I never meant to hurt you (Young Adult review/an ode to being young and dumb)

I'm talking with a friend about movies and I am about to say that Young Adult (2011) is cute, but I stop myself. I could see how someone might not enjoy this movie. The main character, Mavis, is not a likable character. At times, she is just terrible. However, I (and I think people who had dumb moments in their youth, which is hopefully almost everyone) could relate to her. You don't want to like her, but, still, at times, you find yourself hoping she wakes up and pulls herself together. You hope she grows up.

I didn't know what to expect from the movie. It had Patton Oswalt in it, sure, but the ads for it made it come off a bit fluffy. I hate the phrase "dark comedy" as it seems any quirky comedy is labeled that, but this really is a dark comedy. It is not a happy light fluffy film yet you (or at least I) manage many laughs during it.

I am a pushover for a good soundtrack. The movie starts off with a song by Teenage Fanclub and the soundtrack just keeps getting better. The 90s idolatry sucked me in.

Essentially, Mavis is in her late 30s and still behaves as a self-centered, spoiled teenager, focused on herself and having a good time. She decides to go back to her hometown to get her boyfriend (now married with child) back. He's settled in to family life and seems to enjoy it. His wife is totally awesome (part time drummer, full time teacher of emotionally challenged children). Yet, Mavis is obvious and tries to seduce him. At times, it's over the top. Most of the time, it's cringe-worthy. You can't believe she can be so blind and you secretly hope you never, ever acted like that. She thinks everyone (even Oswalt’s character, who was severely beaten back in high school) has it better than she does and that she should get all the sympathy (the film does touch slightly on some of her issues – hair pulling, a miscarriage, and heavier on others – her alcoholism).

There is no pulling herself together. And that is awesome. She gets all dolled up to pursue the man (her ex) she thinks is made for her. They kiss (eventually) but that's it. He doesn't leave the wife for her. She ends up sleeping with Oswalt’s character (and you can see that coming fairly early on) but, at the end of the movie, the actress playing Oswalt’s sister (who had mad hero worship of Mavis) convinces Mavis that she is wonderful just the way she is – oblivious, rude, delusional. There is no epiphany that makes Mavis change for the “better.” No. She agrees that she is pretty awesome and goes back to her car to head back to the big city. The end.

The movie also stops dramatically, with a few loose ends dangling in the air. It was a bit frustrating yet refreshing. This movie can’t have a storybook ending . Mavis will continue being Mavis, maybe forever and while most of us don’t agree, most of us want her to be more "adult,"it seems just fine with her.

pictures of me on your bedroom door (review of All Over Me)

I don’t enjoy much 1990s nostalgia. Maybe it’s too soon (for me). Maybe it’s that I was (relatively) alert and paying attention in that time period that I don’t long for the clothes, the hair, the pre-Facebook ignorance. I do, however, have a soft spot in my heart for 1990s music.

All Over Me (1997) is set in the mid to late ‘90s, in (a very, very white, minus Ricky from My So Called Life) Hell’s Kitchen, NYC. This movie starts with credits. I do not enjoy this. I like to forget that I am watching a movie. I like the action to, wham, start immediately, Showing a long list of credits and who did what, movie wise, distracts me from this.

Claude and Ellen are best friends. They’re in high school, like music and have nonexistent/uncaring or sometimes present/obvious parents. Claude has a crush on Ellen (I think you could draw parallels between Ellen and Claude’s mom - she has to ‘take care’ of both, both are man obsessed). Ellen, however is is all wrapped up in a rock ‘em, sock ‘em drug slinging thug. One of my (other) problems is the character of Ellen. Sure, this is a Claude-driven movie. It’s about her. It’s about her discovering herself, her sexuality at a time of the burgeoning angsty grrl power movement (by the way, where did that movement go?). All other characters are but shadows to play off Claude, but you think Ellen would be a little more developed. She starts the film as a ‘normal’ boy crazy moody teen. Suddenly, she becomes a Lifetime movie-esque drug addict (tries to run away with strangers: check, almost ODs in the bathroom: check) rather quickly, seemingly in minutes, in between scenes.

Claude is Claude. She’s oblivious at times, but I suppose, she is a teenager. We’ve all been mind numbingly dumb, in hindsight. But, then, there was a scene set to a large portion of a Geraldine Fibbers song (and this was shortly after a Sleater-Kinney song! Imagine!). And that alone upped this movie for me. I would highly recommend this movie if 1990s nostalgia, or, specifically, Riot Grrl culture, makes you smile and/or you dig the music.

Similar and, in my opinion, better movies (though light on the grrl power thing) Girl (1998) and Thirteen (2003).

dirty old window (review of Loren Cass)

I like historical movies – whether it is based on fact and is straight forwarded character driven (i.e. Milk 2008) or a loose interpretation which emphasizes the artistic rather than fact (i.e. Marie Antoinette 2006). I'm also a sucker for anything Southern/Florida based. So, Loren Cass (2006), a film with an actual Florida based event (the 1996 St. Petersburg riots which occurred after a police officer gunned down a motorist during a routine stop) in the background, with a freewheeling storyline and camera angles to match, set to a punk soundtrack was my kind of movie.

We're in the aftermath of the riots (I admit, I hadn't heard about this whole event and quickly went to research it afterwards), in a sleepy and generic suburban town (St. Pete). It follows a cast of characters – primary and secondary – but mostly, we watch the budding romance (?) between a young mechanic and a young waitress. And there's an awesome performance scene by the band Leftover Crack. But it's not about the kids at a punk show or the mechanic and the waitress. It's about the town adjusting and not adjusting, it's about a moment in time, it's about the moody lull that hangs over most suburban neighborhoods.

I can understand why some might not like the film. It can be hard to watch, at times. I watched it twice in a row, just to get it and I was still left a little confused. It's contradictory. It has patches of quiet and slow, cut with chaotic noise. There's little dialogue and little action, but it's cut with external dialogue and footage (including graphic footage of R. Budd Dwyer who committed suicide at a televised press conference). It is an ugly, bleak movie that has brief moments of beauty and grace. It may confuse and disorient you, but, if you're like me, you'll agree that that is what a good film is supposed to do.

sure 'nough

Well, hi, there. It's been, eep, ten days or so since my last blog. If you think I've been neglecting my blog, you should see my poor Netflix...I have not been watching movies on the regular.

I watched (a few weeks back but I won't dwell) Savage Grace (2007). It sounded interesting - based on a true story (I tend to like "true crime") about a dysfunctional rich family. They travel lots, look pretty, are super rich and, oh, in the last few minutes, the son kills the mother. Wah?

And that's what this film showed me. If you are going to have unlikeable characters (like this film) you have to either find a way to make them a smidge likable, somehow. To get the viewer to care at all, there has to be some investment. The son kills the mother and you kind of see it coming and don't really care either way. The movie has no soul, which is sad considering it is based on a true story, a crime of passion (I always disliked that phrase)..."passion" indicating there was something going on. I mean, a person kills his mother. There has to be some soul, something interesting, something glimmering behind it...but no, we have pretty characters in pretty settings and that's about it. There are crime reenactment shows on TV that do a better job (in a shorter time frame) about going deeper into the people involved, finding something likable or something for the viewer to latch on to/relate to.

girls on film

I'm undergoing some medical treatment (more on that later, maybe) and one of the side effects is a grumpy sort of mood. Might as well make the most of that and complain about some movies!

So, I don't like most of the roles for women in movies. Here are a few thoughts -

Drag Me to Hell (2009) - I know...it's a horror movie. Fantasy, etc. What annoyed me was 1) why did the gypsy woman curse the loan officer? Why didn't she curse the bank or someone higher up? 2) The female loan officer (and main character of the film) annoyed me so much. She was so passive with the men in her life - her boss, her boyfriend (and what a creepy and skeptical boyfriend Justin Long was in the film), yet, she is super aggressive with the gypsy in the parking lot (I get it, she's attacking her, physically, she must fight). It's also interesting to me that she is "punished" when she acts aggressively (masculine).

I Have Seen the Devil (2011) - A Korean thriller about a man seeking revenge on the man who killed his girlfriend. It was dark, violent and had brief comedic moments. I could see this remade as an American film. What I would love is if they re-imagine it to have the main character (the special agent) as a female. It's doable. She could be taking revenge on her sister's or life partner's death. One could dream.

Midnight in Paris (2011) - Owen Wilson was just miscast in this. That said - I hate, hate, hate the stereotypical mean and shallow girlfriend/love interest/typically a finance. This movie had one - one note Inez who is more cardboard cut out than believable character. Of course Wilson is unsure of marrying her (she doesn't appreciate his art! his not making any money art!) and flees into some sort of alternative universe of 1920s Paris. The movie was lovely to look at (and makes me want to go back to Paris), the cameos of famous artists and writers was amusing (but also felt a little check-listed - like, they didn't naturally flow together that well). BUT, Wilson finds an artist groupie and is just instantly attracted to her. She's cute and she likes "old stuff" too but they really don't explain why he falls for her (she isn't the opposite of Inez, just slightly less annoying). And why does she like Wilson? Especially considering he is up against cute and macho Ernest Hemingway. The chemistry is more assumed than explained. In the end, it turns out Artist Groupie wants to go further back in time and stay there, Wilson does not. I get it - don't hold onto old things (items, relationships), appreciate them, respect them but move on to the present (or else you might miss out of that cute French record vendor, Mr. Wilson).

poetry in cars

What's it been - almost a full week of almost daily posts? Go me!

Two thoughts (I ought to split these for two posts...but...no).

I just finished watching Off the Charts: the Song-Poem Story (2003). It's a great little documentary about music and kitsch and the pursuit of fame...I remember the ads that used to run (do they still?) about music producers wanting your poems, to turn into chart topping songs. I was always tempted but never submitted anything. Apparently, regardless how bad a poem you sent in, you would get back an offer to record your song (you pay a fee, of course). The film covers the hopefuls that mail poems in (including one kind of sad story with a man who tries to go out on tour and doesn't do very well) as well as the people who 'produce' them. Really, they (for the most part) give some care to what they are recording, as off the wall as some of it is. One of the poem writers was a kung-fu, guns and Jesus enthusiast (reminiscent of Napoleon Dynamite, minus the Jesus stuff). He's sent in several poems to be turned into songs, including one explaining his love for the late Annie Oakley (technically, he loves her spirit, he explains). As goofy as he is, he is actually sweet and...I can't laugh because he's doing creative stuff and actually getting it produced and now he was in a film. So, there you go.

And next thought - I hate driving now. Dread it almost. I used to love a road trip...love to take aimless drives to where ever...there's a show an hour away? I'll drive! But, lately, my weekly 45 minute trip to and 45 minute trip back to campus for a class just...argh...I hate it...I hate the traffic (there's not much), I hate the distance (it's only 45 minutes, really not that awful), I hate the bumpy roads (they are pretty bad). So, this time, I made myself listen to the '70s station on XM and not turn it (as, typically, I would tend to flip stations, carefully, after every song). And that made it not so terrible.

Jeffrey

I watched Get Him to the Greek (2010) yesterday and it was a mixed bag (a "Jeffrey," if you will) - there were things I liked about it and things I hated about it, but what most bothered me was Mad Men's Peggy and Jonah Hill.

How and why are these two a couple? Peggy is a super busy and sleep deprived medical student who likes Gossip Girl and bright colors. Jonah Hill (who just makes me think of Allen Gregory, the character he voices on the sometimes amusing cartoon with the same name) is a sleep deprived (?) music fanatic who has some sort of job at a record label. One night, he asks Peggy to go see the Pixies and the Mars Volta (Pixies should have had lead billing) and Peggy asks to be reminded as to who Mars Volta is (really, Peggy? You are aware of the Pixies and not Mars Volta?) and decides she'd rather stay home and watch Gossip Girl than go see the Pixies. The Pixies. OMG. The flipping iconic Pixies lose to a show which has gotten weaker and weaker since it's first few seasons (like 90210, when they leave high school, the show goes downhill fast). Ugh. I digress.

How are these two even together? I hate, in films, when the main character loves loves loves music and is with a woman who has no clue about music (who is also usually a harpy). Really? How'd they get together? Some other common interest(s) the viewer isn't let in on?

I think it comes down to the fact that Jonah Hill's character is unlikable and inconsistent (I don't think a different actor would have done much with the role either). Peggy's going to be a doctor. She needs to move to Seattle without him. Find some other milk toast guy who likes Gossip Girl as much as she does, who also doesn't know who the Mars Volta is.

I also hate how, in movies, if both parties in a couple cheat (aka the man cheats so we have the woman cheat too) it somehow makes it okay/acceptable to both parties (cancels each other out?).

But, in the end, Peggy and Jonah work it all out. He lives the fake music industry to...oh, to stay in the music industry to become a producer. Uh, okay. What I'd love to see is a future sequel - with Russell Brand's character's son (who turns out to not be his son) grown up and working at Jonah Hill's totally real and not all flashy fake record label and given the task to get his father (not-father) to a reunion show...Get Him BACK to the Greek. Ha. No.

(3-D) Ghost in You

Halloween's over! Time to write about horror movies! My timing is excellent!

I love horror movies - good ones, bad ones and so forth. This year, I tried to arrange my Netflix queue to have a line of horror movies before, at and after Halloween, which sort of worked out. Since I started watching American Horror Story (FX), I've become more interested in haunted houses (or, actually, the history of how haunted houses are depicted in movies and TV). And I've seen quite a few haunted house movies as of late - decent ones, like Burnt Offerings (1976 - and I had no idea about the Dark Shadows connection until I just looked it up to get the release year...but anway, the ending, Karen Black!) and 13 Ghosts (the original 1960 version - not the 'remake' very 1990s-feeling update in 2001).

Long story short (too late!), I watched a terrible, awful haunted house movie this weekend - Amityville 3-D (1983)...the third in the series and in 3-D (get it?). Did the movie really need to be in 3-D (note - my Netflix version was not in 3-D but you could figure out what was supposed to appear as if it was coming out of the screen - breaking glass, etc)? Nope. The only part that would have been cool in 3-D was when the swordfish on the wall went flying. For such an awful movie, I was disappointed by the lack of cheap 3-D shots it didn't take (if it had, ala 13 Ghosts, it may have made the film a little more 'campy' and likeable).

Amityville 3-D opens with a fantastic concept/scene - a couple (an old shyster couple!) is conning people by holding fake seances in the Amityville spooky house. Our main male character, some sort of investigative writer/creepy guy and his lady friend/photographer (?) bust the couple for their investigative fraud busting magazine. Cool! But, from what I know of haunted houses and whatnot, wouldn't the spirits of the Amityville house be pissed that this shyster couple had rigged up the house to trick people? Or be tempted to join in on the rigged fun?

Anyway, our main male character, who is so unlikeable, really, decides for some reason to buy the house (it was a good deal? good school district? close to work?). And that's what annoys me about this film - all the characters that you are supposed to be rooting for - the main male, his lady friend, his wife (ex-wife?), the nerdy ghost-investigator professor guy - are so bland and unpleasant and unlikeable...that, really, by the end, I was rooting for the house. Seriously. I love that Amityville house.

Character development was just non-existent (I know, I know, it's an early '80s horror film). For example, our main male's lady friend, the photographer (?)...she goes over to Amityville house to meet up with him, but he's not home yet (and the 'wacky' housekeeper - who the ghosts don't mess with? - gets out of the house as soon as she shows up) so she has to wait for him. Alone. Now, I would assume that if you are some sort of photographer for a skeptic, myth busting magazine, you've probably seen a lot in your time and you would not be so freaked out at being alone and not be so freaking whiny about it. Or you'd just see that his car is not in the driveway and you'd wait for him to get home, in the safety and comfort of your own car, which can drive away at high speeds, if necessary.

Also off was the pacing. I realize, again, it was an early '80s film and I have no attention span, but it was so drawn out and boring (in keeping with the first one?). I was so excited, though, in one later scene, with the main male and his wife (ex-wife?) in the Amityville kitchen, you can see something in the background...a Five Alive carton! Five Alive! I miss that juice. I wonder why they stopped making it. Back to timing - so main male is a skeptical myth busting writer, who works (?) at a skeptical myth busting magazine with a friend (?) who investigates ghosts and what not, who should have myth busting resources aplenty to help him as he moves into this notorious house (a house with such a bad reputation that the houses near it won't even sell!). He knows the history of this house, he's seeing people turn up dead (realtor/owner of the house, lady friend, eventually his daughter)...why wait until the LAST 15 minutes of the movie to invite professor haunts a lot and his ghost busting team of investigators over to check out the house??

I did walk away from the movie thinking about the 3-D craze of the 1980s and how it ties into our current 3-D oversaturation...really, does every movie coming out now need to be in 3-D? Isn't regular old '2-D' (or what is it called, real-D or something?) enough?

On a side note, unlikeable main male is played by Tony Roberts, who appeared on several Law & Order episodes! And an episode of Murder She Wrote! I have a slight new appreciation for him now...

And, absolutely not related, did you know that "Ghost in You" was covered by not only Counting Crows but also by (ughs) Mark McGrath?

I get so mean 'round this scene

[originally posted on myspace on August 17, 2010]

My loud and drunk neighbors are back, as of last night! They got quiet and passed out (or maybe I zonked out) around 12:30 AM, so it wasn't that bad. Welcome back, obnoxiously drunk and clueless neighbors! Welcome back! [11/29/10 - these neighbors appear to have moved out, thankfully]

The New New Girl lacks common sense. I have zero patience for that. [11/29/10 - she's still annoying]

Moving on. So, I've been watching some movies!

The Runaways - I was so looking forward to this movie. I read the book it's (loosely) based on (Neon Angel) and that was actually good, so I was really, really looking forward to this movie. The movie was just ok. It relied on every rock and roll cliche and didn't offer anything new. And boy, did it just skip over big chunks of Neon Angel. And if I was Lita Ford, I would have been pissed at this movie. Sure, the book didn't discuss Ford much, but, the movie barely showed her and when it did, she was painted in a negative light. She didn't even get a little caption at the end, about what she's done since the group broke up. Come on. She did a duet with Ozzy!

9 - damn preachy robot puppets. I didn't get it. It was pretty (as was Coraline) and the technology behind it seamless (ditto, Coraline)...but...blah...boring story/plot.

Adventureland (Kristen Stewart from the Runaways was also in this...see the tie in?) - was a far better movie than I expected, with an awesome soundtrack. Remember the commercials when it came out played it out kind of like a gross out/teen sex romp? Not at all. It was a coming of age kind of story. With an awesome soundtrack.

Elsewhere - it was released in 2009, but had a very '90s horror movie feel to it (I could totally see Neve Campbell playing the lead role). It's a horror/suspense movie that involves cell phones, texting and myspace (or at least, the movie's version of a site that looks very, very much like myspace). Sure, you could spot the villain early in the movie (though they really did try to throw some other suspects at you) and sure, there were a ton of horror movie cliches, but it was good. It was actually suspenseful. It had me putting the TV on mute and turning away from the TV a few times (for the squirmy jump out at you moments). It's absolutely set up for a sequel. I ought to pitch it...

daydream nation

[originally posted on myspace on June 30, 2010]

Sometimes, I really wish I had stuck with the actual learning of bass and/or drums.

So, I watched Prozac Nation just now (because I couldn't get through the book) and it made me realize that most of us were temporarily insane from our mid to late teens through our mid twenties.

And, also, the mother in the movie (as played by Jessica Lange) reminded me of the mother in Requiem for a Dream (actually played by Ellen Burstyn...I had to look it up because I really thought it was the same actress) and while Prozac Nation wasn't necessarily a terrible film, Requiem (released about a year before Prozac) was far better...

Milk

[originally posted on myspace on June 16, 2010]

(more of a reaction than a review)

Long story short, I now have Netflix, so I am catching up on all the movies (many) I never saw in theaters.

After a string of happy, lighter films, I got Milk in the mail. I was leery. It looked good, but it was a biopic, a biopic on someone (Harvey Milk) who was murdered, so, I mean, it's bound to be dark and sad, right?

No, it wasn't. Yes, it was sad that he was murdered and the reason why he was murdered was sad...but it was really a movie about pushing past your lot in life and trying to make things better for your people, whoever they might be. And, I'm sure, as it's a biopic about a murdered person, it glosses over, it makes him more of a saint than he might have really been, more of a fictional character than real...I had trouble believing he was so focussed on what he was fighting for and that he, essentially, predicted his own death (I'm getting jaded, yes?).

There was a scene, early on, where Milk says he is almost 40 years old and hasn't done anything with his life (this is right before he departs for San Francisco and eventually starts his political career). Who hasn't felt that? To be a particular age and question everything, all the past years and decades and want to do something, anything.

Anyway, it was a good film. At times, a little heavy handed, but overall, really good. Sean Penn is such a good actor. It's scary to think that not that long ago (the late '70s), so close to home (the film shows footage from Miami), the cops were dragging gays out of nightclubs and arresting them.

So, I told my mom what movie I had watched and who it was about. She had no clue who I was talking about. Now, I will admit, I don't remember when I first heard about Harvey Milk, certainly not in any of my history classes in elementary, junior high, high school or college (which is so very sad, but contemporary history is typically never covered...they usually got up to the Industrial Revolution). My mom, however, is a history buff, she was alive when this all happened, she was living in South Florida during the whole Anita Bryant thing. When I referenced Anita Bryant, she knew that name, remembered the whole orange juice connection. I told her that the man who shot Milk, that his lawyers used the "Twinkie Defense" (I had zero idea about that as well, had often heard the "Twinkie Defense" referenced but had no clue it was in relation to Milk).

So, no one knows history. And fairly recently history at that.

On the Netflix website, there were lots of positive reviews, one equating it to a gay version of Malcolm X (and I think this is the biopic formula, so...) and one...one that made no sense to me. One that I read before I watched that made me get a preconceived image of the film before I even watched it (reviews are, for the most part, evil in that way). And as I watched, I got angry at this reviewer, who obviously did not watch the same movie I did.

The reviewer said that the point of the movie was to "push the gay activist agenda" and that there were "disturbing sex scenes."

Yeah, after reading that, I was expecting some explicit scenes (it was a Gus Van Sant movie, after all).

In reality, minimum sex scenes. There were kissing scenes, but it was Milk with two boyfriends from his lifetime, not random one night stands. And the kissing scenes were barely ever on the mouth and both the kissing and sex scenes (two total, I believe) were so fast, so covered in shadows. They were, artistically at the very least, beautiful. That this reviewer could see something "disturbing" in all that, that he (or she) could miss the whole entire point of the movie and dismiss it as "agenda," makes me sad for society and wonder how far we've really come (if at all) in acceptance.

again and again

[originally posted on myspace on April 12, 2010]

1. Ok, I know a handful of people who read my blog. The rest of us? I have no idea...but thanks? Cool.

2. I don't understand chick music journalists (I am excluding myself from this group, obviously). Yes, I am stereotyping, but let me explain.

Someone posted a review of a show the other weekend and I started reading through the article, then the rest of the blog the article was on. Seems it's written by a female. Cool, she goes to lots of shows. I haven't seen her around (because I am still in an anti-social frame of mind, so, yeah, I haven't seen lots of people around, technically). But, cool, someone who goest to shows, can write actual, full sentences. Awesome! Reading further through, I noticed how often she calls a guy cute (or variation), or talks about boys in general (mostly, in a self-knocking way, how none of them like her in that way, in a like-like way). I will absolutely give slack, as this is her personal blog. She just happens to talk about a lot of shows...however, I'd noticed that chick music journalists (or writers or bloggers or hanger-oners) tend to discuss: a) the cuteness of various musicians and/or b) eventually launch into some diatribe about how unsupportive/lame/unorganized our "scene" is (I'm not saying it's not...I'm saying we don't really have a scene here). Now, in my younger days (I'm older now, I'm allowed to say that), I definitely prattled on and on about topic b, but I don't think (I am going to say I am 99.9% certain) I ever, ever said, in print, how "cute" (alluring, hot, charming, rakish good looks) a musician was, in the midst of a write up/review/interview. Ever. Because, well, I guess I am from the 'old school,' where you stick to the point and the point is the music (and maybe the atmosphere, if people watching the other drunks is worth the word count).

3. (surprised you there, huh?) I finally watched Nick & Nora's Infinite Playlist tonight. I DVR'd it awhile ago but just never got around to watching it as: a) I tend to tape movies and never get around to watching them, as sitting in front of the TV for two hours straight isn't always where my head's at and b) the ads for the movie looked achingly sweet/cute/indier than thou and I was worried to actually watch the movie...as it may suck. It was actually cute. Kind of predictable and the music placement, sometimes, kind of odd...but overall, cute. What I did not understand was, at the end, why Nick and Nora did not stick around for the Fluffy concert. Wasn't that the point, to find them and see their favorite band? At first, I thought, 'oh, Fluffy symbolizes their former lives, their exes and by not staying, they show they are moving on.' But Nick's ex totally left. They could have stuck around. Maybe it was along those lines, like life is now, band worship is not as important as new love. Eh.

fresh as vegas weather

[originally posted on myspace on January 12, 2010]

No, I had never seen the movie Titanic.

Nope. Not ever.

I saw a trailer for it in theaters and laughed at how awful it looked and never saw it. Never had any desire to see it. Ever.

I told this to L.C. at work, last Friday, when all computers/internets were down. I decided to bluff, say we'd rent it at the library and watch it that afternoon, if the computers weren't back up by then (me assuming that the library would not have it and/or the internet would be restored by the afternoon). They had a copy (and I was silently hoping for restoration of the internet...which, several hours later, did happen).

I thought I had escaped, until yesterday, when L.C. gave me the DVD (I even made her check it out, since I didn't want that on my library record). Today, she asked if I watched it yet. Hrrm.

Ok, I'll at least try it (the first disc, out of the three total). Keep an open mind. Whatnot. I only made it through the first one (possibly to watch the rest, actually to skep the second and watch the last disc, maybe tomorrow).

(so this is purely the first disc - from the opeining to the fancy pants dinner "Jack" gets invited to and the after party below he takes "Rose" to, with Irish jig music)

It was not horrible. It was not terribly good, either. It was definitely pretty to look at (and that was L.C.'s key selling point as to why I should watch it). The dialogue was horrible. Poorly written and stilted and unrealistic. I really didn't see any 'romance' buidling between Jack and Rose (though, yes, I am a girl and I got a little 'eeep' when she came down the stairs and dressed up and he was all dressed up and took her hand and...eeps!). And I can totally see how Jack (dressed up) totally resembles Chase Crawford (sp?). BUT...

In the opening scene(s), on the boat...the Snoop Operator guy (with the long hair and scruffy beard) annoyed me to no end. What a terrible waste of a character. And every sentence started or ended with "Boss" (see, we are trying to establish that whashisface is this guy's superior, or boss, so let's have him say it about twenty times in ten minutes!). Though, I might start calling my boss that..."Good morning, Boss, how's it going?"

Also, I hate the cliche of rich man vs. poor man in a romantic storyline. More specifically....nice/sweet hearted/romantic/worldly yet poor man versus smarmy/evil/stupid/rich man. Oh, which one will she choose?? It's Reality Bites all over again.

Which lead me to think 'a 13 year old would love this.' And it's true. Their repeated attendance to see this movie (or, actually, to see Leo) helped it tremendously. And they are the ones who are making Twilight a success. And every other teenage girl brain centric movie of each decade (too tired to list right now). 13 year old girls and the adult women who think like them.

Escapism, fantasty, giving your brain a break for 120 minutes? Sure, yes, absolutely. Movies should be (and blockbusters tend to be)...I guess I just want something different...something with characters with some depth...like the poor/good hearted/romantically/artistic boy turning out to be bad...or the creepy/rich/stupid/condescending rich boy to turn out alright...because no one is so black and white, so cut and dry.

end thought...sleep now...

summer lovin’ (review of Sleepaway Camp)

[originally posted on myspace on Friday, July 6, 2007]

summer lovin’ (review of one of the best horror movies, ever)

aka: hot hot heat - A review of Sleepaway Camp (spoiler: I will tell you how it ends) and a little talk about On the Lot (again).

It was a dark and stormy night. A night perfect for watching a scary movie. I accidentally turned on On The Lot (which I had forgotten was still on) and it was horror night. They've lessened the American Idol factor a little (with a poolside elimination this week) so it was somewhat watchable. Thankfully, maniacally cute Kenny was first (his was the only film I actually wanted to see) but it sucked. It was a Blair Witch rip off with mutants and blog references (but the ending was funny). It was still dark and stormy and I wanted to watch a real movie. And thankfully, I found Sleepaway Camp (1983).

Fast forward through the opening credits, which feature a 1980s TV movie dramatic score mixed with random, disembodied dialogue from campers past and overly long shots of the camp (empty). We finally end the opening with a shot of a sign for the camp, with a for sale sign tacked on it (they don't explain time-wise, but I assume it goes for sale because of what is about to happen).

We're suddenly on the lake (a different one than at the camp?) with two kids and a father figure (who looks reminiscent of On the Lot's Kenny). The kids are mischievous and oh, here comes some reckless teens on a speed boat. It's an accident waiting to happen, and we literally wait and wait amidst the yelling for the accident to actually happen (it is one of the most slowest accident scenes ever). One kid seems to be dead – or at least floating face down.

Eight years later (the movie tells us, thanks): Ricky and his cousin Angela, teens, are being shipped off to camp by the manic Joan Crawford-on-steroids mom type.

I never went to camp when I was younger, but this is what I imagined it would be like: cranky adults, screaming and cursing kids, noisy mess halls, a kitchen with fly paper strips hanging from the ceiling, a pedophilic head chef, forty year old looking but they are probably supposed to be teens male camp counselors (who get their homoerotic fun in by playing baseball in short shorts and going skinny dipping). It's perfect! There's mean kids and corny dialogue as we settle into the story. There's the camp's owner, Mel, a clueless, cigar smoking grump that probably shouldn't be working around kids. Then there's Ronnie (whom I started to refer to as Meathead), possibly Mel's assistant, possibly the head counselor. He's always there, bulging out of his short shorts, to help with the disgruntled campers. When Angela refuses to eat, Meathead takes her to meet the head chef to see if he can make her anything special. Cue scene of pedophile head chef trying to assault Angela and cousin Ricky rushing into her rescue.

It's a horror movie and one of our main character's safety was compromised. That means the fun is about to start!

A little while later, the chef has a super-tall pot of boiling water dumped on him. The beautiful special effects show his burned, boiled over hands. He is quickly shipped off to the hospital and Mel is quick to cover up the "accident."

A bunch of boys and girls meet up down by the lake to go skinny dipping (at least the boys go). Mullet haired Kenny, one of the campers, I think, is a bit stupid and ends up getting killed underneath his capsized canoe. It's not clear why, but he might have been one of the guys who tried to ask Angela out to the lake gathering (a lot of these '80s kids look similar). The next day, Meathead in his short shorts glory, is down by the lake, sent there by Mel to clean up (the kids threw some patio furniture into the water). He grumbles about how Mel takes him for granted and then discovers the body (and insane make up work on corpse Kenny).

Angela starts to slowly come out of her shell with Ricky's best friend, Paul (a spineless sort, who always seems to take off when Angela comes into a bully's crosshairs). Most everyone else at the camp picks on catatonically doe eyed and usually mute Carrie-esque Angela.

Bane of Angela's camp life is Judy, the superbad, first to develop girl with a side pony tail and a sailor's mouth. Her torture cohort is Meg, their cabin counselor.

One of the counselors, creepy Billy, leads a roof top water balloon attack. Guess who the target is? He later ends up locked in a toilet stall and our murderer drops in a hive of bees. He must be allergic because he dies a loud, violent death (the cinematography and make up, again, so good).

A bunch of kids leave, out of fear that a maniac is loose. For some reason, Mel thinks it must be Ricky (who is a bit of a hot head) doing all of this (which in any good horror movie means that Ricky is not our murderer).

Paul and Angela have a nighttime romp by the lake. Out of nowhere (maybe not so out of nowhere, if you were really paying attention to the opening), Angela has a flashback of the man from the boat (Ricky's dad?) in the opening with another man, in bed. She spazzes out.

Now, by this point, you are pretty sure the killer is Angela, but the movie does try to throw in some red herrings. There's Mozart (I guess he's the nerd, but he doesn't seem that nerdy) who is constantly picked on. After one prank, he pulls a knife and threatens a bunkmate. There's also Susie, the overly nice and very sympathetic to Angela counselor.

To take everyone's minds off all the violence, the camp partakes in a big game of capture the flag/color war. Sexually frustrated Paul easily succomes to Judy's advances (well, he was a bit unwilling to kiss back, then became more willing). Angela sees the two kissing and runs off. Paul follows.

Color war is apparently over and we may be into the next day. Paul apologizes to Angela, puts the blame on Judy. Obnoxious Judy comes up to the couple (cue for Paul to take off) and with the help of evil Meg, Angela gets thrown into the water (she's deathly afraid of the water). Ricky sees this and tries to help Angela, but Mel (who has also just seen his counselor throw a kid into the law – hello, lawsuit) holds Ricky back.

Later, Ricky says to Angela, "we won't let them get away with this." In horror movie speak, that means all hell is about to break loose!

It is the night of the big social. Unfortunately, stupid counselor Eddie has been assigned to take his cabin camping. A few of the counselors, including evil Meg, have the night off. Meg plans to have a dinner date with Mel (ewh) and goes off to the empty cabin to take a shower. This leads to one of the most kick ass horror movie shower scenes (she's stabbed in the back through the back shower wall).

Back to the campsite: Eddie and his six kids set up at the site. They drove there. Isn't this camp? Shouldn't they have hiked?

Cut back to the social. Paul and Angela make plans to meet up after the social.

Back to the campsite: two whiney kids are scared and want to go back to their cabin. Dumbass Eddie takes the two in his car and leave the four other kids there, unguarded.

Mel discovers Meg's body (the corpse actually seems to jump out of the shower but the make up is so good). Mel's out to seek vengeance and goes out to find Ricky.

Judy is finally gets her comeuppance – she is killed with a hot curling iron.

Dumbass Eddie is now back at the campsite and guess what? The kids he left there are dead. He pukes at the site of the murdered kids. They only show flashes of the bloody sleeping bags (it's a little hard to make out as the scene is very dark, it looks more like trash piles).

Cut back to the social. The movie pushes the idea that maybe Ricky is the killer, as they show him coming late to the dance.

Mel grabs him and pummels him to almost death. He thinks he has killed Ricky and decides to run off. He ends up at the archery range where he then sees the real murderer. Then an arrow gets shot through his neck (and you almost clap a little).

Meathead gets word from Eddie about the dead kids. A cop (with the best 1980s mustache that looks totally fake when he's in a close up) shows up and everyone finally realizes that there's a killer on the loose and that they should stay put. Cop, Susie, Meathead and another counselor to go out to look for a few of the missing campers.

Paul and Angela meet up and Angela suggests they go skinny dipping.

The cop finds Ricky and it turns out, Ricky is still alive.

Meathead and Susie find Angela, with her back to the camera and Paul seemingly asleep in her arms. Angela has a flashback. The crazy prepster mom from the opening is back. She tells the child in front of her that since her husband left, she went a little crazy. Apparently, after the boat accident, crazy mom has decided that the child should go from boy to girl and she renames him Angela (so the kids in the opening boat scene were Ricky and a little boy later Angela).

The flashback causes Angela to freak out. She jumps up and turns out Paul is dead and decapitated. Angela is now naked (now having broader shoulders than in previous scenes), blood soaked and has a penis.

Meathead and Susie stare in horror. And then Meathead says (as if to clarify for the audience), "she's a boy!"

We end on a shot of Angela. And then her theme song (yes, her theme song) kicks in.

This movie is brilliant. It is everything I love in a horror movie. The violence is schlocky. It relies on editing, suggestion and fantastic make up instead of over the top vomit-inducing blood and gore. There are a few tiny jump moments but you aren't spending the entire movie looking away from the screen. It has corny dialogue and the acting ranges from stilted and frozen to over the top. The murder scenes are so unbelievable but so oddball and creative that they at least make you laugh. It's a simple story but has enough crazy plot twists to separate it from the droves of 1980s slasher films. And it has male nudity (all be it from the behind) in it. No resorting to the cheap female thrills (although they could have easily done so, especially with characters like Meg and Judy). It's spawned two direct to video sequels, though director Robert Hiltzik was not associated with them (this was his only movie and he had written the script to Sleepaway Camp as his grad school senior thesis).

Sidenote: You can play a drinking game with this movie. Drink every time someone says or yells out "Angela!" (it happens a lot). Drink two times when someone says it in that New York/Tony Danza on Who's the Boss accent (ditto).

wax ecstatic (Lars and the Real Girl review)

[originally posted on myspace on Tuesday, October 30, 2007]

What do you call it when a movie goes from limited release to mainstream, mass market release? No idea. Anyway, Lars and The Real Girl was finally released to the mainstream populous last Friday (I was a bit scared it'd never make it past it's limited release date of 10/12).

I was a bit surprised when it was showing at a chain theater (Muvico) and one of those big fancy ones at that (the Egyptian themed jumbo sized theater-dome). I was shocked when the theater was all but full for the 7:35 PM showing. And I was mildly annoyed by the group of teens in our row who offered color commentary during the first fifteen minutes of the movie (and then left, assumingly bored and off to go watch Saw IV).

I didn't know what to expect from the film. I mean, I have my love/respect/creeped-out-ness/fear of Real Dolls. The plot sounded cute, the writer sounded good, it was all very promising. But Hollywood has suckered me before, so I wasn't keeping my hopes up.

At the start of the movie, we meet shy and a smidge reclusive Lars (Ryan "So Hot" Gosling, more on him in a bit) who lives in the garage at the house of his kind of cute brother Gus (Paul Schneider) and (very annoying in the beginning of the film) wife Karen (Emily Mortimer).

In the beginning, still impressed by how many people are here (and none walk out!), I am distracted. First, by the pretty outdoors scenery (in the film, they are somewhere northern US, but it's really shot in Canada) and then by Ryan Gosling. I keep wondering, is he the guy in that horrible Amityville remake? Nope, Ryan Reynolds. Then, hmm, is he married to Alanis Morrisette? Nope, Ryan Reynolds again (side note: yahoo says that they "began dating by e-mail in 2002" – how does that work?). Later, after researching, I found out that Gosling is the reason I tried so hard to (unsuccessfully) make it through the United States of Leland and half of the reason I waded through Stay (nerdy-dressed Ewan McGregor the other half).

My point in all this – at the beginning, I was easily distracted. By the later beginning, middle and end, I was drawn into the story. It felt like these people (especially some of the ugly sweater wearing church members) were real.

Movie plot short: Lars has issues. Some unexplained childhood issues (from his mom dying while giving birth to him), some (I guess) because his brother's wife is pregnant. He orders a doll off line and tells everyone (and appears to believe it himself) that she is, in fact, real. The town's doctor/shrink (small town medical practitioners have to specialize in it all, apparently) tells Lars' concerned brother and brother's wife that he must be working through issues with the doll and to play along (the whole town eventually plays along), to let it runs it's course. Surprisingly, it does run it's course. The doll "dies" when he deals with all the abandonment/fear of talking to girls/etc/etc issues he's had.

A guy and a sex doll could have been handled so many (bad) ways. It could have easily been a Cohen Brothers slapstick. But this film is so sweet in it's handling. It's funny and cute, without being too saccharine. The treatment of Lars' possible mental illness, however temporary it was, was considerate and somewhat realistic (ok, probably not realistic that the whole town would support his delusion, but Lars' character is so unassumingly nice, you don't really second guess it). The characters have dimension (and yes, I would totally date post-doll Lars, Kym!) and the story isn't (terribly) predictable and it's certainly unique.

It's a charming little movie about love and relationships and family and psychological disorders/delusions (my idea of a good romantic comedy, just like Punch Drunk Love). And, no, it's not perfect. It drags a little. There are multiple, multiple scenes where the boom mike at times sneaks overhead and at times boldly looms into frame (fire the editing people, seriously).

Go see this movie.

The crowded theater made me think it'd do well on the weekend box office. Not so much. It did come in at number 19, making $926,675 this weekend while playing in 296 theaters nationwide (compared to the weekend's number 1 movie, Saw IV, which made over 31 million dollars while playing in 3183 theaters nationwide). BUT, Lars had a production budget of 12 million (seriously? Fire those editing people who let the boom mikes slip) dollars (production budgets in comparison: 30 Days of Night, 30 million).

And big tickets sales and profits don't make a good movie, I know, but, hell, it's a business. If good little sleeper films like this can actually get made, not get tinkered around with to fit a formula, get shown in chain theaters and have an audience (and just maybe break even)…it's just a little inspiring to the rest of us.

dress you up in my love

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

dismemberment plan (review of the movie May)

[originally posted on myspace on Tuesday, June 26, 2007]

There is something about vacation days that make me watch movies. I think it's the fact that I don't have to go to work the next day makes me stay up late, which results in watching movies I might never had bothered with.

One night (morning?), IFC aired the movie May (2002, I know, I'm behind) sandwiched in between airings of House of 1000 Corpses. Based on that and on its generic and somewhat vague on screen description, I expected a gore fest. Instead, I got a horror movie that I truly believe should be shown to all tweens and teens (and lots of adults) as a guide to how not to date.

The movie's title character, May, is a socially inept oddball with a mad collection of dolls and a need to find love. She meets pseudo-quirky Adam and love blooms. Adam eventually sees that May is a bit crazy and slowly (very slowly) backs off. May quickly finds solace by giving into oversexed coworker Polly's advances. Unfortunately, Polly isn't a one woman girl and May is disappointed by love yet again. May then decides to take matters into her hands, quite literally, and makes her own perfect companion. Spoiler: she hacks up a few people and stitches them together to make a new friend.

Angela Bettis plays May to a possible career long pigeon holing perfection. You end the film really believing she is May. At times, she makes you feel sorry for her, yet in the next scene, you are down right disgusted. She creates an almost loveable unhinged lunatic, reminiscent to Anthony Perkins' Norman Bates.

Her main love interest Adam (Jeremy Sisto) is a fairly interesting character. He is apparently into the sick and deranged, evident by his collections odds and ends and his cheesy indie film he shows May on an early date. Yet when he is faced with the real thing embodied by May, he eventually runs off. He very slowly runs. Even after it is obvious to him that he is dealing with crazy on another level, he gives May a few more chances when he could have avoided a whole lot of drama by changing his phone number and leaving town.

It is a fairly original idea and the characters are somewhat believable, but the film has some drawbacks. The cinematography is not consistent. Most annoying are the dated bursts of grainy shots (think video for NIN's "Closer"). Surprisingly for the plot, the violence is fast and in no means gory. The schlockiness more resembles '80s bad horror and at times comes off as not realistic and unintentionally laughable. Goofy yet annoying lesbian-stereotype Polly (Anna Faris) is given some corny dialogue that attempts foreshadowing. The end of the movie is disappointingly predictable.

The movie borders good and bad, pushing it to the realm of cult status. Underneath it all, it has a good morale. Girls, take it as a guide to not be obsessively looking for love. Guys, take it as a guide that if a girl acts like this on the first date, run. Note to all: there is no such thing as a perfect partner (in real life).

and we're dang proud of it (The Devil and Daniel Johnston review)

[originally posted on myspace on Thursday, May 31, 2007]

In the early '90s, I listened to several shows on WKPX religiously. One Saturday (early afternoon, with Keith McIntosh and I can't remember the show name for the life of me, sorry), I heard "Speeding Motorcycle" by Daniel Johnston. His off beat/off kilter voice and the song's sweet and easy lyrics set my teenage-musical heart aflutter. I called in the show to get more information and set out on my search. This was before the internet boom and Amazon, so I ordered a bunch of cassette tapes (and eventually a cool t-shirt, in white, even though my t-shirt preference at the time was black) from mail order.

As only about five people I knew had even heard of him, I felt it my job to spread the word about my discovery. I didn't know it at the time, but Johnston had already been put into the uber-hipster consciousness. In 1985, MTV profiled the music scene in Austin and apparently, Johnston got quite the cult following from his appearance. In 1994, Atlantic released his major label debut, Fun (he had 11 self and indie releases prior and 9 since) and if you knew me at the time, I probably made you listen to the CD while you were in my car. "Speeding Motorcycle" is still one of my favorite songs (since covered by Yo La Tengo and more recently, a cover version ended up in a Target TV ad).

In 2004, The Devil and Daniel Johnston (a doc about Johnston, written and directed by Jeff Feuerzeig) was released. It's obvious from watching that Feuerzeig is a huge Johnston fan, and while the film is very admiring of him and his musical genius, it does not make a martyr out of Johnston. Weaving together interviews with family, friends and business partners with self-confessional audio tapes of Johnston from back in the day, home movies and photographs with more current interviews with Johnston, we see the whole picture, both the good and the bad.

There is a thin line between creative genius and insanity. In Johnston's case, a multitude of issues (a repressive family, drugs, mental illness) help to blur that line. He was born into a conservative, ultra-Christian family in West Virginia, with parents who did not support his creative ventures (making music and movies that often portrayed his mother as critical and domineering). He eventually makes it to Austin (the fateful story of how he ends up there is almost mythic) where talented oddballs are embraced and nurtured. His career has had ups and downs, all documented in this movie. The movie tells a complete story and does not get too heavy handed when covering his past frequent LSD use or his mental illness (in the past, many close to Johnston have objected that some try to market him based on his mental illnesses, not based on his talent). Today, he is still the same free spirit, he is still producing music in his creative explosion of a room; the only difference is now, he's doing international tours.

One of my favorite scenes: backstage at one of Johnston's shows, he is introduced to Matt Groening (of Simpsons fame). Groening tells him he's a fan of his music. Johnston is quiet, a bit distant. You wonder if he's having a bad day or if, maybe, just maybe, he is trying to appear cool and nonchalant to meet someone as huge as Groening. It's a brief chat with Johnston suggesting he do some music for the show (the Simpsons). Groening agrees, seems good with that. Groening excuses himself so that Johnston can get on stage. As soon as Groening is out of earshot, Johnston (a man in his 40s-50s), no longer able to hide his excitement, lets out a giddy yelp comparable to that of a kid who just learned he's going to Disney World.

Daniel Johnston is musically a genius and this documentary is the best presentation of his unique story of his life: religion and repression, heartbreak and unrequited love, and his fascination with cartoon superheroes.

Rollercoaster, the movie, the review (aka: Happy Birthday, Malcolm X)

[originally posted on myspace on Saturday, May 19, 2007]

(aka: Don't read movie reviews!)

I spent many of my formative years (do you still have formative years by high school? Eh, whatever) watching Mystery Science Theater 3000 and, as a result, I love to watch bad movies. I have one cable channel that tends to play lots of '70s movies which is so fantastic for the bad movie cravings. There is a second channel that will show the same movie that is on the retro channel, but starting about an hour behind. If you miss the beginning on the retro channel, you can usually catch it on the other channel.

So, the other night, I am flipping through the channels and see a listing for a movie called Rollercoaster. A movie about rollercoasters? Maybe this is like Jaws? An evil rollercoaster? I was slightly interested. The basic TV description just said it was about a maniac bombing amusement parks. Amusement parks in the 1970s. I had to watch.

To be honest, I did not see the movie in it's entirety. I saw maybe the last half on the retro channel and the first twenty minutes on the other channel (to answer all my unanswered questions).

I searched for the movie the next day online (it's on DVD!), expecting a ton of nasty reviews, rankings on worst movie top fifty lists, etc. I was wrong. The reviewer on allmovie.com loved the film for it's "modesty" (just want you want in an action/suspense movie). Tons of rollercoaster-love related websites reveled in this movie. I highly recommend everyone see it for it's pure 1970s bliss (I used to watch Rockford Files reruns for the same reason) and for it's badness. You probably won't get through it all in one sitting, but try (it's on again towards the end of May, search your TIVO). So, here is my review, in honor of it's wonderful crappiness.

The 1970s were a simpler time, when you could build a suspense, horror and/or disaster film around something simple, like a shark, a dog, the mall, a cruise ship or Robert De Niro. And maybe future generations will say the same in thirty years (hello, Snakes on a Plane). In 1977, Hollywood set out to scare us the hell away from amusement parks.

The storyline of Rollercoaster is simple. There is a crazy man who likes explosives and doesn't (apparently) like rollercoasters. Credited as "Young Man," our villain causes some damage, tries to extort money from amusement park owners and blows some more stuff up. It is never explained why he is doing this, outside of the money (maybe he worked for Disneyland). The review on allmovie claims our villain has a "devious intellect." If the people you are against are just plain stupid, I don't think it means you are smart by default. The other review also applauds the movie for it's character development. Yes, not giving your villain, who is all over this movie, a name, that is fantastic attention to detail.

The film gives lots of detail to the character of Harry Calder (played by George Segal). For some reason, our villain really likes Calder (or maybe he's using him as a pawn, oh so devious) resulting in a long sequence of Calder following the radioed commands of our villain, who forces him to go on rides while carrying the briefcase full of the demanded money (great part of this movie – Segal in a suit riding a bunch of rides, too funny). Our hero is the head of some sort of amusement park ride inspection agency (though other summaries say he is a police detective). Regardless, he is one of my favorite aspects of 1970s movies – the everyman. He's gruff (aka down to earth) and somehow super-smart and probably drinks a lot. He's got a girlfriend/wife and a kid (it's Helen Hunt!). His superiors try to keep him out of the case and dismiss all his "crazy" ideas, but in the end, have to turn to him because he is the one that will save the day.

Another 1970s staple of this film was the cinematography. Lots and lots of gloriously unnecessary, indulgent scenery shots, shots of crowds and of rollercoaster track, as if someone from the studio said, you need to slap thirty more minutes of film onto this movie. I was just in heaven watching the crowd shots (lots and lots of 'em), to see the clothes and the hair. Apparently, when the movie was first in theaters, it was shown in Sensurround, where the chairs in the theater would shake during certain scenes (explaining the lots of lots of rollercoaster ride scenes).

And in what is probably my favorite 1970s staple – the musical performance. The band Sparks performs towards the end at an outdoor concert (right before the big climax of the movie, right before our hero chases down the villain). Sparks performs two songs, but the best part is the scene in which Ron Mael is chilling out at his piano and it really looks like he has completely forgotten that he's being filmed (shortly after, he starts breaking equipment). Sidenote: Five years after this movie, Sparks bassist Jim Mankey would co-found the band Concrete Blonde.

It drags. The dialogue is laughable. Come on, it's a movie about amusement parks. If you can get through it, Rollercoaster is worth it for the concept and for the pure 1970s of it. You will laugh, you will get a little confused, and you will wonder how plausible parts are. And you get to see '70s mustached, permed, leisure-suit wearing men at an amusement park. So good and so bad on so many levels that it makes you wish MST3K was still around.