I Confess (1953)

What a terrific plot!  A certain well known lawyer, Monsieur Vilette, is murdered in Quebec city and all the police have to go by is a testimony of two young girls who saw a priest out late the hour the crime was committed.  Under inspection, Father Logan (Montgomery Clift) feels tormented and looks guilty but not for the reason the police think.  In fact, Father Logan knows exactly what happened to Monsieur Vilette.  He had been visited by Otto Keller (O.E. Hasse), caretaker of his parish, very late the night of the murder.  Otto came to Father Logan to confess his guilt in murdering the wealthy lawyer.  And we all know that a priest cannot disclose what he has learned in confessional.

It worsens when the police (led by Inspector Larrue, Karl Malden) find a motive associated with Father Logan.  Monsieur Vilette was blackmailing an old friend and once lover of Father Logan, Ruth Grandfort (Anne Baxter).  Unable to find a suitable alibi (he was indeed out that night), Father Logan is put to trial.  Will he keep the confidence of Otto, only to be convicted?  Or will he succumb and rat out the murderer to save his skin?  The plot builds in suspense excellently, another of Hitchcock’s great “audience as voyeur” examples.

A few notes:  What is it with screen priests always being young and good looking.  Montgomery Clift is nothing short of gorgeous, extremely talented, and underrated.  In case you were wondering.

I find it difficult to take Anne Baxter seriously.  After All About Eve (one of my favorites) I can’t help but believe her motives to be anything but sinister, her eyes still have that calculating flicker.  But Eve set aside, she isn’t my favorite of actresses, nor is she the most talented.  Nothin’ special.

This is one of Hitch’s lesser-known productions, but I think it’s nonetheless worth watching – for die-hard fans, absolutely, but even for beginning Hitchcock students.  It doesn’t have the usual humor found in his movies, but it is captivating and suspenseful.  The DVD-version is excellent with beautiful black-and-white photography.  And did I mention that Montgomery Clift is gorgeous? 8/10

The Truman Show (1998)

Man.  Where do I even begin?  Every time I watch this show it just gets better.  Do I start with the incredibly clever plot?  As summed up best by this dialogue between Truman Burbank (Jim Carrey) and creator Christof (Ed Harris):

“Who are you?”
“I am the Creator – of a television show that gives hope and joy and inspiration to millions.”
“Then who am I?”
“You’re the star.”
“Was anything real?”
“You were real.  That’s what made you so good to watch.”

Perfectly interspersed with back story (I’d kill to see some more archive footage), off-set characters, and exclusive interviews with Christof – The Truman Show is creativity at its finest.  It’s especially ironic since it came before the world’s reality TV obsession.  It is perfectly well paced, clever yet deep, and feels fresh and new, even twelve years later.

The acting is sensational.  Jim Carrey has never been better – curse you Academy for the Oscar snub, there is absolutely no excuse.  This is not the first time Peter Weir has given new range to labeled actors (Harrison Ford in Witness for example) and Carrey is fantastic.  Being in nearly every scene he is funny, serious, emotional, and we come to really care about him.  He sweeps us along in this fantastic journey and gahhhhh I can’t say enough that he should have been nominated.

The icing on the cake, IMO, is Ed Harris.  Nominated for a Supporting Actor Oscar in this role (at least something was recognized), he is the perfect mixture of obsessive, arrogant, creatively insane, and eerily quiet.  One of the best crafted scenes in the movie is when Truman is finally reunited with his father.  This is where we see what “The Truman Show” is all about.  Just after Marlon is getting lines whispered in his ear for the set up, we are treated with Christof’s executive power to the whole show.  “Hold the fog.  No, no close up yet.  Wait for it… cue music. [music grows] Now zoom in. There, that’s it.”  Applause, applause.  “That’ll boost up the ratings!” someone shouts.  And Christof breaths a sigh of relief.  It’s tough being so creative.

The camerawork, acting, scenery, dialogue, music, cinematography, supporting performances (Noah Emmerich), direction, and mood are top notch.  This is a solid movie and I would make no changes, FOR REALZ. 10/10

“And in case I don’t see you – good afternoon, good evening, and good night.”

p.s. This is my first 10 point review.  Kind of exciting, no?

Happy Father’s Day!

Yeah, yeah.  I know Father’s Day was yesterday.  But in honor of the holiday (and my own wonderful father) I thought I’d post the top eleven (yes, eleven. don't worry about it, okay?) movies that remind me of my pops!

11. What About Bob? (1991) You want to get to know my dad real quick? Just watch What About Bob? with him. It's funny to watch the movie and even funnier to watch him watch it. Honestly, my dad is all over any Bill Murray comedy. 

10) It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) Every Christmas my mom and I have a Christmas movie/TV marathon with all of the Christmas movies and TV eps we can muster.  My dad is selective, he only tunes in for the good stuff.  We always save the best for last, and Dad has gotta be present for this classic. He loves this movie.

9) You’ve Got Mail (1998) This is a funny selection, but I chose this because my dad will always join us to watch (it’s one of my favorites) but will always, always complain.  He hates it, but he can't leave it alone. Key phrase: “It needs some editing.”

8) Galaxy Quest (1999) My dad introduced our family to this movie.  One day he randomly brought it home from the video rental store and I’ve watched it over a thousand times since.

7) Hoosiers (1986) My love of basketball comes from my brother’s and father’s love of basketball.  My dad has always loved this movie.

6) Freedom Writers (2007) I saw this in the theater with my dad.  I was fifteen, and my dad said, “Hey, let’s go on a daddy-daughter-date and see a movie.  I’ve heard of this one…”  I hadn’t even heard of the movie at the time, but we had a good time together.

5) Chariots of Fire (1981) This is another film that my Dad introduced me to.  My mom was out for the evening so he suggested we watch a movie together (if I do recall… I think I had other plans and I wasn't too excited about it. But I’m not one to argue).  I remember making a few snide remarks about the over-use of the theme song and how cheesy it had become only to be shot down with, “There’s nothing cheesy about this movie.”   Anyway, I’m pretty sure I wasn’t too into it that first time, but a few viewings later and I was sold.

4) Pride & Prejudice (2005) Yeah.  My dad watches Pride and Prejudice.  Does YOUR dad watch Pride and Prejudice?

3) The Guns of Navarone (1961) Generally if I ask my dad what his favorite movie is he’ll say, “Oh… maybeThe Guns of Navarone…”  I’m not sure if this is true or not.  But nevertheless, we own this movie because he likes it.  Jk, it’s a pretty awesome movie too.  Love Gregory Peck.

2) The Inlaws (1979) See, my dad can be kind of a serious guy.  And few of my friends know the “real him.”  This movie brings out the “Real Dad” and most importantly his “real laugh.”  Man, is this movie funny.  Alan Arkin is one of my favorite actors too, btw.

1) The Freshman (1990) This movie takes the cake.  My dad laughs and laughs and laughs and laughs.

Happy Father's Day!

Australia (2008)

All righty so I went to another island over the weekend and stayed in this hotel where they just played Australia on repeat and I totally watched it over ten times.  Not all at once, and I’m still not sure I got all of the scenes in the middle, but enough to feel like I know that movie pretty well now! (*Side note, I have watched the entire thing prior to this.  So I am quite qualified to write a review about it, have no fear).

When I watch Baz Luhrmann’s (Moulin Rouge!) ambitious epic Australia I feel like I’m watching two different movies.  This is partly because it’s long enough to be two movies, but also because the beginning is so different from the end.  I’m glad I stuck with it because it significantly improves (WWII tends to do that) but man it starts off bizarre.  It’s so stylized, you feel like you’re watching a crazy cartoon.  I mean – take the scene in the car.  Nicole Kidman likes cute kangaroo.  Cute kangaroo gets shot.  Her overly large head, gaping mouth and wild eyes fill the screen.  Wow.

Then there’s Nullah, the aboriginal child played by Brandon Walters in his only film to date.  It’s like the magic he talks of has swept over you as soon as he comes on screen.  And crikey he’s cute.

Nicole Kidman plays Lady Sarah Ashley – a proper, obnoxious English woman – wife of the owner of Far Away Downs in Australia.  Upon arriving in Australia, she is awkwardly placed in the care of The Drover, Hugh Jackman.  When she finds her husband dead and one of her employers Mr. Fletcher (David Wenham) illegaly working for their major competition King Carney (Bryan Brown), Lady Ashley (affectionately referred to as “Mrs. Boss” by Nullah) is stuck with some nasty business.  She must enlist the help of Drover to herd over 1500 cattle before Carney to fulfill a contract with the Australian Army.

The first hour feels like three.  Then it takes an LOTR turn during the epic cow herding-ness.  Then we have several Gone With the Wind moments during the third hour, lots of almost-deaths, some crying opportunities, explosions, etc.  Its strengths lie with Nullah, and the film’s use of our beloved Oz song “Over the Rainbow.”  “I sing you to me, Mrs. Boss” he sweetly tells her.  The scenery and camerawork are also commendable.  Nicole Kidman seems to grow up over night (thank heaven) and when she does she gives a solid performance.  Russell Crowe was initially signed to play Drover but in the end Hugh Jackman was a perfect fit for the attractively rugged down-under man.  His performance (and looks!) is/are excellent.  I must also say that David Wenham makes a great villain (much like his LOTR fictional brother Sean Bean).

I don’t mind long movies – Lord of the Rings, Ben-Hur, Gone With the Wind – so long as it is well paced.  (Harry potter 4 & 5 SHOULD have been longer…)  It’s basically one of two things: either you happen to notice the time and think, “Wow!  I’ve been watching for a while!”  or you habitually glance at the clock every five minutes muttering “Goll, isn’t it over yet?”  As I said, I didn’t feel this way the entire time with Australia.  It lies somewhere in the middle.  Some aspects were fantastic (Hugh Jackman) and others were simply too big.

I just wasn’t blown away with this movie.  But then again, I watched it ten or so times and I didn’t turn it off.  That must count for something.   6/10

looking ahead

Seriously? So freaking excited for this movie.  I’m hittin’ the movie theater first thing when I get back, baby.  I won’t be missing Christopher Nolan’s flick THIS time around.

Invictus (2009)

I think the key to my experience with this film was entering the film with the right expectations.  I’d heard many complaints that it wasn’t “as good as Remember the Titans” but I also heard “Gee, I thought this was gonna be a Nelson Mandela biography – what’s all this rugby doing in there?”  Knowing that it was a mixture of the two helped me a lot.

As for myself, I thought it was great.  Not without flaws to be sure but I found it very inspiring.  Morgan Freeman stars as Nelson Mandela, recently elected president of South Africa.  As the country struggles with racial division, Mandela rallies the national flop of a rugby team the Springboks to go against all odds and win the 1995 World Cup and unite their country through their victory.  Impossible much?  Especially when you consider their opponents: the New Zealand All Blacks.  I’ve been to New Zealand.  They’re crazy.  Rugby’s their national sport.  It’s, like, you hear rugby and you think New Zealand.  Ironically, the film failed to mention that 3/4 of the acclaimed team were extremely ill during the match…  Although this would have been worth the mention, what the heck.  It’s cinema.

Consider this film to be yet another success for director Clint Eastwood.  Ultimately, this is not your ideal tough-guy rugby movie, it’s much more than that.  Mandela was a real person, and if this movie does nothing but make people think “Is this Mandela guy for real?” then it has succeeded.  This is where films do so much more than just entertain, but they provoke thought and further interest in a real-life event.  It’s excellent.  Morgan Freeman’s flawless portrayal of Mandela was, without doubt, worthy of an Oscar nom.  He was the heart of the show, portraying an authoritative but empathetic man.  As the Springboks’ captain Francois Pienaar, Matt Damon contributes surprisingly little, and I mean this based on quantity, not quality. Matt Damon is universally popular, that’s certain, but he has proved himself as one of today’s most versatile actors.  He deserves an acting Oscar one of these days.

Consensus: the acting was superb, the cinematography commendable, and the direction top notch.  What makes it special is its uplifting and inspiring message.  “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul.” Invictus is a triumph in my book. 7/10

on 3-D

Before I start, yes.  I saw Avatar.  The 3-D rocked the ceiling off, I know.

Generally speaking, however, I hate 3-D.  I have seen Up, Clash of the Titans, and Alice in Wonderland in the past year.  With the gross exception of Avatar, each one could have done without, and my pocket could have used the extra change.  Hence my number one reason:

1. Too. Freaking. Expensive!  Two of the aforementioned films I saw in Tahiti, and movies in Tahiti are already ridiculously expensive (about 840 francs for a matinee only, which is about 10 US dollars).  3-D costs 1400 francs.  Roughly $16.  Seriously?
2. It gives me a head ache.  I know, I sound like an old man but one can only take too many things flying at you arbitrarily.
3. Have you been hearing about the germs being spread through re-usable glasses lately?
4. For those that wear glasses on a daily basis – how fun is it to wear two pairs of glasses at once?  I normally sport contacts but sometimes I choose glasses for style or off-days.  I went to a 3-D movie with some friends on one such day.  Yeah.  Way comfortable.
5. It distorts the color.
6. It’s extremely distracting.  Why listen to what the characters are saying when I can look at the giant moon rock floating towards me!
7. Limited genres.  Citizen Kane in 3-D? I think not.
8. Except (of course) films such as Avatar – it’s extremely unnecessary, and detracts from the film experience.

Is this the new frontier?  It certainly seems like it.  As I stated earlier, I think it distracts from the creation.  Take Alice.  I saw this in French, and had a really difficult time understanding – there are too many words like “curiouser” and “Mad Hatter” for complete comprehension for someone with a limited vocabulary.  But I wanted to see it anyway despite some negative reviews.  (I’m always gung-ho for anything Tim Burton).  Unfortunately, I had an unpleasant experience.  I do not think Alice was a bad movie (though my opinion is seriously handicapped).  I do think and know, however, that i didn’t find what I was looking for: to be immersed in the world of Burton.  The 3-D was too distracting.  If 3-D prevents total escape then really.  What’s it doing here?  I never thought I would say I was more excited to see a movie on DVD than in the theater.

Again.  Avatar was the shiz.  But that was James Cameron’s plan from the beginning.  He is a brilliant cinematographer and everything was carefully planned according to his ideas using 3-D technology.  When it’s forced on movies as a last-minute decision they are motivated by box-office results only.  It works, to be sure.  But it’s terribly sad.  When the next Avatar comes along, I’ll check out the 3-D.  But forgive me if I prefer Toy Story 3 in 2-D.

The Man Who Knew Too Much (1934) AND (1956)

I watched both versions of Hitchcock’s The Man Who Knew Too Much recently (1934, and the 1956 remake).  The remake I have seen numerous times, but this was a first viewing experience for the 1934 version.  There are noteable differences between the two, but the most important element remains: Arthur Benjamin’s Storm Clouds Cantata.  Could anything be more effective for an assassination?  And next time you watch the DVD, be sure to turn the subtitles on.  The lyrics are hilarious: “Finding RELEASE!”

British version: Starring Leslie Banks, Edna Best, Peter Lorre, and Neva Pilbeam.  While vacationing in Switzerland, Mr. and Mrs. British couple (Banks and Best) get mixed up in a plot for assassination, and their daughter (Pilbeam) is kidnapped to keep them quiet.  I could say this a thousand times… but these movies would be so much better with subtitles and better sound!  Especially when I found out that this was Peter Lorre’s first English-speaking picture and much of his script was learned phonetically.  That being said, he was the best part – he made a fantastic villain.  In many ways, this film was a significant milestone in Hitch’s career.  From here on out, he only gets better.  The cinematography was superb.  The story is fast-paced, witty, and intense.  Anyway, all in all this version was excellent.  I can see why many prefer this to the new one.

However, my preference still lies with the 1956 version for one reason: James Stewart. My second celebrity crush ever (next to Cary Grant) - I can't help but love him in anything. As I mentioned earlier, there are significant differences. For one, Nova Pilbeam is now a boy! (Christopher Olsen). Hitchcock himself thought this to be superior, and I must admit it has a "finished product" feel. In fast, there is an actual REASON the man knows too much. In fact, Monsieur Louis Bernard was looking for a couple just like them. Too bad the other couple got to their son first... I'm also a fan of the interesting red herring scene at the taxidermist's (Norman Bates anyone?) I'm not always a fan of Doris Day, but she does some of her best acting here. Is her "Que Sera, Sera" a little over the top? Yes. (It's more like QUEEEEEEEHHHHH sera, seraaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!) But it works for the film. Heck, it won the Oscar for Best Song that year. 

Anyway, both are top-notch thrillers. But only one has Jimmy. 8/10 and 9/10

macGuffins

…A story about two men in a train. One man says “What’s that package up there in the baggage rack?”, and the other answers “Oh that’s a McGuffin.” The first one asks “What’s a McGuffin?”. “Well”, the other man says, “It’s an apparatus for trapping lions in the Scottish Highlands.” The first man says “But there are no lions in the Scottish Highlands”, and the other one answers “Well, then that’s no McGuffin!” (from Wikipedia, taken from Hitchock’s interview with Francois Truffaut)

“So you see, a McGuffin is nothing at all.” Hitchcock elaborates.  The McGuffin was a common plot device in many of Hitchocock’s films, most notably in North by Northwest. (What the crap are those government secrets?)  While the term and technique was popularized by Hitchcock, McGuffins are used in many other films as well as different media-types.  See here’s the story.  So I was browsing through Hithcock’s Wikipedia page and I came across the link for McGuffins while reading about themes Hitchcock regularly used.  This page listed several examples of McGuffins in pop culture today.  One item particularly stood out to me: The island on Lost.

*Minor spoilers ahead for those who haven’t yet seen the series finale of Lost.

Obviously the series ended a few weeks ago already.  It was a pretty big deal, you know, I felt like my dear friend was dying.  It’s always an adventure to get Lost to work for me in Tahiti.  See, nifty websites like Hulu and ABC.com don’t work over here because of regional restrictions.  Soo I have to get creative.  I have 2 websites that will generally work, though one will kick me off after 75 minutes and makes me wait an additional hour before resuming (a big issue when the finale was 2 1/2 hours long…) Long story short, I didn’t get to start watching until about midnight.  But I wasn’t about to wait until morning, no sir.

This is just going to sounds like old news now, I know.  But in regards to “The End” I was emotionally satisfied.  Many haters, however, think that’s a bunch of bull.  Someone said that it was a battle between the poets and the scientists.  The poets loved the character redemption and happy-endings to people we’ve grown attached to.  The scientists wanted more answers.  I’ve always been a character-oriented person.  Sawyer, Jack, Juliet, Ben, Desmond, Locke, Sun, Richard, and Hurley will always be like my friends and I wanted to see them find happiness and redemption.  I loved that they found their “constant” (especially that Sawyer and Juliet finally found one another), and I’d like to believe that their “after-life” will continue as a happy existence with the people they love.  I also lurve the Hurley/Ben duo.  You could not get a better protector than Hurley, dude.

I’ll admit, though, I was a little confused at first.  So I also understood complaints about the unanswered questions, particularly: “What is the ISLAND??”

Well.

The Island is a freaking McGuffin!  It makes perfect sense!  Think of it in comparison to North by Northwest.  All of these government officials are going nutso over these “secrets.”  What are these secrets?  Why turn your lives upside-down?  Is there really any significance? Well then, ladies and gentlemen, whyyyyyy does crazy mother Allison Janney force her no-name son to stay on the island?  Why does kid-in-black kill mother?  Why does Jacob then decide to create “rules” for his brother MIB and himself?  What are they protecting?  Why does the island still need a protector?  Why, why, why??  Well why, again, is everyone freaking out about some seemingly insignificant government secrets?  The island is a McGuffin.  And once again, everything in the world comes back to Alfred Hitchcock.

All along I refused to believe that I had “wasted” six years of my life on “just another show.”  Although this McGuffin business is nothing concrete (a McGuffin is, after all, nothing) I find myself quite satisfied with “The End.”  And really, Lost will always be a part of me.  Why else would I STILL be thinking about it 20 days after the fact?

Where the Wild Things Are (2009)

It’s movies like this that remind me how great it is sometimes to be stuck and secluded on a tropical island.  I talked with several people who disliked Where the Wild Things Are because of all the “hipster-hype” – skinny-jeaned, indie music-lovin’ people obsessing over a film that they could “identify” with.  (Frankly, I’m a nerdy, indie-music lovin’, skinny jeaned person myself but seeing as, again, I’m one in a million on this island with such characteristics, that has nothing to do with it).  All that to say, I’m really gonna miss watching a popular movie without that added over-eager endorsement from peers at school or work.  The luxury of being able to objectively watch something will be sorely missed.

The movie is an adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s Caldecott Award-winning children’s book of the same name about a boy named Max who is sent to his room without supper, travels to “where the wild things are” through his imagination and becomes their king. I grew up on this story and have always loved the illustrations and creativity.

As far as the film goes… my objectivity served me well – I loved it.  In many ways I hardly know why I loved it.  Spike Jonze’s creation is nothing like I was expecting but I was fascinated with what I saw nonetheless.  I felt real child-like emotion and true earnestness.  What truly amazed me was the spontaneity protrayed through the creatures and Max.  They yell and fight and play and cry and are happy, then sad and don’t want to share and throw tantrums – all in five minutes.  Is that not like every child between the ages of 6 and 10?  The extremes may seem exaggerated but in all honesty its exaggeration was nothing but realistic.  The monsters were surprisingly complex (“Will you keep out the sadness?”) and had an honest feel to them.  I love the fresh feel of the Jim Henson-style puppet creations (Labyrinth!), rather than the usual overdose of CGI junk.

Many spoke of the feeling of hopelessness and sadness.  I agree to an extent though this didn’t bother me until several hours later.  While watching the movie I was nothing but entranced, fascinated, emotionally invested, and in awe of the visually stunning creation I was viewing.  The music also added immensely to the tone, and brought life to the story – plus I’m a Yeah Yeah Yeah’s fan.

If I could change one thing, I would change the ending.  In the book, Max returns from his adventure to find his supper waiting for him, as though everything were better.  The film ends differently, and I find it a shame.  I think that ending it the same way the book did would eliminate any remaining feeling of depression.  My opinion.

I should also credit Max Records.  He was excellent and terribly imaginative, as was the supporting cast (Catherine Keener, James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker, and even Mark Ruffalo).  But this review has gone on long enough, however, the best part about this WHOLE ordeal is the trailer.  The Arcade Fire music rocks.  So, here’s the trailer in case you missed it:

In the words of KW “I could eat it up, I love it so.” 8/10

Sabotage (1936)

Not to be confused with Hitchcock’s 1942 film Saboteur… this 1936 picture (Hitchcock as well) is also quite excellent.  My fav of Hitch’s old period is without a doubt The Lady Vanishes, however this is definitely a rising fav of the bunch.

Starring Sylvia Sidney, Oskar Homolka, and John Loder, this movie was ironically adapted from Joseph Conrad’s novel The Secret Agent but the title, however, was not used since Hitchcock’s Secret Agent was already in production. Mr. Verloc (Homolka) owns a local theater with his wife (Sidney).  When the power goes out throughout the town, Mr. Verloc suspiciously returns from an unknown journey yet lies to his wife at having ever left his bedroom.  Other characters include Sylvia’s younger brother, Stevie (Desmond Tester), and the Scotland Yard detective disguised as the grocer next door (Loder).  As we observe Mr. Verloc’s activity and we find him more and more connected with plans for sabotage, his devoted wife suspects nothing.  That is until her brother gets blown up into a bajillion pieces…  The scene that follows between husband and wife was so masterfully suspensful – I tensed up as much as if it were Psycho.

Another very well-filmed moment was the Hitchcockian way in which the camera zoomed and held its picture on the reel of film, a technique seen in so many others (the glass of milk in Suspicion, the briefcase in Topaz to name a few).  I could watch this film several more times, it is full of masterfully created moments.  Overall I thought it had excellent cinematography, a good cast (particularly Sylvia Sidney), and a suspensful plot.  Worth the watch to all Hitch lovers.   8/10

p.s. Be sure to take note of the birds in this film… another Hitch trademark.

am i excited? oh, i'm excited.

Profanity aside, the MTV Movie Awards provided us with one joyful thing… a Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part I trailer (set for release November 19, 2010). This is coming from a true Potter-nerd, here. In fact I just re-read the series this past January, then watched the 6 movies a few weeks ago… and I already want to read them again. This, however, is another post for another time.  I’ll just watch this trailer a couple thousand times for now… View below:

17 Again (2009)

Zac Efron is probably the best of his High School Musical counterparts, yet still nothing more than a teen celeb.  However, my guilty pleasure Hairspraytold me that Efron wasn’t a terrible actor, he actually contributed something to the film as Link Larkin.  17 Again is not a great movie, though its weak points are not attributed to Efron’s acting, surprisingly enough.  Its weaknesses lie in the simple truth that this movie was made for thirteen-year-olds.  The plot is nothing new, (think Freaky Friday, Back to the Future, or Big) 30-year-old Mike (Matthew Perry) is stuck in 17-year-old Mike’s (Efron) body.  He has the chance to help his two teenage kids and redeem himself to his wife.

As far as teen movies go, it is certainly not the worst.  Frankly I could have used a bit more of Matthew Perry.  I dug Thomas Lennon’s character and his geekiness.  Leslie Mann was also quite good.  Obviously I didn’t watch it for the “cinematic experience”, but for the mindless entertainment.  Mindless entertainment I got, and although I won’t be rushing to see it again – I enjoyed it in spite of myself. 6/10

*post edit: This movie only gets better with age. It's actually way funny. And the tables have turned, I totally love Zac Efron. Perhaps 22-year-old Lauren is, in fact, LESS mature than 18-year-old Lauren. But it's whatever. 7/10

Murder! (1930)

Finally! A Hitchcock that's kinda like Hitchcock!

First of all, when was the last time you saw a picture titled “Murder!”, exclamation point included? I don’t think it’s too forward, do you?

I enjoyed this movie, although I wish I could have understood it better.  It’s a shame that these crummy DVD adaptations don’t included subtitles, I could really use them!  The plot is (surprisingly) about a murder and the girl convicted.  A jury member has doubts and decides to figure out the truth before it’s too late.  Now, I don’t REALLY think that a juryman can conduct his own investigation but we’ll pretend.  There are some excellently photographed scenes, though. It’s fun to see an early work of his that actually looks like he made it. 6/10

The Farmer's Wife (1928)

Juno, step aside.  You’ve been replaced.

I’m making great progress in my Hitchcock-a-thon.  I’m glad I got this one out of the way…

I have a confession.  This silent was moving so slowly and the music was nothing but distracting that I put it on fast-forward.  I didn’t even need to pause to read the titles.  I don’t feel bad.

This movie was weird.  A man searches for a new wife (strangely unaffected by the death of his late wife..) when really she was there all along.  I dunno.  Maybe some will think of it as a clever old rom-com but I thought it was ridiculous.  The main character was anything but likable, and I have a problem when the characters aren’t relatable. 2/10