Day 31- Movie 31. The Town (2010)

This still feels weird to say, but Ben Affleck is a terrific director. With Gone Baby Gone, and now The Town, he has proven he is a competent, intelligent director. When I see "directed by Ben Affleck," that movie now becomes a must-see. That is crazy to me, but I've been a huge fan of his first two films.

I'm not suggesting that The Town is a perfect movie. Affleck's first cut of the film came in at 4 hours long, and he managed to cut it down to just over 2 hours. This oftentimes feels like a movie that has been cut down. The scenes that were cut were obviously character development scenes, as I often wished the movie would have given us more time with each of the characters. This is a movie that probably would have worked with an additional 15-20 minutes of time. That's rare for me to say. Affleck is a good director, but he's still relatively inexperienced behind the camera. If he continues to stay focused, I am greatly anticipating the moment when everything clicks- Affleck is capable of directing a true, lasting classic. I promise you he hasn't directed his best film yet.

While not perfect, The Town is still a great movie. It is exciting, features gritty realism, superb performances, accurate Boston area accents, and overall, is very entertaining. I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Affleck is very good at filming the quick-paced action scenes and the emotionally charged arguments, but he has an equal talent at filming the quiet, small moments that allow us to really connect with the characters. That is hard to do, but with both of his films, he's managed to achieve that wonderfully.

I really believe The Town is one of the best movies I've seen in 2010. I know many "Top 10" lists will probably leave this film off. I am always updating my own personal Top 10 list, but currently, this film is definitely there. I very much enjoyed this movie, and would give it an 8/10.

On a different note, today marks the end of the first month of my challenge- 31 days done, and somehow, I managed to get back on track. I thought I'd show you visually how the last month looked:

My goal was to build up my numbers so that if I lost a week (which will happen), I won't be horribly behind schedule. Besides a very small advantage in the beginning, I've spent most of the first month trying to just stay on pace. While I didn't achieve the buffer I wanted, I am exactly on pace after the first 31 days. I'm going to take that as a win. Now, I've got 69 days to watch 69 movies. Happy 2011 everyone!

Day 31- Movie 30. Easy A (2010)

The next movie up is Easy A. I was actually looking forward to this movie. I really think Emma Stone has some real acting ability, and the movie received generally good reviews from most critics. Both accounts proved to be accurate, as this is a funny, entertaining film. The movie is about a high school student (Emma Stone) who inadvertently starts a rumor about her promiscuity, and then embraces the role in which she's cast in the school's rumor mill. It is an interesting concept for a comedy, and it works well to mine it for all the jokes you would expect.

I really think comedies are some of the hardest movies to make. There's such a fine line between a great comedy and a godawful one. So many comedies take the shotgun approach- shoot as many jokes covering a wide range of topics in the hope that at least some of them will hit. This is not a very effective means. I didn't feel like Easy A fell into that trap- it focused on the story and characters first, and was just funny on the way. The jokes never forced the story to change (a common mistake in comedies- the jokes set up the story, rather than the other way around).

One of the major reasons I liked this movie is due to Emma Stone. As I mentioned, I think this young actress is going to be a huge Hollywood star. She was terrific in Zombieland, and gives another memorable, enjoyable performance here. She is going to shoot into the next level of stardom by playing Peter Parker's love interest, Gwen Stacy in the upcoming Spider-Man reboot. While at 22, she's a big old to be playing a high school student, she pulls off the part effortlessly.

While I really liked Easy A, there were a few things that bothered me. The main one is that the film casts the people who love Jesus as the bad guys. I understand "Jesus freaks" (that's the movie's description, not mine) are an easy target for the villains, but it just felt weird to me to see people who were trying to be good Christians (however misguided and possibly hypocritical they were), to be painted as the antagonists. It just felt weird. The other issue is a common one in movies set in high school- the films are written by adult writers, so the characters talk with significantly higher vocabulary and intelligence than most 14-18 year olds. Let's be honest- most high school students are pretty stupid. I know I was at that age. While this is a common issue, it bothered me slightly more in this film.

All that being said, Easy A is a very funny comedy. I really enjoyed the movie, and I would highly recommend it. I give this film a solid 7.5/10.

On a slightly different note, I'm genuinely excited about this young batch of actors coming up in Hollywood. I was worried for a few years about the next generation of movie stars, but I feel much better about them now. Actors like Emma Stone, Jesse Eisenberg, Ellen Page, and Shia LeBeouf have emerged and have the potential to be big stars for decades, and I generally enjoy them in films. What young actor or actress do you think has the talent to become a real movie star?

Day 30- Movie 29. Going the Distance (2010)

While I am posting this entry today (Dec. 31st), I actually watched this movie yesterday, so I'm counting it then. I noticed that of all the movies I've watched so far here, I had not seen any romantic comedies. I decided to rectify that. Going the Distance is an interesting film- it is a romantic comedy, but it has a very deserved R rating. I haven't done any research, but I imagine (from personal experience), R-rated romantic comedies are pretty rare. What that means is you get to see Justin Long's naked butt, and people swear almost constantly.

Going the Distance is about Justin Long and Drew Barrymore, who meet in New York City and fall in love. Barrymore is returning to San Francisco, so they decide to start a long-term relationship. The trial and tribulations of that decision play out. Maybe surprisingly, I really enjoyed this movie. I think the R-rating helped.

Here's my problem with romantic comedies- far too many of them following the same, cliche-filled formula. Two people meet, fall in love, something crazy happens that separates them, and they get back together in the end. That right there describes 95% of all romantic comedies. For that reason, these films need something to differentiate them from all the others. Some of my favorite films in this genre come when there is something new or unique about them. For example, I really liked Just Like Heaven- in addition to being a good film, it gave the classic formula a different, unique twist.

In this film, the big difference is that the two people who fall in love embark on a long-distance relationship. This provides the movie with a multitude of jokes about how hard it is to do that. Many people have participated in an LDR at some point, so they can easily identify with this film. I liked that aspect of the film.

I thought this movie did a good job of balancing out the more romantic aspects of this film with some legitimately funny moments. The R-rated helped, as the script goes all out with an almost shocking amount of swear words used throughout the film. This gave the film a more realistic quality to it, because that is how many people actually talk. I enjoyed this movie, and would give it a 7.5/10.

Going the Distance made a pretty disappointing $17 million at the box office, so I'm guessing many of you didn't see it. If you don't mind the almost constant dropping of F-bombs, you'll find a funny, oftentimes realistic look at the ups and downs of a long-distance relationship. I'd definitely recommend seeing this movie.

Day 29- Movie 28. The Other Man (2009)

After Liam Neeson disappointed me yesterday with the stupid After.Life, I decided to give him a chance at redemption. Sadly, The Other Man was even worse. This is one of the most pointless, boring, banal movies I've seen in quite a while. I usually like when movie stars take a role in a small, independent movie. It allows them to take a meatier role than they usually get in the traditional mainstream Hollywood movie. However, the movie actually has to be good for that to work. It doesn't here.

The Other Man is the story of a husband (Liam Neeson) who discovers his wife (Laura Linney) was having an affair. He tracks down the man (Antonio Banderas) she was sleeping with, and gets close to him as he plans his revenge. It sounds like a decent premise. However, the film completely muddles the story up. This is a movie that tried to be too clever for its own good, and ends up disappointing in nearly all aspects. The story was silly, the characters were boring, and at no point in the film did I even remotely care about the characters or what was happening to them. I shook this movie off effortlessly.

This is a film that never gives us a reason to get engaged on any level. The film is purposely confusing- unfortunately, that didn't engage me, it made me care less about what was happening on screen. This confusion is all for a reason- but that isn't made clear until the end. I do give the film credit for trying something different, but I was disappointed it didn't work at all.

The Other Man is actually the type of film I strongly dislike. It is a small, independent film that knows it's a small independent film. It casts big name actors, relying on their fame to sell the movie. It tries to experiment with the narrative, thinking it is so clever and so different that critics will undoubtedly fall in love with it. I hate when movies try to be different solely to be different. I love when movies take chances- as long as it supports the story and the viewing experience. Because this movie took a different route, it's a mess.

I don't even know what I'm talking about any more. It's hard to write about a movie when you can't give away too much for fear of spoiling the film. Let's just say I did not enjoy this movie at all, and I'll give it a 4.5/10.

I am closing in on finishing my first month of this 100 day challenge. On the 31st, I'll make sure I take some time to give an update on where I am thus far, and what I expect over the course of the next month. While I haven't done terrible so far, I still have such a long way to go. I feel like I've been watching movies until my eyes hurt, and I still haven't even finished off the first third. This may be more difficult than I imagined.

Day 28- Movie 27. After.Life (2010)

Yup. I pulled off a 4 movie Tuesday. I know that's impressive. I needed a day like today to get back on track. To be honest, my eyes hurt. When I finish these 100 movies, I am going to need to take a serious break. Anyway, on to the fourth movie of the day. I watched a smaller movie, After.Life. I honestly don't understand why the title is written like that. I thought the movie would clear that up, but it certainty did not. Whatever, I tried not to hold that against the film.

If you haven't seen this movie, the premise is pretty simple. A girl (Christina Ricci) is in a car accident, and wakes up in a funeral home. The funeral director (Liam Neeson) tells her she is dead, and only he can talk to her, because he's always had the ability to talk to the dead. She doesn't believe him, but evidence starts piling up. The central question of the movie is this- is she dead or alive? The movie does a good job of keeping us in a state of suspension. It does not, however, do a good job of convincing us why we should care.

Everything about this movie reeked of a first time director. And, lo and behold, this is Agnieszka Wojtowicz-Vosloo's first feature length film. The movie is uneven, too often boring, and doesn't make much of an emotional impact. It suffers from many of the things you'd expect from an inexperienced director. Now, there are also some pretty cool moments, so I think Wojtowicz-Vosloo may have a future in Hollywood. Once he gets some more experience, he may be a decent director.

This film, however, has more flaws than strengths. I didn't particularly enjoy this movie, and I found the entire film rather unsatisfying. I would give this film a middling 5.5/10.

I really wondered why Liam Neeson even bothered to star in this film. Neeson is such a talented actor, but he seemed to be slumming it a bit here. This film had an interesting premise, but it couldn't deliver on any of that. I bet most people didn't see this movie, as almost no one went to see it in theaters. This is a small movie that audiences avoided, and this time, they got it right. I don't recommend After.Life at all.

Day 28- Movie 26. The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans (2009)

In this case, the name fits the movie. Werner Herzog's The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans has a bizarre, unconventional (and I have to admit, awful) title, and the movie itself embodies that- this is a completely unconventional, crazy, perplexing movie that will either delight or alienate viewers. The film is about a corrupt, gambling and drug addicted cop trying to find the murderer of a family in New Orleans.


And yet, this is where the film becomes perplexing. The plot itself almost doesn't matter. There are a few points in the middle of the film where it almost feels like everyone forgot about the story. The plot stops mattering, and all the audience can do is sit back and take in the craziness appearing on screen. This might come in the form of an imaginary lizard, a shot of an alligator's point of view, or a break-dancing soul (my God, the break-dancing soul). This is a completely unconventional movie, and for that reason, many people probably won't like it.

The film is also pretty difficult to watch. This is a gritty, realistic look at crime in New Orleans post-Katrina. It's not pleasant. There is an almost continuous visual depiction of drugs, sex scenes, and constant vulgar language. If that's what you are looking for, you will enjoy this film. If that turns you off, stay far, far away from this movie.

I also have to mention Nicolas Cage. Cage gives one of his typically bizarre, nearly indescribable performances. He is occasionally brilliant, but too often goes over-the-top. There's about a forty minute stretch of the movie where he starts doing this weird thing with his voice. I am guessing he was trying to depict his descent into drugs, but it was just so weird. Cage fully embraces his crazy side for this role. It's something you have to see to believe.

I thought that The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans (man that title is terrible) was a decent movie. I appreciated the realism and unflinching portrayal of crime and corruption. I didn't like that the story almost seemed secondary, and the film meanders around for two long hours before coming to a hastily put together conclusion. I'd give this film a decent 6.5/10.

If you have seen this movie, add a comment or send me a message. I'd be fascinated to hear what you think- was this movie brilliant or absurd? Is Cage a genius, or a lunatic? After watching this movie, I think I know what I think, but I honestly don't know.

Day 28- Movie 25. Salt (2010)

Salt is pretty much everything you would expect from an action movie- there are car chases, gunfights, and explosions. The good news is that if you like action movies, you will get exactly what you expect. The bad news is that you will get exactly what you expect. I wanted more. I wanted Salt to give me something- anything- I had never seen before. It sadly stays too close to the typical, cliche-filled action genre. This is always good and bad. You can't really blame a film for staying true to its roots, but it is disappointing when a film tries to be good, but never really attempts to be great.

In fact, the biggest differentiator of this film is the fact that Angelina Jolie is the lead character. Females have traditionally not had much opportunity to play action movie heroines. Jolie had the opportunity in the Tomb Raider movies, but let's be honest, that wasn't because of her acting skills. Here, though, she has a traditional action movie vehicle to prove she can carry such a film. And carry it she does. It is genuinely exciting to watch an action movie with a female in the lead role. When this film was first written, it was for a male lead, and they approached Tom Cruise. When we declined the role, they rewrote it for Jolie. I'm glad Cruise turned it down. Jolie's presence is the best part of the entire film.

Here's my biggest problem with this movie- the story is just too hard to believe. Movies always ask us to suspend our disbelief, and I am typically good at doing that. However, this film just pushes that boundary too far. The plot ultimately becomes a bit silly and far-fetched. That is what prevents this from from being great.

Still, Salt is a solid, entertaining action movie. I enjoyed the cast, the characters, and the story (outlandish as it was). I would give this film a 7/10.

I wanted to briefly talk about 2010 in movies, because I think Salt is typical of the year in movies. I've been complaining all year about the quality of films. I admit that there have been some very good movies this year. I just think the general quality has been less this year. So many films were good, but just not good enough. There were too few films that I loved. Now, I've only seen about 45 movies in 2010, so there's still lots of films I've yet to see. Besides just a few great movies, this year has been leaving me disappointed. Anyone agree? Disagree?

Day 28- Movie 24. The Ghost Writer (2010)

For obvious reasons, I'm not a big fan of Roman Polanski as a human being. However, I have to admit he is an extremely talented director. He shows off that talent in The Ghost Writer, a political thriller with themes of corruption, conspiracy, murder, betrayal, love, and literature. This is a very good movie. The movie is about a ghost writer (Ewan McGregor) hired to write the memoirs of the ex-Prime Minister (Pierce Brosnan) of the United Kingdom. As he begins writing, he stumbles upon a secret that dangerous forces want to be kept quiet.

The movie is so good because Polanski is such a terrific director. The movie's pacing, timing, dialogue, and acting are all top notch. The story is interesting and exciting. And yet, surprisingly, audiences almost completely ignored this film at the box office. The movie made only $15 million- not much for a very solid film. I wonder why people stayed away? Some of it might have had to do with Polanski, but I bet that was minimal. For some reason, this film just didn't connect with audiences. I admit I personally wasn't very excited to see it. Even now, while I know it was a good movie, and I would highly recommend it, I still am not able to be overly excited about it. This is a film that hit me intellectually- I was interested in the mystery, engaged in the twists, and laughed at the humorous parts. However, it didn't make much of an emotional impact. I was interested, but I didn't really care. That's where the film drops the ball.

The other thing that disappointed me about this film is that while it was extremely well executed, the movie doesn't really give us anything we haven't seen before. The movie isn't necessarily original- it's wrapped up nicely with a bow, but the film is basically similar to many other movies that we've all seen before. I wish Polanski would have given us something new, rather than just giving us a similar story that was all shined up.

Despite my nitpicking, this is a really good movie. I thoroughly enjoyed watching it. While I wish it had surprised me more, the story and characters are very strong, and the movie is solid. I give this film a deserving 7.5/10.

Has anyone seen this movie? Agree or disagree with my assessment? Leave comments below, or as many of you do, just send me a message on facebook. I'd be glad to hear your opinions. More movies to come today...

Day 27- Movie 23. The Final Destination (2009)

Ah, the fourth film in the Final Destination franchise. I admit I liked the first three films more than I should have, but I also noticed a drop in quality in each of the films. This movie continues that unfortunate tradition. There's a whole host of problems with this movie.

Part of the reason I enjoyed the original film was because it gave a different take on horror movies. The villain here wasn't a psycho or a monster, it was Death itself. How do you fight against Death? That was a cool concept, and it changed how you approached the film. The original film also featured some very inventive death sequences. Each sequel, however, has tried to push the limits of those death sequences, which made them completely ridiculous and absurd. I hate how Death all of a sudden started moving physical objects to create these elaborate but stupid events.

This film also suffers because the cast is pretty bad. When your biggest start is Mykelti Williamson, something has gone terribly wrong. I like Williamson, but he shouldn't be the biggest name attached to your film. The Final Destination also suffers because the whole franchise has grown tiresome and stale. What used to be new and exciting is old and familiar. This film follows the same path as all the other movies, giving us nothing except for gimmicky 3D (which looks absolutely awful in 2D). The whole thing has become just far too stupid. Why would Death go to such elaborate, complicated lengths to kill someone, when there are so many simpler ways to do it? This question has bugged me throughout this franchise, and I just couldn't get past it here.

Probably as no surprise to anyone, I wasn't a huge fan of this movie. It is clearly the worst film in the franchise, and sadly, I doubt it'll be the last (which makes the title even more dumb). I would give this movie a generous 5/10.

What do you think about this franchise? Was I misguided in actually enjoying the first two films? Has it always been stupid, and it's just taken me this long to realize it? While the first three films were silly, I was able to at least find some enjoyment in them. This film produced only boredom for me. Let's all hope this really is the final film of the franchise.

Day 25- Movie 22. Coraline (2009)

Honestly, I'm not sure how I ended up watching this movie. It was late Christmas evening, my family was going to bed, and I decided I needed to squeeze one more movie in to make up for taking the week off. I was flipping through all the on demand channels, and nothing looked good. After a certain point, I just gave up and decided to watch the next movie I came across that I had not seen. That film was Coraline. One of the reasons I love watching movies is because you never know when an expected movie will come along and impress you. That happened here.

I actually knew nothing about Coraline. That is rare, because I do a lot of reading and studying movies. For some reason, I kept getting this film confused with some other movie. Regardless, I decided to give this a try. The film is about a young girl who finds a doorway into another world. That world seems perfect and wonderful- however, she eventually realizes that something sinister lives underneath the facade of perfection and bliss.

What I found with this film was an inventive, unique, entertaining story that didn't flinch or pull any punches in its story. So many family films feel like they are watered down, because they don't want to offend or scare any of their viewers. That is not the case here. This movie was dark, occasionally nightmarish, but still family appropriate (for the most part). I was impressed with the film's unrelenting portrayal of a dark, twisting and different world. The film's villains have evil intentions, and the story is told without trying to coddle the audience.

The movie is done completely in stop-motion, and is beautiful to watch. The world is depicted so vividly (and occasionally hauntingly) that you almost cannot tear your eyes away from the screen. The movie was directed by Henry Selick, who also directed The Nightmare Before Christmas, so that gives you some frame of reference for this film.

I really enjoyed this movie. I understand it was adapted from a book, but it still gives moviegoers something unique and interesting to watch. The story is certainly original (similar to Alice in Wonderland, but different enough to truly feel distinct) and entertaining. I was engaged throughout the film. I was surprised by how much I liked this film, and would give it a very solid 7.5/10.

I really try hard to see as many of the important  and good films that come out each year. I do watch a lot of crap, but I try to view the ones I need to see. However, every single year, I know there are dozens and dozens of gems that I just never get around to seeing. Sometimes it takes a night like tonight, when I can't seem to find anything else on, when I get to watch a surprisingly good film like Coraline. I just don't see how I would have ever watched this movie otherwise. Does that ever happen to you- you randomly catch a film you wouldn't normally watch, but are so glad you did?

Well, I started today 5 movies behind pace, and I'm going to end it only 3. That isn't too bad, considering how much else I did today. I really hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas, and I hope you enjoy the few remaining days of 2010. I'm coming up on finishing my first month of this 100 movie challenge, and I'll need to take a close look then at how I'm doing, and whether or not I think I can actually accomplish this goal. I hope I can, but I have some busy, busy weeks up ahead.

Day 25- Movie 21. Knight and Day (2010)

Knight and Day is a criminally underrated action comedy. I am sure there are many reasons why this movie didn't connect with audiences- the marketing was pretty bad and nondescript. The title is just awful. Tom Cruise has alienated quite a few people by being generally batshit crazy. And yet, despite all that, this is a solid, entertaining movie. I enjoyed this film when I saw it in theaters, and I enjoyed it even more here.

I am not trying to suggest that Knight and Day is an instant classic or even a great movie. This is a lightweight, somewhat forgettable action movie. That is not always a bad thing, however. I actually have a great deal of fun watching this movie. It is enjoyable because it has fun with itself. We have Tom Cruise embracing his crazy side- that is always a good thing. When Cruise takes himself too seriously, that's when things start to go wrong. Here, he is at his charismatic, slightly unhinged best. I loved his character and his performance. You can tell he really enjoyed playing this part.

The storyline is a bit silly, but the action comes quick, and there are a good number of plot twists throughout the film. These really keep the audience guessing. I wasn't bored at any point in the film. Obviously, the movie requires a hefty suspension of disbelief (and there are some generally cheesy moments that you have to try to overlook), but this is a fun, entertaining movie.

I definitely believe this film could have been better, but let's face it- most movies can. This is a movie that sets out to simply entertain the audience, and I believe it achieves that. I was disappointed this film received such a cold shoulder from moviegoers and from critics. I really think they are being too harsh on a movie that is stupid, but entertaining. I believe that in 2-3 years, as more and more people see this on DVD, it will become a bit of a forgotten gem. Regardless of what the majority of critics claimed and what moviegoers stated by staying away from this film at the box office, I really enjoyed Knight and Day and would give this film a respectable 7/10.

One last thing I wanted to talk about. I mentioned I saw this film in theaters. Why then, did I not count it in my official tally? Well, this is a bit complicated. I decided several years ago to NOT count the movies I saw in theaters in my movie count. The reason I did this is because going to a movie theater to see a film is a very different experience than watching it on DVD. Movies are expensive to go to, so I generally don't just go see any film. When I see a movie in the theater, it is one that I am generally really excited about seeing. That excitement sometimes throws off my judgment.

I'll give you a great example-Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. I was really excited to see that movie because I fondly remembered playing with the toys as a kid. I saw the original, and I was a bit disappointed. I thought it was good, but it certainly didn't live up to its potential. I was convinced Michael Bay was going to fix the problems with the sequel, and it would be the movie I hoped the original would be. I went to see it in the movie theater, and leaving the theater, I loved it. I was blown away by the special effects, and I convinced myself it was much better than the original. I even recommended it to people. And then, over the next several days, I slowly started to realize that maybe it wasn't so good. I started to question the racist robots. The horrendous dialogue stuck in my mind, and became stupider the longer I thought about it. Plot holes that seemed small suddenly became gigantic. In short, I soon realized that the movie kind of sucked. However, it took me weeks to allow my built-up expectations to clear up so I could give the film a more accurate rating.

That is why when I see movies in the theater, I don't count them in my official count. If I do see a film there, I make the commitment that I'll watch it again on DVD, just to make sure my impression of the movie is accurate. I know that probably seems a bit crazy, but so is trying to watch 100 movies in 100 days and blogging about it. I'm trying to be like Tom Cruise and embrace my crazy.

On a final note, I usually re-read my blog for spelling and grammar, and to make sure I don't sound like a complete tool by what I wrote. I'm not going to do that with this one. It's Christmas, I'm tired, and this is going to have to be good enough. See ya next time.

Day 25- Movie 20. The Last Airbender (2010)

It is apparent now that M. Night Shyamalan has completely lost any talent he might have had. I have never seen a director go from being brilliant to being awful in such a short amount of time. I used to be so excited for the next M. Night Shyamalan movie- now I dread it. I cannot think of another case where a director came onto the scene, created such high expectations, and then failed to even get close to his original heights.

The Last Airbender is the latest in the line of disappointing films, and I believe this one is his worst. The special effects are great, and I even think the story itself is fine. I understand the original cartoon is pretty cool, so you would expect that. The reason this movie fails is because of the awful, awful acting of the cast, and the laughable, atrocious dialogue uttered throughout the film.

I really didn't like the cast at all. Noah Ringer is the star of the film, and gives one of the most wooden, ridiculous performances I have seen in quite a while. He spends the film with his nostrils flared and his mouth open. I couldn't stand him. The rest of the cast isn't any better. I understand that they had a pathetic script to work with, but they made the movie worse with their terrible acting. They were completely disappointing.

I could talk more about this movie, but it is Christmas, and I have more important things to do. I wasted enough of my time just by watching this film. I would give this movie a 3.5/10.

On a similar note, does anybody actually still care about M. Night Shyamalan? I used to be a big Shyamalan fan, and I've been a bit of a Shyamalan apologist over the years. I thought The Village was great until the end, which ruined the movie. I also didn't completely hate Lady in the Water. But, with the pitiful The Happening and this film, I'm just done with him. Here's the downward trend of his movies (in my opinion, of course):

Not good, M. Night. Not good.

Okay, that's it for me. I spent a solid week watching movies to get caught up, then went 5 days without watching one. I've got to get back on pace, or I'm going to be in trouble. But, enough of that. It's Christmas, and I gotta get back. Merry Christmas everyone!

Day 19- Movie 19. Texasville (1990)

I wanted to watch Texasville because I actually wanted to talk about a different movie- The Last Picture Show (1971). If you don't know, Texasville is the sequel. The reason I wanted to talk about The Last Picture Show is because it is such a great movie. If you haven't seen it, it is the story of a small Texas town, and the residents living there. It mainly focuses on two high school best friends- Timothy Bottoms and Jeff Bridges, and the girls, women, and mentors that live in their town. The film is beautiful in a number of reasons- it is finely acted, has amazing cinematography, and touches on some powerful themes.

That movie is really about a simpler time in America. It takes place in 1951, and the whole movie really transports you to that time and place. It is a movie about innocence lost, about that time in your life when you are old enough to be confronted with real problems, yet not quite old enough to know exactly how to handle them. That movie is about sex, betrayal, friendship, and forgiveness. It is a movie that makes you think about your own youth, and the mistakes you might have made. It is a film about confronting the endings in your life, while looking ahead to new beginnings. If you haven't seen The Last Picture Show, I recommend checking it out.

Texasville is cool because it comes 19 years after the original (and 30 years later in the lives of the characters), and returns to that same small town, with almost all the original cast members. If The Last Picture Show was about moving from youth to adulthood, Texasville is about looking back over your life in your middle age and wondering how you ended up where you did. This movie isn't as good as the original, but it's still very enjoyable because you get the chance to reconnect with these characters much later in their lives. I loved that part of the film. The part of the film I didn't love was that almost nothing actually happens. You actually feel like you're in a small town, where nothing much ever does take place. The characters move around, talk, but nothing really HAPPENS. Still, I loved the chance to see these characters again, and so I'd give this film a 7/10.

I am interested in what people think about the recent trend of movies coming out after extremely long absences. For example, Tron spanned 28 years between films. Rocky was 16 years, Indiana Jones spanned 19 years, and Rambo did 20 years between installments. I think if they are done with the right reasons, they can be very powerful. Texasville was almost unprecedented at the time, reuniting audiences with characters after such a long period of time. Today it's much more commonplace. I really liked the recent Rocky Balboa and Rambo films, because it was fun to see those iconic characters struggling with different issues at a different point in their lives. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull could have been good if they didn't nuke the fridge and if Harrison Ford had remembered how to act. I wonder if this trend of returning to franchises after long absences will continue?

Day 18- Movie 18. Rodan (1956)

In the last year or so, I've grown to really appreciate the Japanese monster movies that started in the 1950s. The films are completely and totally ridiculous, but if you can embrace that, they can be pretty entertaining as well. It is stunning what they were able to do visually. All of the films display miniatures being destroyed, but the camerawork is impressive enough that it is easy to get involved in the destruction happening on screen and you tend to forget the silliness of it all.

I started with the Godzilla movies, and I've seen the first 8 films in that franchise. They are all ridiculous, but they are pretty fun to watch, too. Rodan was a spin-off from the main franchise, but is still one of the earlier films. Like you would expect, the movie offers up bad acting, cheesy dialogue, and absurd situations. And yet, there's something fun about watching cities be destroyed by giant deadly pterosaurs.

This movie actually features some pretty exciting scenes. Among the many flaws of those Japanese monster movies are that the climactic battles don't always live up to the built up expectations. Many times, they are over far too quickly, and disappoint. This film featured some good aerial battles, and a (unintentionally humorous) 4 minute rocket launch scene at the end. Yes, this movie is completely stupid, but I enjoyed it nevertheless. It is fun to sit back, watch the ridiculousness, and just go along for the ride. This is not a good movie, but I'd give this film a generous 6/10.

If you haven't seen any of these movies, they are pretty interesting to watch. I recommend starting with 1954's Gojira. It is the original godzilla movie, and by far the best (it's available on Netflix Instant Viewing, fyi). It is one thing to watch these movies as monster movies. However, there is also a subtle underlying message that is pretty powerful. The context helps. As you know, Japan was hit with two atomic bombs in 1945. I can't imagine the destruction and the damage to the national psyche that occurred as a result. Nine years later, we have a movie about a giant lizard created by radioactive fallout from atomic bombs that destroys Japan. Watching Godzilla as a nuclear allegory is fascinating. Gojira was the film that did it best. I was amazed by that movie, and seeing how it reflected the thoughts and fears of a people trying to make sense of something so horrible and frightening. Movies are a great tool to understand how people deal with the various events of our lives. Gojira reflects the mentality of the Japanese culture less than 10 years after they saw two cities decimated by atomic weapons (by the way, if you do watch it, make sure it's in Japanese. There was an American dubbed version that isn't as good, and doesn't as clearly discuss the dangers of nuclear weapons.)

So, it's really up to you. Watch these movies as an allegory of the dangers of nuclear weapons, or watch them to see giant monsters destroying cities. Either way, the films are fun, despite being completely and totally absurd.

Day 18- Movie 17. The Seventh Seal (1957)

I feel stupid even trying to write about this movie. The Seventh Seal is one of the major classics of world cinema. It is an existential masterpiece, a hugely significant and influential film. It is widely regarded as one of the greatest movies ever made. People have studied this film, written about it, and spent unbelievable amounts of time trying to more fully understand it. What can I possibly say about it? I admit that I don't fully grasp every aspect of it. The allegories are heavy in this film. Director Ingmar Bergman asks some of life's most important questions here- What is the meaning of life? What happens after death? Why does God remain silent, even when we cry out for Him? Why can we find no answers to these questions, no matter how hard we seek?

This is not a film meant to be entertaining and enjoyable. It's not particularly pleasant to watch. It's hard to get through it. However, I don't believe Bergman was trying to entertain- he was trying to make a statement- about faith, religion, life and death, God and man, meaning and nothingness, and all our human questions that seem to go unanswered in the dark. This is an important movie, an influential movie. Entertainment just comes secondary here.

If you haven't seen it, The Seventh Seal is about a knight returning home from the Crusades to find his country ravaged by the Black Plague. He meets Death, and plays him in a game of chess, trying to prolong his own end long enough to find answers to his most important questions. The story is very simple, but is used brilliantly to make us think about things like our own mortality, about what we believe to be true in life and death, and beyond.

I almost don't want to give this film a rating, because it won't be representative of the importance of this film. I thought the beginning and the end were truly masterpieces, although the middle of the film was a bit unfocused. There are some scenes in the middle that seem to stray away from the most fascinating aspects of the film, and a few scenes are so slow that I could barely get through them. I don't think this is a perfect film- but it doesn't have to be. Perfection doesn't necessarily mean the film will be influential. The Seventh Seal is a flawed movie, but a beautiful one nevertheless. I'd give this movie a very strong 8/10.

If you are a fan of movies, I highly recommend seeing this film. You may not particularly like it, but it almost doesn't matter- this is required viewing for any true movie lover. To begin to understand the movies that come out today, we have to go back to see the ones that influenced generations of filmmakers and audiences alike. I've spent nearly ten years trying to understand the world of movies, and I still have barely begun to scratch the surface. When I think about the 1,917 movies I've seen in that time period, I have very little pride in that "accomplishment." If you were to make a list of the great movies I haven't seen yet, it would be embarrassingly long. I know I'll never understand the world of movies as much as someone who went to film school, and I don't expect to. I know many people only look at movies as entertainment- and I think that is perfectly acceptable. They are entertaining, and I love that about them. I want more than that, though. In addition to being entertained, I want to go deeper- to understand film and its impact on humanity. Movies can change our lives because they really are reflections of ourselves- what we are, and what we could be.

To achieve what I want to achieve will take a lifetime. After almost ten years, the list of films I need to see is still significantly longer than the list of films I actually have. I can't get there quicker- it takes time. It would drive me crazy to watch nothing but the "classics." I love those, but I also love seeing explosions, gunfights, special effects, and fart jokes (sometimes). I think I'm on my way, though. Every time I see a film like The Seventh Seal, I feel like I've captured one more piece of the puzzle. I understand a little better than I did before. I am glad I watched this movie, even if it wasn't always easy to get through it. I am still miles and miles away from my goal, but I'm now one step closer. Thanks for reading.

Day 18- Movie 16. The Last Station (2009)

The Last Station was a very well received, critically acclaimed movie from last year. The film tells of the final days of Leo Tolstoy's life, and the battle for his property and book royalties, waged between his wife and his personal aide. I typically like these movies- the films that take a famous historical figure, and give us a look at his life and those close to him. I find these movies fascinating. I've read a few of Tolstoy's books, but I have never really taken the time to try and understand him as a human being. This film helped me to do that.

Whether you care about Tolstoy or not, the reason to see this film is because of the cast and the impressive performances they give. Christopher Plummer and Helen Mirren both received Academy Award nominations for their roles as Tolstoy and his wife, respectively. Both are very, very good in their roles. I thought Plummer was better than Mirren, but they are both entertaining to watch. This is the type of film that lives and dies on the performance of its stars, and it thankfully delivers here.

The movie also features a very strong performance by James McAvoy. I'm becoming a bigger and bigger fan of McAvoy. I think he's made some terrific career choices, balancing out the action blockbusters like Wanted with these more serious, "important" movies like Atonement or The Last Station. Whether you like him or not, you have to admit the guy has some serious talent. I'm really excited to see where he goes in his career. If he keeps making good choices, I believe he will be seen as one of the greatest actors.

I enjoyed this film's story, the intimate look into the life of Leo Tolstoy, and the strong performances of the whole cast. I would give this film a 7.5/10.

One of the reasons why I love the end-of-the-year award shows (Academy Award, Golden Globes, SAG, etc.) is because they help draw attention to some of these smaller films that we might not otherwise know about. Now, I love the big summer blockbusters- that's my favorite time of the year, movie-wise. However, you can't just exist on those alone. There are so many good, smaller movies that come out every year. They are easy to overlook. However, those award shows help bring those into the public consciousness. I probably wouldn't have been as familiar with this movie if it wasn't nominated for two Academy Awards last year. It took me almost a year after that to finally see this film, but it stuck in my mind, and I was able to finally track it down. I always look forward to seeing which films emerge as award contenders, and the surprises or the unexpected ones are fun to see as well. The Last Station is one of those movies. If you haven't seen it yet, I recommend it.

Day 17- Movie 15. The Expendables (2010)

Sylvester Stallone, Jason Statham, Jet Li, Dolph Lundgren, Eric Roberts, Randy Couture, Steve Austin, Terry Crews, Mickey Rourke, Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwarzenegger. That is the main reason to see this movie. Sylvester Stallone assembles an impressive cast of action stars for his 80s throwback action movie. It is legitimately cool to see all these action stars together on screen. I loved that part of the movie. However, just seeing these actors together isn't enough to completely make up for some of this film's weaker aspects.

I wanted to mention the biggest moment of the film- the scene involving Sylvester Stallone, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Bruce Willis. Are you kidding me? This should have been the coolest scene of the last 10 years. You have three icons, together for the first time- it should have been an instant classic. We're talking Pacino-De Niro in Heat classic. And yet, this movie finds a way to screw this up. The scene is marred by awful, awkward dialogue. I couldn't believe the cheesy words coming out of these guys' mouths. You have a once in a lifetime scene, and THAT'S what you decide to say? Terrible. Plus, if you watch closely, Schwarzenegger and Willis never actually appear on screen together at the same time for longer than 1/3 of a second (how hard would it have been to give us ONE scene involving these three legends on screen together?) This scene should have been amazingly cool- instead it was amazingly disappointing.

There are some good action scenes throughout this movie. There are some great battles- Sylvester Stallone v. Steve Austin, Dolph Lundgren v. Jet Li, and many others. These are legitimately cool scenes, and I enjoyed them. However, these can't make up for the atrocious dialogue uttered throughout this movie. These action stars all utter some of the most awkward, forced dialogue I've ever heard. These guys are supposed to be friends and have been working together for years. I never felt like any of the actors really worked well together. Stallone and Statham are supposed to be best friends- they seem awkward and forced whenever they are on screen together. That is disappointing.

I really go back-and-forth on this movie. I loved the potential of it. I loved seeing all these actors on screen together. However, the script was weak and the dialogue was maddeningly stupid. This prevents the film from really getting off the ground. For that reason, I'd give this movie a decent (but somewhat disappointing) 6.5/10.

I probably should go on, but it's nearing 1am, I've watched two movies tonight, and I am wrapping this up. I'm still 2 movies behind pace- I need to get caught up this weekend. On a final note, how amazing is that Pacino-De Niro restaurant scene in Heat?

Day 17- Movie 14. For All Mankind (1989)

All this time, and I haven't added a documentary to my blog yet. That problem has been remedied. I watched 1989's stunning documentary about the American space program's lunar landing, For All Mankind. This was definitely a labor of love, as director Al Reinert went through 6 million feet of film and 80 hours of astronaut interviews (thanks for the info, Netflix!) to create this documentary.

This film is remarkable because it shows so much footage that the average person has never seen before. I've always been interested in the moon landing and in human exploration of outer space, but I hadn't seen 90% of the footage shown. This movie gives us an intimate look behind the scenes of the one of the greatest achievements in the history of humanity.

That is probably the strongest aspect of this film- it helps you appreciate the beauty of the Earth and the Moon like you never have before. I don't understand how some of the footage is so crystal clear that you feel like you can almost reach out and touch it (watching it in HD helped, obviously), but it is amazing to see our home and satellite in such stunning glory. This film sparks our imagination- of what we have already accomplished, and what we are capable of as the human race. I left this documentary appreciating our past accomplishments, but even more so looking forward to what we will explore and achieve over the next several decades. I do really enjoy movies that stir those emotions in me.

A few notes of criticism- I didn't care for how the film seemed to jump around chronologically. There wasn't a clear narrative, and that made it hard to know what we were watching. We also never see the narrators- we hear astronauts speaking, but don't know who it is- this is frustrating, because the documentary pulls quotes from astronauts from many different missions, and we never know who's talking. There's also a scene that wasn't real footage, but doctored in order to get a point across. I didn't appreciate that, as it makes me question what else isn't 100% real.

Those few flaws aside, I thought this was a strong, entertaining film. I would give this movie a very solid 7.5/10.

Now, as far as documentaries in general, what are your favorites? I am not the biggest documentary viewer- I desperately need to spend more time watching the important ones. I personally loved Super Size Me (although both times I watched it, I immediately went to McDonald's afterward). Let's see- The King of Kong is also one of my favorites- that is such a terrific film- I highly recommend it. Any good recommendations?

Day 16- Movie 13. The Hand that Rocks the Cradle (1992)

There are some movies we love, some we hate, and some that exist in that strange gray area in between. The Hand that Rocks the Cradle is one of those movies. The film isn't exactly an enjoyable experience- the movie sets out to make you feel uncomfortable, and it achieves this goal. The story revolves around a family who hires a nanny to help with a newborn infant. The nanny, however, has very bad intentions- to destroy the mother and take over the family herself. There are so many disturbing scenes in this movie. This isn't done with blood and guts, but on a much more psychological level.

I was impressed with how the nanny psychologically manipulated everyone around her. These were the most disturbing parts of the film. The movie does a great job of showing how small, seemingly insignificant mental pushes can get people to believe and do the craziest things. It's not easy to watch one person undermine the sanity of another. This is portrayed very effectively in the film.

This is a hard movie for me to wrap my head around. On the one hand, it wasn't exactly an enjoyable viewing experience. However, that's not what the movie set out to do. The Hand that Rocks the Cradle wanted to make the audience feel uncomfortable- to make you question how easy it would be for someone to manipulate you. These are not fun topics, but they are fascinating ones. I don't believe that every movie you watch should be an enjoyable experience. Some movies set out to make you feel discomfort- some set out to scare you, disgust you, or make you sad. I believe it's a mistake to think all good movies have to be enjoyable. Movies can have many different goals, but they all revolve around two things- 1. To make you think. 2. To make you feel.

This movie made me feel- made me feel uneasy and uncomfortable. Those aren't the most pleasant emotions, but it achieved it's goal. And, whether I "liked" it or not, I have to appreciate the effectiveness of the film. For that reason, I would give this film a solid 7/10.

What do you think about that? Are movies supposed to entertain and provide enjoyment, or do they have other motivations as well? Is there a movie you can think of that you didn't exactly "like," but have to admire for its effectiveness?

I'll give you one other example- Dogville. When I watched this movie, I hated it. It was an attempt at experimental film making, and I was wholly unprepared for the film. The movie is 3 hours long, and I was bored and miserable for the first 2 hours and 40 minutes. And then, something shocking happens at the end that made me rethink the entire film. While the viewing experience was miserable, it suddenly all made sense, and I was awed and amazed at what the film was able to achieve. I had to give that film a good score, because it was a very effective movie- a hard, difficult movie to watch, but it achieved what it wanted to achieve (which was completely opposite of what I was hoping to get out of the film). The film simply didn't care about my preconceived notions- it was determined to tell its story its way. I have to applaud that.

I'd be interested in other movies you didn't "like," but were so good anyway that you'd have to recommend them. I wonder if I'm the only one who has noticed films like this...

Day 15- Movie 12. A Very Long Engagement (2004)

I'm trying to keep this blog classy, so I went with A Very Long Engagement, a French film from 2004. I had a few reasons for wanting to see this movie. First, it was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography), so it's probably not all that bad. Secondly, it stars Audrey Tautou. I really like Tautou. She pretty much gets a lifetime pass from me for Amelie. I'll talk more on that in a minute.

This film is interesting- it's the story of a woman (Tautou) who begins a long, up-and-down search for her missing fiance during World War I. It's an independent film, but it's on a pretty epic scale. At the heart of the film is this mystery about her missing lover- is he alive? Is he dead? Along the way, she finds pieces of the puzzle, and tries to understand what happened the day he so mysteriously disappeared. In addition to that central mystery are some epic battle scenes, some well-acted drama, and romance as well. There's a lot in this movie, and it runs a lengthy 133 minutes. However, it doesn't really drag, because it's hard not to get caught up in the search for the truth.

I liked this movie, but I didn't love it. The biggest problem I had is with Gaspard Ulliel, who plays her missing fiance. He comes across as weak, cowardly, and a bit of a simpleton. I just couldn't get into the story because it was so hard for me to believe Tautou would dedicate her life to searching for a guy who seemed mostly replacable. I also thought it was a bit of a stretch that we were supposed to believe Ulliel is a year older than Tautou, when in real life, he's eight years younger. All the special effects in the world aren't going to cover that up.

Still, A Very Long Engagement is a good, solid movie. I was engaged throughout the film, and so I'd give this movie a 7/10.

I did want to mention Amelie. If you haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend it. This is a film that is easily accessible- even if you don't like foreign films. I think this is the first movie I would recommend to a movie fan who can't really get into foreign films, but wants to broaden their movie-viewing horizons. Amelie is this charming, unforgettable little film that features a stunning performance from Audrey Tautou. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed that movie. Has anyone else seen this movie? Is it as good as I'm trying to make it sound?

Anyway, I'm shutting it down for the night. After the first 15 days, I'm only 3 movies behind. That's not too bad, considering how much life gets in the way of my movie watching. I do have a few things to do this weekend, but I'm going to try to get caught up. There's no telling when I'll lose an entire week, and I don't want to fall too far behind. I do have Christmas coming up, which is a great time to watch a bunch of movies with family. Thanks for reading, and I'll see you next time.

Day 14- Movie 11. Searching for Bobby Fischer (1993)

There's a few reasons I went with 1993's Searching for Bobby Fischer for my 11th movie. This is actually a movie I have seen before- probably around 94 or 95. I wanted to watch this to illustrate an important point. My total movie count (1,910 if you've been following along at home) is actually only the count of movies I've seen since I started keeping track in March 2001. So, all of the movies I saw before that date are not necessarily included. I've worked hard to rewatch many of the movies I watched before that date, but I've seen a lot of movies in my life,and I haven't gotten all of them in the "official" count yet. I suppose when I started, I could have just grandfathered in all those previous movies, but I specifically chose not to. I wanted to be 100% accurate with that count. That means once in a while, I have to watch a movie I've seen before to include it in my official tally.

The second reason I wanted to watch this movie is because I was only 12 or 13 when I first (and last) watched it, and there were still parts of the film that I remembered vividly. That is the mark of a great movie- when you can remember scenes that impacted you over a decade after watching it. I was surprised at how much I remembered, but also by how much I did not.

If you haven't seen this movie, I highly recommend it. It is a great movie. It's based on the true life story of a young chess prodigy, and is pretty remarkable. The story is about a kid with a gift, but it's also about so much more than that- it's about facing our fears, about overcoming adversity, and about having compassion and kindness. This is a film about the greatness we all have inside us, and about how we choose to use the talents God gave us. It is an inspirational, uplifting movie. It is foremost a movie about chess- not about the science or the math of it- but the art. It is beautiful in that aspect.

The cast is also fantastic. Max Pomeranc is truly astounding in his acting debut. The film also features Joe Mantegna, Joan Allen, Ben Kingsley, Laurence Fishburne, and small performances by Laura Linney, Tony Shalhoub, William H. Macy, Dan Hedaya, and David Paymer. The cast is pretty incredible.

This real life drama does so much right. It is fascinating in how it portrays genius, and how natural ability alone is not enough to truly excel in life. There's so much one can learn about life from watching this movie. I watch a lot of crappy movies, but I also get the opportunity to watch some truly great ones. Searching for Bobby Fischer is one of those great movies, so I give this film an 8/10.

Does anyone else remember this film from their childhood? The part that's always stuck with me is when his teacher gives him the certificate he's so badly wanted, and then pulls out thirty or forty more, telling him they are worthless. I remember being confused about why he would do that and about feeling sad for Josh Waitzkin. It's funny the moments of films from when we were younger that stick with us, through all the days, months, and years, and all the other movies we've seen. I've never forgotten that scene and the first time I saw it. Anyone who says movies aren't powerful obviously hasn't had a moment like that.

Day 14- Movie 10. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988)

I know I just recently watched the awful Halloween III: Season of the Witch, but I was really curious about the next film in the franchise. Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers came 10 years after the original and returned the franchise to its original roots. I have to admit there is something cool about seeing Michael Myers on screen after so long an absence. Unfortunately, this film doesn't live up to the standards set before the third film in the series.

That is not to say this is necessarily a bad horror film. It has what you expect- a few grisly murderers, some graphic violence, a number of creepy shots of Myers standing still while looking menacing. But that is also the film's problem- it is too predictable. This film feels like too many other horror movies. It's just too generic. It is decent because it delivers what you'd expect, but it never really wows. I'd give this movie a 6.5/10.

I thought I'd use this opportunity to check in on three big horror movie franchises- A Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, and Halloween. For ANOES, I've seen all the films but Freddy vs. Jason and the new remake. For F13, I haven't seen Jason X or the subsequent films. I've obviously just seen up to Halloween 4. Here's how I see it playing out:

I'm not sure what the implications are here, besides the fact that these franchises start off strong, and then quickly drop in quality. The Friday the 13th movies are the worst, and besides #3, Halloween is the strongest franchise. Anyway, that's it for this. And yes, I made a horror movie franchise comparison chart in Excel. It's that kind of extra effort that sets this blog apart.

Day 13- Movie 9. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (2010)

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was like a breath of fresh air. So many movies are just slight variations of films that have come before. I can't tell you how many movies I watch where I feel like I've already seen it before. I don't think anyone could describe this movie as boring or predictable. This is a unique, interesting, creative, video-gamesque film that certainly approaches the genre from a new angle. I heard director Edgar Wright describe this film as a musical, but instead of breaking into song, they break into fights. I think that's a very appropriate description.

And yet, moviegoers mostly stayed away from this film. It only generated $31 million at the box office, not even in the top 50 of 2010. Why is that? Was it TOO unique and different for audiences? Were people sick of Michael Cera being Michael Cera in every film? Was it the advertising? I don't know, but I feel sad that this film was viewed as such a box office bomb.

I admit that this isn't the most accessible film. You really have to completely give yourself over to it or it's too easy to dismiss as silly, distracting, and unfocused. The film may be those things, but looking at it from a high level view, it's almost a beautiful mosaic of some of the craziest, stylish, retro concepts you can imagine. It's impressive how so much is weaved together in a coherent plot. The film is entertaining and funny, and I really enjoyed watching it. (by the way, is there a better line in the entire film than "It's milk and eggs, bitch."?)

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is a movie that I believe audiences will appreciate more as time goes on. Maybe it was too polarizing, maybe it was ahead of its time (maybe I'm wrong, and it sucked?). Regardless, I thoroughly enjoyed it, and consider it one of the most entertaining films of 2010. It's not perfect, but I'd rate this movie a solid 7.5/10.

Why do you think audiences stayed away? Has anyone else seen this movie? Am I wrong about it, or is this indeed an under-appreciated gem?

Day 13- Movie 8. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (2009)

With my 8th film (I'm still behind pace), I decided to go the foreign film route, watching 2009's adaptation of the incredible Stieg Larsson book. I rarely read the book before I watch the movie because I don't like spoiling the movie for myself. However, I've read all three books in Larsson's "Millennium" trilogy, and I loved them. That always makes it hard to watch the movie.

I will say that this Swedish film is a very faithful adaptation of the book. It's always hard to include everything in the movie that was in the book, and even at almost 2.5 hours, this film still cuts many aspects out of the original story. I was most upset that Erika Berger and the Millennium team are what ended up on the chopping block, but I can understand why that was done. For the most part, the book's all here, and that is a very good thing.

My biggest problem with the film is actor Michael Nyqvist, who plays Mikael Blomkvist. For those of you who have read the book, you'll know Blomkvist is one of the most exciting, intelligent, charismatic characters- and he doesn't come across that way here. Nyqvist gives a bland, forgettable performance as Blomkvist, which really hurt the movie in my eyes. On the other hand, Noomi Rapace is excellent as Lisbeth Salander. Rapace really embodies this character, and I admit I loved seeing this character come to life on the big screen. She's easily the best part of the entire film.

Watching this movie made me even more excited for David Fincher's American version next year. With Daniel Craig as Blomkvist, it's easily one of my most anticipated films of 2011. While this version didn't hit a home run, it is still a very solid, enjoyable movie. The characters do occasionally speak quickly, so reading subtitles is a bit of a challenge, but it was worth it. I enjoyed this film, and I consider it a good movie and a good adaptation of the book. I would give this film a 7/10.

This got me thinking- what are the greatest movie adaptations of popular books? I believe you'd have to consider The Lord of the Rings at the top of that list. Going back in time, The Grapes of Wrath was a good adaptation. So was 2002's The Count of Monte Cristo (a very underrated film). I enjoyed 2009's The Road, but as Cormac McCarthy's book is one of my top 10 favorite books of all time, I was dismayed by one small change in that film that nearly ruined the whole thing for me.

What am I missing? I know there are dozens of great film adaptations out there. Until next time...

Day 11- Movie 7. The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (2010)

Ah, Twilight. The books and films that are beloved by millions of hopelessly romantic tweens and women who should know better. These have really become quite a phenomenon over the last several years. I've (not surprisingly) never read any of the books, and I never will. However, I do have a confession to make (and this is as hard for me to type as it is to admit, even to myself)- I actually enjoy the Twilight movies. Now, I'm not saying I am a Twihard or whatever the hell they call those people. But, the movies are at least passably entertaining.

I personally believe that a story about a love triangle between a human, a vampire, and a werewolf is silly. However, I do have to give Stephanie Meyer (thanks Emily, I never would have known her name without that assist) credit, because that story is at least somewhat unique- there haven't been dozens of movies like that- and I appreciate anything new in films. I also enjoy the movies because they are beautifully shot- the cinematography is actually pretty stunning. The films look so crispy and clear- visually, they are impressive (besides the occasionally cheesy vampire special effects shot). The story is at least somewhat entertaining, and there is a good mix of action in with the more romantic and dramatic elements. So, while I didn't love Twilight or New Moon, I actually did enjoy them as movies.

I can't believe I'm doing this, but I am going to weigh in on the whole "Team Edward" and "Team Jacob" debate. For me, this is a pretty easy choice. I just can't understand why Bella would want to be with Edward. Yes, he's dark and brooding- and horribly boring. I just find Robert Pattinson such a bland actor that he makes me want to yawn whenever he's on screen. Plus, isn't he like 400 years old? That just seems creepy that he's hooking up with a high schooler. Jacob, on the other hand (looking past the occasionally shoddy acting by Taylor Lautner) is at least age-appropriate for Bella. Plus, the dude is ripped. Most of the time, he's a normal human being, but can instantly turn into a giant werewolf, so he can protect her. He gives a much more charismatic performance than Pattinson, and it seems like it would be more fun hanging out with the wolfpack than with a bunch of ultra-serious vampires. So, I'm definitely Team Jacob.

All of that leads me to Eclipse. Emily and I watched this film, which is nice because she's read the books, and filled me in on the deets when I was confused about something. The third film in the franchise is actually the weakest one. While I enjoyed the first two, I had problems with this one. The original film was cool because we found out about the vampires. New Moon was cool because we found out about the werewolves. Eclipse doesn't really have any of those big revelations. We just get more and more love triangle time. If anything, Edward and Jacob just got on my nerves in this film. For someone who is hundreds of years old, Edward sure knows how to act like a jealous teenager. And Jacob really needs to get a clue- she's obviously just not that into you. The whole love triangle just started collapsing under the weight of its own seriousness here. I was actually rooting for zombies to show up- I could jump on board Team Zombie in a heartbeat. Plus, nothing really happens in the movie. I felt like the characters were in very similar places at the end of the movie as in the beginning. I'm not sure there was much development.

I didn't hate Eclipse, but after rating Twilight and New Moon as 7s, I'm going to have to say this film deserves a 6.5/10. It's decent, but not as good as the first two films.

I'm actually really curious about what you think. Am I completely wrong on the Twilight movies? I'm steering clear of the debate on whether these books are good for young girls to read (I'm leaning toward no). Looking at them purely as entertainment, what do you think? Feel free to comment or send me a personal message if you're too embarrassed to admit you actually like them. Can anyone explain why Eclipse was NOT the worst film of the franchise?

Day 5- Movie 6. Christine (1983)

It's rare that I see movies one after another that I would give the same rating. And yet, for the third time in a row here, I watched a movie that wasn't quite good, but wasn't really bad, either. Christine is the latest decent-but-not-quite-good-enough film I've watched during this challenge. I actually thought this one had some real potential. Yes, it's an early 80s horror film, but it was based on a Stephen King story, and directed by John Carpenter. There was really no reason for this one not to work.

And yet, it doesn't work completely. It was interesting to watch a story about an evil car and the impact it has on its owner. I always like when movies can take something harmless and make it scary (for example, The Birds). This movie takes a car- something specifically designed to protect us and keep us safe- and makes it frightening. That's pretty cool. And yet, this is still a movie about an evil car out to kill people who have done it or its owner wrong. That's a pretty silly premise, no matter what anyone says.

So, this is yet another movie that doesn't really make much of an impact on me. I don't hate this film, but I don't love it, either. It exists in that in-between. The most I can offer up for this movie is a shrug. I enjoyed watching it, but not that much. I would give this movie a 6.5/10.

Since I don't have a great deal to say about this movie, I thought I'd take this opportunity to explain how I rate movies. I use a 1-10 scale, with .5s to help differentiate between them. Most movies fall into the middle scores. Less films hit the extremes. It makes sense if you think about it, especially for someone who loves movies. Most movies I've seen fall in the following scoring categories-

6- okay movie

6.5- decent movie

7- good movie

7.5- really good movie

8- great movie

I kept it pretty simplistic here. I actually have a much more complicated process of arriving at these scores. It involves examining the entertainment value, what the movie delivered v. what it promised, was I engaged on an intellectual and emotional level, how does it compare to similar movies, and several other factors. The majority of movies I've seen are at least decent (this is somewhat skewed because I tend not to get excited about watching a ton of crappy movies).

However, films do reach the extremes. Lower than 6 is really just different degrees of crappiness. A 1 is the lowest score I'd give, and I save that for especially atrocious films- that is pretty rare (less than .5% movies I've seen score that low).

Scores higher than 8 similarly get increasingly more rare. Here's a simple view of those scores and what they mean-

8.5- really great movie

9- excellent movie

9.5- nearly perfect

10- as close to perfection as possible

These scores are pretty rare also. Less than 5% of the movies I've seen score 8.5. Less than 3% score 9. Only 1% score 9.5, and less than .5% of movies get a perfect 10. This is probably pretty normal as well- you've probably seen lots of good movies, but fewer movies that have really stuck with you or made an impact on your life.

Well, after the first five days, I'm in good shape- one movie ahead of the pace I need to keep. However, the next week is going to be interesting. There's a good chance I won't watch a movie over the next four days, and the weekend might allow me to get only 1-2 more in. I am willing to bet a week from now, I'm going to be behind schedule. I knew that would happen- there's some days where it's just impossible to find time to watch a movie. I was hoping to get further along this weekend- to create a bigger buffer. That didn't happen. Oh well, at least for today, I'm doing well. 6 down, 94 to go...