's rated PG, I think it's too ugly to interest many kids. If it was aimed at adults, I think the story is too simple and, to be quite honest, rather dull to interest them. For a fantasy, it was rather unimaginative when you consider the plot. A girl fights with her mother because she is growing up and wants independence. The mother falls ill shortly afterwards and the girl feels responsible. She works through her guilt and her own conflicting emotions about growing up in her dreams. I'll give the production team full marks for attempting to create a surreal dream world. It looked really, well, complicated to put together. But it didn't have any magic. Alice in Wonderland and the Wizard of Oz did it far better, and those were made decades ago. Just goes to show you that all the special effects that money can buy can't replace a great story, interesting characters, and good acting.

Another thing that I thought was missing was a sense of peril. For some reason, none of the trouble spots that Helena and Valentine got into seemed very dangerous. The only there was any real sense of danger what when Helena and Valentine were going to be eaten by the sphinxes. But that was all resolved before they even really started to do anything but surround them. Maybe if they had at least licked their lips I would have pretended to be concerned. But, alas, they didn't and Helena and Valentine easily escaped. Then again, maybe I'm too jaded and know that she will eventually have to wake up so she can't really die in her dream.

Hiroshima mon amour

Ah, the French. So serious, so thoughtful, so poetic. Thank goodness! Hiroshima mon amour was such a treat. I would compare it to buying a box of really expensive, hand-made chocolates. You've been eating Hershey's up until then. You get the good stuff and you realize that you have been wasting your money on second rate chocolate. I've seen too many movies lately that were made for mass consumption...Transformers, Blades of Glory, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix to name just three. There are more, believe me.

This movie isn't for everyone. It's poetic, which may be a little dull. The story is of a woman who meets and man in Hiroshima. The movie covers their brief affair as well as some of the woman's past. At first, the setting doesn't seem to make sense. Why Hiroshima? Why not a more romantic location? The movie was made in 1959, so it it likely people watching the movie then would understand the connection between the love story and Hiroshima. I won't spell it out completely here, but just think of what happens in cities like Hiroshima after a war. It's fascinating to think about what stories people will tell about this war in 10 years from now. Think they'll make something intriguing. Nah. I'm gonna go with a series of action flicks or political thrillers. We need more of those, right? :-(

One last thing, you've probably seen one of Alain Resnais' films before. Probably in school as a kid. He directed Night and Fog, which examined Nazi concentration camps. I still can picture the ovens and piles of hair from that movie.

Flags of our Fathers

Maybe it's okay to watch a lot of bad movies. I think it helps you to recognize the really good ones. Flags of our Fathers is one of the good ones. I've always been fascinated by war movies, so I was looking forward to seeing this one. This isn't just a war movie, but also an exploration of that famous photo and what the word "hero" can mean.

Why is this a good movie? I'll give you three examples. There are more, but these are the ones that stood out for me. First, when the Marines first land on the island, it all seems quiet. They march up the beach and take their positions. They start to move inland and the camera shot switches to the view out of a fox hole. The muzzle of a gun is aimed out the fox hole at the approaching soldiers. The shooting doesn't start right away. Instead, the shots cut back and forth between the soldiers point of view as they move forward and the fox hole's. I had to close my eyes a few times because I just couldn't watch and wait for those soldiers to get shot. You instantly feel a little of the fear they they did as they waited for the bullets to fly.

The second example is the many moments in the movie that the camera doesn't show you everything. When Doc goes to view Iggy's body and when the corpsman dies of the bullet wound to his neck, the camera doesn't show you everything. We don't see what made the other soldier sick when he saw Iggy's body. We just see Doc's blank stare. When the corpsman dies, we don't see the blood spurt out of his neck as he gives his final breath. Instead, we see his hand drop listlessly to the black sand. Sometimes it's what you don't show that can make a scene more powerful. You are left to imagine what is inferred.

And finally as the end credits play, there is a series of photos. Many are from the battle, but you also get to see a picture of some of the men portrayed in the film. If you pay close attention, many of the combat photos shown are recreated in the movie (e.g. the gun in the sand, Doc walking the man with the head wound). I thought that it was an incredible way to remind us that this movie is about real people, who fought in a real situation. Sometimes it is easy to forget that after the credits roll.

Ghost Rider

It's hard to believe that this movie was rated PG-13. The first time that Johnny Blaze transformed into the Ghost Rider, you could see his skin burning off. There were other scenes that made me question the rating. But then again, maybe I am old. My son didn't seem to mind any of it. As a matter of fact he liked the movie. I didn't. There were two things that bothered me the most about the movie. I thought the whole story about the village of San Ven...whatever, was confusing. If everyone was so evil in the town, why not send them to hell? That's where they ended up anyway. I also didn't like how the Ghost Rider was developed. Why bother having an older Ghost Rider in the story if he doesn't show the next Ghost Rider how to use his powers? I think it would have been a much better movie if the final battle had been more interesting. Why not have all the baddies meet up with the Ghost Riders, past and present? Make it a battle royal instead of having the Ghost Rider send them one by one to hell. The final scene in which Johnny Blaze refuses to hand over his powers was great, but as action movies go, this one was rather dull.

Shrek 3

Three strikes and you're out in baseball. I think Shrek 3 is the third strike for whoever produced the trilogy. Hopefully, they won't make any more. They probably will though. I'm sure they made enough money to think that people liked it enough for a forth installment. Heck, I put down my money. I do wish I could get it back.

Why was Shrek 3 so bad? Here's a quick example. The king dies...I mean croaks. He does it several times. Once or twice seeming like he's dead, but then he comes back to life, that's kinda funny. Seeming to "croak" three or four times with the (now) annoying Donkey and Puss and Boots making stupid comments, that's too much. They carried the scene too far. Then, during the king's funeral, "Live and Let Die" by Wings plays on the soundtrack. It was totally inappropriate. The song is about growing cynical (my interpretation of it), so how does that fit in with a funeral scene? You should be bitter and angry now that he's dead? You don't get that at a lot of funerals.

This movie just completely abused the music. One of the best things about the first movie was the soundtrack. The scene where Shrek wrestles the king's army to "Bad Reputation" or when the Proclaimers "I'm on My Way" plays along as they are walking, those were fabulous uses of the soundtrack. A bad cover of "Barracuda" playing along while the women kick booty, just din't work for me. Mainly because the cover was soooooo bad. I mean really, just pay the extra few bucks and get the original.

I won't even go into how stupid the story was. Why in the world would you ever include dinner theater in this movie and then turn dinner theater into a venue for public execution like a gladiator match? Seriously, that was just preposterous. Again, the film went too far. Maybe that was there plan. I can hear it now. "Okay, people, we've made two of these before. Now, let's make a third and just add more of everything. Add more jokes until they stop laughing. Add more stupid plot lines until they don't know what's going on. Heck, they'll still give us their money, because more is better."

Pirates 3

Better than Pirates 2, not as good as Pirates 1. Chow Yun Fat wasn't in the movie enough. Thankfully, there was more Johnny Depp/Captain Jack Sparrow in this movie. There was some very fine film making to be seen during Pirates 3. The scene with the multiple Jack Sparrow's was fantastic. It was an interesting exercise in experimental film making, done right inside a Hollywood movie. You don't see that everyday. The story was a little easier to understand than the one in Pirates 2. The problem was, I knew what was going on, but had no idea why. Why was there a Pirates brotherhood? A pirate king? Was that necessary?

If you haven't seen Pirates 3 yet and are going to go, be sure to stay through the credits. There is a scene at the very end after they finish rolling. I missed it. I really, really don't like it when they do that. But, I've been told that it's worth waiting for since it deals the Will and Elizabeth love story.

Magnolia

Why did it rain frogs? And, why did everyone swear so much?

I think I need to watch Magnolia again. If I can spare an extra three hours. In hindsight, it would have been wise to read at least something about this movie before watching it. I didn't know much about the movie, other than Tom Cruise was in it (I really don't like Tom Cruise). I did expect that it would be an ordinary narrative film. When each of the characters started singing along with the soundtrack, I knew strange things were a foot. The frogs did me in though. It was about midnight when it began raining frogs, so it is entirely possible that I wasn't in the proper state of mind for frogs to be busting out windows. But still, why frogs? Poor things.

I've done some reading on Magnolia and have talked to two of my co-workers about it. Interestingly, my female co-worker and I were not offended by Frank and the "Seduce and Destroy" self-help parody. Somehow it just seemed appropriate for the person playing the character. We were both bothered by Lily and the waifish Claudia. You can probably guess that we have an aversion for weak female characters.

As for my other co-worker, he and I differed on our interpretation of the movie. My take on the theme of the movie was that fate was a strong influence in many of the character's lives. He thought that choice and the choices that people make in the past, present and future, was a strong theme in the movie. After listening to his explanation for why he thought that, I would agree slightly. There we also some reviews and other comments on the movie that alluded to his interpretation. A second viewing would be very helpful in actually figuring out if he was making a valid point and where exactly that theme is present in the film.

I can't say I was pleasantly surprised by this movie. I think I was more annoyed, but not in a bad way. It's like a splinter. It's under my skin, but not painful. It's just there, lingering, right below the surface.

Mad Hot Ballroom

There was a moment, near the end of Mad Hot Ballroom where I wondered if the team that was getting so much screen time was actually going to win. That moment got me thinking about a few other things, such as:

Did they have someone prompting the kids before they filmed their conversations or did they just keep a film crew around the kids waiting for them to say something interesting or cute?
Did they only film the one team that made it to the finals, or was there other footage of the other final teams that they captured and did not use? I'm just wondering if they planned to follow the one team and work with the footage they shot regardless of the outcome.
What are the kids doing now and when is Mad Hot Ballroom 2 coming out?

There's a lot to like about this documentary. It was well made and did a good job of trying to capture the practices and performances. I think the film technique of directly interviewing the adults but using the "fly on the wall" technique for the kids was interesting. In a way, by having the kids casually talk to one another in front of the camera, you were given the impression that they were just being themselves and we were lucky just to be there for that particular moment. However, it hardly seemed likely that any of the kids would discuss the things they did just casually in front of a camera without some prompting. It was important to have those moments in the film, since it really was about how the program affects the kids in it. But it would be interesting to know more about how the film makers planned out the whole thing.