bradleyadita

Total Recall recounts a dystopian future in which a common man has the choice to lead his own destiny or become a pawn for an interplanetary mega-corporation. Arnold Schwarzenegger plays Hauser, a man who is working for an extra-terrestrial mining company which maintains a monopoly on air needed by the population living and working on their main mining base on Mars. The company has employed Hauser in a hunt to find Kuato, the leader of a rebellion against the company. In his search for the rebel leader, Hauser switches sides and begins to help the rebellion. When this happens, the company's lead Mars administrator, Vilos Cohaagen, captures Hauser and uses "Rekall" brand technology to erase and re-programs his memory. In doing so, Cohaagen seeks to eliminate Hauser from further aiding the rebels, and possibly gain an advantage - should Hauser become aware of his former memories and trace his way back to Kuato.

The film begins in a dream turned nightmare in which Schwarzenegger and his former female companion on Mars, Melina (Rachel Ticotin), have an accident while exploring Martian terrain. Awaking from this nightmare, Schwarzenegger is now Douglas Quaid, (an identity created by Cohaagen's Rekall technicians), now living on Earth with a house, a construction job, and Lori: his hot blonde wife (Sharon Stone). Things seem hunky-dory for Quaid until he begins piecing together clues leading to his former life on Mars as Hauser.

Paul Verhoeven's direction of a script influenced by Philip K. Dick's sci-fi short story is both visually exciting and challenging. In 1990, the producers found this match to be demanding enough to break previous film budget production records. The budget was well spent on creating the film's appearance of new architectural brutalism, future technologies, and on costuming and special effects. The portrayal of the mutant Martian population added a grotesque flourish to the already action-packed science-fantasy.

Total Recall is less a classic film for the ages than it is indicative of cutting-edge modernism of the late 80s and early 90s. The main philosophical components deal with meta-cognition (thinking about thought), reality, dream states, control, and flexibility vs. conservatism. It also speaks to concerns about new technology and the old fear of its use by the wrong people. The final sequence boils down to a fight between the corporation and rebels as a conflict over whether the Martian population will be able to "breathe free" or only with the consent of and payment to the company.

But the conflict seems to conceal another issue, that being the unfettered expansion humans beyond Earth. This encapsulates post-modern hegemony; both the rebel's trust in alien technology to safely deliver a fresh breath of air (who can really complain if a few windows are broken in the process) and the corporation's conservative stance to restrict the atmosphere are risks to the human condition and neither can be acted upon with the total participation of all those effected. In summation, the creation of a Martian atmosphere is a triumph over the corporation for the moment, but in the long run how will this prevent Mars from being overrun by the very same corporations which were defeated in the film's finale. The answer to this may lay in the film which was developed as a sequel to Total Recall, Minority Report (2002), which saw psychic-clairvoyant Martian mutants employed to help detect and fight crime before it even took place, a film which did not continue the trajectory of Hauser and Melina. Even though Hauser was able to set the Martian atmosphere free, it seems the possibilities for continuing his adventure had been exhausted.

While 1994 was a great year to be Green Day or The Offspring, this was not so for the young Macaulay Culkin and his fans. As a 14 year old playing the younger 12 year "richest kid in the world", Culkin and his management must have realized quickly that he could not stay a child actor forever. Richie Rich, therefore became Culkin's last major project until his return to film as a 23-year-old young adult in 2003's Party Monster.

In "Rich", no actor is in top form. The laughs were too few and too far between, especially for a family comedy. The post-Jurassic Park CGI "robot bee" may have even been a hindrance rather than a creative flourish. None of the characters were developed beyond the simple caricatures we'd expect and further stripped of comedic potential. By the time the antagonist breaks into the vault, anyone over the age of 17 probably knew what was inside; that is if they hadn't already stopped paying attention and fallen asleep.

Had the film starred another adolescent lead, we may have been forgiving, but the overall quality of this venture paled in comparison with the Culkin we knew from Uncle Buck, the Home Alone pictures, My Girl, and even his brief appearance in Michael Jackson's 9 minute "Black or White" rampage. Being that it was filmed in and around the Chicagoland area, and that this reviewer is a sucker for anything local, this reviewer feels generous giving Richie Rich 4 out of 10 IMDb stars.

What today may now be more popularly recognized as the film that launched the career of adolescent Obi-Wan Kenobi to become; was once a touchstone for the neo-punk-rave-hardcore-dance subcultural amalgam of the English-speaking world during the mid 90s. Yet the anti-slogan sloganeering of the film's opening sequence (later reprinted on bedroom and dorm-wall decorative posters, "Choose life. Choose a job. Choose a _______"... (spoken with a Scottish accent) (...inverting the Talking Heads' Once in a Lifetime)) marked yet another moment of self-conscious subversion on behalf of the underground; pre-dating and possibly foreshadowing the release of the UK anarcho-punk band Chumbawamba's single "Tubthumping," a year later. Both the film and the song ironically castigate the excesses of hedonistic drug culture and again, both have similarly been championed by the very people against whom their creators railed.

Post-Pulp Fiction, the cringe/revolting factor seems to have been ratcheted up a few notches; potential viewers should certainly be ready to be disturbed. Where Trainspotting shined, however, was in its delivery of these disturbances. In contrast to other drug films and the setting for many scenes (run down hotel rooms, decrepit squats, and especially "the worst bathroom in Scotland"), Trainspotting presents a polished clean image. The stylized gleam is reminiscent of Stanley Kubrick's cult favorite, A Clockwork Orange (1971). Trainspotting's heightened nasty(vomiting)/immaculate(Donald Judd!) dichotomy would later be used (and even elaborated on) in Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream (2000). As a result, the film looks great, but unfortunately for its inhabitants, it depicts the human condition in only the bleakest terms. Despite this, Trainspotting, is none the less a skillfully constructed feature with definite entertainment value.

Following Fargo, and The Big Lebowski, writer, director, producer team Ethan and Joel Coen created a film no one could have expected. Viewers will enjoy the performances of Clooney, Turturro, and Nelson. As implied, the cinematography is lush and CGI is skillfully interwoven into the decidedly analog time and place represented herein. Solid and memorable musical performance and soundtrack add an integral sonic dimension to this barnstormin' hoedown.

Oh Brother, Where Art Thou? is nostalgic psychedelia. The story and scenes float as if suspended in a lava lamp, or in the calm aftermath of flooded river valley. The picture is "show", not "tell" (there is literally no "telling" in the film). The plot is steeped in thick Christian revelry, but it's literally basis, Homer's Odyssey, pre-dates the Gospels by hundreds of years. Again, its not a matter of complete comprehension, what you see is what you get what you want to see. The music group R.E.M. comes to mind, with their speaking-in-tongues folklore. For America, this is cultural Kudzu, for the Coen brothers, rococo. Trials and tribulations. Lush. An once the film is both frivolous, but then again profound. In Greil Marcus's book, The Shape of Things to Come, he begins by expounding the ideology of America as an ideal / idea. That can be applied to the film. Here is an American moment in a pseudo-mythology, anachronistic, a steam-punk history impossible possible.

I consider it my my good fortune to have grown up in Glenview, IL, where we were close to Oakton Community College, where each week, on their local cable access TV station they would broadcast the college tele-course, Faces of Culture (FoC). Nevermind that I was in Jr. high or high school at the time, of all the PBS show I absorbed from that time and place, this series stood out from the rest.

The opening sequence for FoC sets the tone for a trip through places and the people around the world who live there. Along the way we meet many inspiring people such as; the Yanomamo of the Amazon, (as studied by Napolean Shagnon), the earth divers of Papa New Ginea, or the paraders of New Orleans. Beliefs, customs, traditions, ceremonies, and images from around the globe are studied and presented to the viewer.

Even though the scientists in the program share their theories on culture, it ultimately becomes the viewer's responsibility to process and interpret the evidence. Within each show, the camera is often backed up or turned around on the ethnographers to reveal the culture of science and the anthropology themselves.

Now in 2007, some of the footage may seem dated, but in consideration of the subject matter, a contemporary viewing is still educational. Many of these people, cultures, and places may not have changed much in the last quarter of a century or so. Or in the case of the Innuits of Alaska and Artic regions, it would be interesting to see how their efforts to increase the use of their indigenous language have faired.

Despite the seamlessness of it's impact, anthropology and ethnography have had profound impacts on the modern West. The "Reality TV" genre, developed as a kind of off-shoot from ethnographic footage. In 2007, the TV shows a show like the Discovery Channel's "Last One Standing" continues the modernization (or post-modernization, if you will) of exchange between ethnographers and peoples of cultures studied. FoC provides us with an in-depth introductory resource into the fields of anthropology and ethnography, the study of people and culture.

Only at the threat of facing the firing squad do Jack Lemmon and Tony Curtis don women's wardrobes in hopes of escaping murdering mobsters. So begins the picture, which in 1999, topped the American Film Institute's best comedy of all time list, Some Like It Hot (their inclination for laughter seems curious as Tootsie was listed second). The duo dressed-in-drag join an all-female band headed to Florida to entertain the wealth. In transit they meet the bodacious Sugar Kane (Marilyn Monroe), a real woman, with whom they befriend, secreting alcohol and sharing tales of past loves gone wrong. Chaos soon ensues as the cross-dressing escapees try to stay below the radar of the suspicious band-leader, are courted by women-hungry millionaires, and fall head-over-heels in love with Sugar Kane.

Jack and Tony keep the outrageous action moving non-stop. Marilyn hypnotizes all in sight. Despite these, much of the film's comedic value impinged on the societal tension of the era. In 1959, this film challenged the mores of erotic decency, however, nearly half a century later, little is left of its lusty Eros now awash in contemporary hyper-sexual society. What remains is a classy comedy interwoven with magic, myth, and mystery. As the film's original audience enters their golden years Some Like It Hot will be remembered for its glorious and care-free style.

Evidently this is how Fairuza Balk spent the other part of 1998 when she was not playing the ravenous lust-life of Edward Norton's character in the provocative American History X. Hundreds of miles away from the skinhead battles on the streets of L.A., Adam Sandler was busying himself as first-time executive producer in the state of LA. The film which transpired, The Waterboy, is a good effort but leaves much to be desired when put up against the compendium of Sandler films.

Given hindsight, the film's impressive financial success was more of an indication of Sandler's rising notoriety as first-rate deliverer of comedy, and less due to merits of this particular film. Sandler's characters usually rely on some aspect of discomfort, and Bobby Boucher (Boo-SHAY) seems to specialize in this trait. We never know what the true nature of his affliction is. Yet his disconcerting speech and mannerisms begin to normalize upon meeting the other members of Bobby's community which include; a near-psychotic 3rd Division football coach (played by Henry Winkler, The FONZ, that's right… here he has completely "jumped the shark"), a tattooed tough-skinned feline fem-friend Vicki Vallencourt (Fairuza Balk), an assorted crew of deranged football teammates, legions of local bumpkins who hobble onto the screen as if they came out of a George Romero flick including an aged Clint Howard (Eaglebauer from RnRHS), and Rob Schnider's character from whence originated the catchphrase, "You can do it!" (I always wondered where that came from), and lastly, but not to be forgotten, the hyper-protective overbearing near socio-phobe "Momma" (played by a Kathy Bates, yes the "misery" continues…).

The laughs are too few and too far between as the viewer plods through the Louisiana bayou in search of the plot. This film may have faired better amongst the jock set, but even they are evidently included in the film's low IMDb rating. What may have been Adam Sandler's answer to the call of Jim Carrey's Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, instead amounted to a mediocre addition to the Sandler curriculum vitae.

Penelope Spheeris (also of the Decline of Western Civilization Series and Suburbia) was chosen as the director of Mike Myers and Dana Carvey's SNL creation. This is the film that catapulted both comedians' careers into the stratosphere. 1992 is an interesting time in alternative rock history between the peak of grunge in 1991, and the coming crest of the "punk revival" in 1994 with Green Day, Offspring and Rancid. Wayne's World reveled in this new "alternative rock," music a concept which was at the time much more flexible than it is now. Rife with irony, alternative rock was eventually the name given to the music that blended aspects of rock, metal, punk, pop, and eclectic "weirdness." While Wayne is the more metal half of the excellent duo, Garth is the grunge/nerd/"punk" side of the equation.

Heavy metal rock and roll fandom provides the backdrop for a non-stop train wreck of social satire. Only in 1992; and only in Meyer's and Carvey's comedic genius could Aurora, Illinois ever seem so cool. Wayne's World, in the film's plot, is the name of a Cable Access television show (dare I say "DIY") hosted by Wayne Campbell and Garth Algar. Rob Lowe plays Benjamin, an advertising scout/producer who is looking for talent to promote a chain of video game arcade stores. He finds his muse in the low-brow witticism, promptly signs the boys, and sets them up in a proper television studio. A battle ensues between Ben and Wayne for the affection of one way-hot Cassandra (Tia Carrere) who is easily lured away from Wayne at the first flourish of Benjamin's bountiful extravagance. Wayne and Garth's plans to win back Cassandra culminate in the film's tripartite finale.

"...with an underlying revisionist's conceit that belied the film's emotional attachments to the subject matter..." the film was truly entertaining, whimsical, and relevant. And to reassure Garth; No, it did not suck.

Dominick (Nicky) Luciano wears a 'Hulk' T-shirt and trudges off everyday to perform his duties as a garbage man. He uses his physical power in picking up other's trash and hauling it to the town dump. He reads comic-book hero stories and loves wrestlers and wrestling, Going to WrestleMania with his twin brother Eugene on their birthday is a yearly tradition. He talks kindly with the many people he comes in contact with during his day. He reads comic books, which he finds in the trash, with a young boy who he often passes by while on the garbage route. Unfortunately, Dominick has a diminished ability to use his mind. He has a disability.

Dominick's disability came as a result of an injury to the head in which he suffered traumatic brain injury (TBI). This injury left him slower, though it did not change his core characteristic as a strong individual who helps to protect others. Dominick is actually more able to live independently than he may seem at the beginning of the film. He lives with Eugene who is studying to become a doctor. Dominick provides the main source of income, while Eugene is off studying. Eugene must face the fact that he is to continue his education in a different city, and that he must move away from Dominick. Eugene also develops a romance which begins to separate him from his twin brother.

The film deals specifically with domestic abuse and how this can impact individuals, families, and then society as a whole. The strain that escalates between Eugene and Dominick as Eugene realizes that he must eventually leave Nicky, exploded on their birthday night. Eugene yells at Dominick and throws him against the wall. In this moment, Eugene must confront his own fears of being like his abusive father, the father which Dominick protected him against while he himself became the victim of the abuse. This event cemented the love between the two brothers, who from then on became the best of friends. Though they needed each other, they also both needed independence and the ability to grow and develop relationship with others. The fact that they must part ways became a very real emotional strain. However, by the end of the film, Dominick is able to say good bye to his brother and wish him luck. Eugene is able to leave his brother with the confidence that he has started to make a social network of people who care about him and will help him with his independence.

When Dominick witnesses the abuse of his friend he is forced to come face to face with the cause of his own trauma. In this state of extreme stress, Dominick almost completely shuts down. He then runs after the ambulance to the hospital to see what happened to his friend. After learning that the boy has died, he is confronted by the abusive father who, fearing his testimonial, tells him he didn't see nothing, doesn't know anything, and not to say anything, and that if he does he will kill him. Now that his own life has been threatened, he goes and find the hand gun that Larry used to kill the rats. He goes to the wake of the deceased boy and at gunpoint, kidnaps the baby of the grieving family. He runs away from the scene and hides in a building. When the police surround him, Eugene goes in the building to talk to his brother. Eugene then reveals the cause of Dominick's disability and they bring the baby back. The abusive father then wields a gun of his own threatening to kill Dominick, but Eugene stops him and Dominick tells the crowd that he saw the father throw his son down the stairs.

Through the climactic ending, the issue of dysfunctional behavior comes into view. Though Dominick's instinct to save the baby can be understood, we also see how damaging this response is. Dominick put the baby's life and his own life in grave danger. The larger societal consequences of these events is not directly implicated, but rather shown through the films ending. Despite the more optimistic ending portrayal, another sequence of events might just have likely occurred, in which Dominick is charged with kidnapping and possession of a firearm. It is somewhat difficult to believe that this went completely unaccounted. Furthermore, even if Dominick is not charged, there may still be a stigma against him within the community, not that there wasn't one before these events. Instead, the film shows that we must be able to recognize problematic behavior and act to curb it.

Dominick and Eugene was released in 1988, the same year as another film, Rainman, which won 5 Academy Awards. While Rainman was an achievement and helped increase the visibility with person with disabilities, it could be argued that Dominick and Eugene holds more valuable lessons for society. Whereas, Rainman demonstrated that mainstream American society might be able to learn from and care for a 'savant', if the 'savant' is the inheritor of a large estate. Dominick and Eugene show that a person with a disability might be able to care for and help save members of American society. The message of an independent person with disabilities may have been too strong for 1988. Hopefully someday society will see the strengths of individuals with disabilities, not as a threat, but as imperative for the strength of society.

Saw this film while it was making the college circuit in 1999 on 35mm. I was a working with the University of Iowa's Bijou Theater (a premier venue for independent and art house style theater) when this film came in. Cannibal! The Musical is an ingenious effort for Trey Parker and the rest of his cast and crew. Parker leads the way from Provo, UT to Breckenridge, CO which provides the perfect journey for his motley cast to find out who they truly are.

This film works on a number of different levels. First it is a send-up of the musical play and film, Oklahoma!, and with it, the entire Western genre. This, combined with a truly morbid plot line makes wonderful juxtaposition. Combine this with a self-assured independent film making style and some of the best and quirky one-liners and sight-gags and you have yourself a work of art.

The film opens with a most bloody and comical rendition of 'how it happened' as told by the prosecuting attorney in Mr. Packer's trial. If you can't make it through the opening, you won't enjoy this film. The sequence is self-consciously over-the-top, and it gets better on the second viewing, since you will remember each lovable character. What I appreciate most about this film though, is the way in which the actors are truly encouraged to 'be themselves.' Each character is both a caricature of Western genre archetype intertwined with their modern counterpart, an actor or actress who has dreams and ambitions which may or may not be too far removed from those of the part they are playing. This dichotomy charges each actor as they can shift between the cardboard cut-out and the flesh and blood person that they are. In the end, Cannibal! The Musical, is a story of survival with a good moral lessons which must be delivered with proper doses of; dooming prophets, Nihonjin Indians, cyclops ranchers, villainous trappers, bar fights, public hangings, raging rivers, impenetrable mountains and a most deadly cold winter.

Cannibal! The Musical should be seen by anyone interested in the film making business. Created by amateurs, it set the watermark mighty high for up and coming writers, directors, producers, and actors. So what are you waiting for, go order the film on Netflix, buy it at Walmart, or better yet, go get it from your local independent video store... (like Hut Video, or That's Rentertainment if you're in Iowa City).. and sit back and reclaim the little known history of these extraordinary Coloradinians and Americans.

I told my friend Dave to go watch Funny Bones (1995) and he asked me if i had seen King of Comedy, which I hadn't so we were both on assignment, cross the Atlantic. For whatever reason I expected KofC to give some insight into Jerry Lewis' comedy, and comedy in general. I saw a book called King of Comedy (about Jerry Lewis), so maybe I'll have to investigate that. The film KofC is concerned with formality, procedure, naiveté', childhood, adolescence, crude, polished crudeness.

Though I dislike writing spoilers I must add this detail, because for me it sums up the entire film. Please don't read this if you haven't seen the film, or if you plan on seeing the film without preconception. -stop-. As you know the film is painfully embarrassing, taking extra time to crystallize; deliberate over its own uncomfortable stature. From the beginning we slowly ooze off our seats and couches into the bowels of Dali's paintings like persistence of memory and clocks chime time. But the crux of the film pivots around the fact that it was a plastic gun. Not only are these two (DeNiro & Bernhard) psychotic, delusional, and (possibly) mildly autistic (autism, which basically means a genetic/biological auto-ism, or "self"-ism), they are also, in the end, overgrown children. There is an innocence to them, and this innocence is materialized in the plasticity of a gun and foam pellets. So the murder weapon is an Oldenberg. In contrast then, it is the world of celebrity which is cold, rigid, dinosaur, and aging. And it is within this comparison that the Scorsese delivers the punchline of the film.

Redemption is too strong of a word, I do not think De Niro is redeemed. But as the film closes, we have witnessed his pathos pathetic-ness, in his lonely and alone celebrity moment of auto-biological-comedy, which we see, not delivered to the TV-live audience, or to us in the theater at home, but to the high school sweetheart of yesteryear. (For which this is all about maybe, but maybe not). But then, there he is standing on the bar, on the bar, like a trapeze artist with his arm around, (the TV), now announcing the king of comedy.

Yeah heres a film for the people who will see this film. Its hard. There's a bunch of these films floating around and for the most part i'd rather see these kinds than others. But Napolean Dynamite, I Heart Huckabees, Garden State, and even Snakes on a Plane come to mind. Its just the whole stature of postmodern film making. They broke the cinematic rule of putting characters near a pool and having them fall in. Is this film "punk"? yeah. The grandpa turns out to be sweet. Were dealing with issues the size of life here. The big questions, but also the day-to-day routine questions as well. I thought the "Jesus was wrong" t-shirt was Threadless, but I was wrong. Beauty contests, OK. Anti-pageantry? Well, not necessarily. The loser/winner dichotomy is established quite early in the film. This film milked polarity of that battery. I don't know what else to say. My mp3 player has shuffled to Wesley Willis' "Your Way Right Away". He recommends eating a garden salad instead of a whopper. There was a Fast Food Nation preview before LMS, i don't think i need to see it.

Snakes on a Plane is a film. Evidently some money was spent on it and some money was spent to see it. Tomorrow is the 5th anniversary of Sept. 11th 2001. I venture to say this film would not have been made if we were still living in the shadow of 9/11. However, here this airbourne terrorism is pushed to a ludicrous extreme. Snakes also brilliantly walks the tightrope between full on parody (i.e. the Scary Movie franchise) and authentic horror film (i.e. Silence of the Lambs). As if following the advice of Cheap Trick, "surrendering but didn't give themselves away." SoaP is also inextricably linked to internet culture and will be viewed in the future as an early example of the power of the internet to generate hype. While this film was uber-hyped before release, the post-debut banter has seen a sharp decline. My personal experience was seeing this film at the Cascade drive-in double feature with Talladega Nights. It was the perfect venue to see these films, seen with friends and out in the country with country folk in the cars nearby. I couldn't tell which film the audience liked more. There was a little "audience participation", but not the overbearing type which i heard about at some of the showings of SoaP. I'd recommend seeking out your local drive-ins and giving them some business. Snakes is a good thrill. It is kinda gross. It has it's blood-rushing moments. Maybe Public Enemy has a point, "Don't Believe the Hype", but in the case of Snakes on a Plane rather, believing can be fun.

Unusual for a movie-goer, to sit in a theater with the star of the show, unusual for the same audience members to party with the star later in the month, in iowa. Joshua Miller was studying at the Iowa Writers Workshop in 2002 when he (re)premiered his tour-du-force The Mao Game. The specifics behind the creation of this film, it's subsequent botched theatrical release, and then the contractual-copyright-Hollywood mumble-jumble-junk, for me, only adds to my contention that this film is a big F--- Y-- to the whole Hollywood system. Of course, JM does this through the medium the film but if you had the chance to do so, and to do so so brilliantly, you shouldn't be faulted for taking that chance. Speaking cinematically, Mao Game is an 7-8 and possibly a 9 when the background details compound with the film itself. While its been said before, this film is somehow an independent venture while it also gleans much from the Hollywood studio mechanism. I'm not sure how old JM was at the time, but as a first for the artist as writer, director, actor, i think it is quite an accomplishment. I hope we see some more ideas and stories from JM in the future. Since I saw this film around 3 or 4 years ago, I am losing my memory of the details, but I remember thinking it was quite good afterword. The film successfully tells the story of these three generations of Hollywood actors, but the same could apply to any sort of ancestry, only Alaskain Snow Crab Harvesters have much less access to rolls of 35mm film and the ability to draw Hollywoods stars. Yet for this reason, the film is also quite incredible because you get the sense that these people were willing to perform in this film, and that they decided and their agents decided to make time for this. Since I am not an expert on Hollywood, I am not sure, but I would guess that this scenario does not happen often. As a result it humanizes these stars. Toward the end, the bond that develops between grandson and grandmother strengthens as the end of life approaches. The Mao Game asks the question of "How do we care for each other?" Though the story does not give us the rules by which we should, it expresses through message and medium that we are so linked to our past and the care that was given to us at younger ages.

In the family of its contemporary peers such as I heart Huckabees, Life Aquatic, Rushmore, Tenenbaums, 40 Year Virgin, Napolean Dynamite, American Beauty, etc.. Garden State is the somber uncle. A narrative, wrapped around a 26 year old Jewish actor returning home to his family and town to attend his mother's funeral, wallows in the depths of the infinite abyss on the edge of existentialism. Existentialism, in which each unique individual defines their own meaning for life, or meaning for existence in a cold uncaring world, becomes the back-drop to this yarn. Yet where The Graduate was suspenseful and culturally taboo, Garden State is, in contrast,tame and subdued. I write this review right after my first viewing of this feature. Maybe GS grows on the audience. Maybe its domesticity is an intentional mirroring of the bland and blah'se. Maybe I am getting old. Maybe I see too much of myself in the protagonist. The question I kept asking myself was, "do I really care about these people, this character?" I kept thinking, "man, i heard so much goodness about this film. there's got to be something here." I recalled advertisements of the scene in the quarry, and when they finally arrived there i thought, "oh, another setting born within the story like recurring swear words and non-orthogonal visuals." Yes there is some cleverness here. Yes there is a soundtrack here. Yes Natalie Portman is here and swearing and looking very cute. Do we need Soderbergh slow-mos of our crew en-route to "the piece?" finally the last moments of the film take us back to the beginning (from which we woke from); but now at the payphone, and "what do we do now?" My guess is Zach Braff has more in store for the western world. The young actor/writer/director combo is quite rare, though this film is no Citizen Kane. Joshua Miller's "Mao Game" comes to mind and may have been more successful. I think this film more than accomplished the inferred goal of saying, "hey Hollywood, your films are not so great, i'm young and i'm gonna make a film, and exercise my talent, and maybe make some money, and this is what it was like growing up in new jersey, and doesn't queen amidala look so nice without all that make-up and costuming...(ellipsis)" Yet I didn't notice where a nuance was, if there was one intended. In the meantime,like the state of a garden, I'll let it grow on me.

p.s. from the second scene through the end i kept thinking this was what ferris buellers day off may have been like for alan ruck without broderick hip-mate. food for thought

In the film Forrest Gump, Tom Hanks actually plays allegory and myth-in-the-making (aka history) as a "slow" individual floating through the decades. The cinematists used this technique of "history personified" uniquely to full effect in this film. No other film has gotten away with such an entertaining stroll through the years. Not necessarily to be taken literally; this film was so lauded (possibly unknowingly) for its seamless ability to compartmentalize and package the most recent years of American history up to 1994. Much like the writing of a history textbook, we watch the years unfold as Forrest Gump glides through the ups and downs, stoic to the signs of the times.

Though the film also tells the stories of Jenny, Lt. Dan, Bubba, and Momma, it is Forrest through which we see the world. Though each of these characters *(and the many lesser characters) who come in contact with Forrest each have their own some what negative first response to him, they each, in surrender, are redeemed. Much like each person's relation with history. In the end it is Forrest sitting alone on a rock in a small town Mississippi once again alone. For alone, history sits on a rock in small town Mississippi watching his son ride the bus to kindergarten.

Through this lens, all the devices of the film take on new meaning. Forrest's sporadic television appearances and brushes with celebrity are in fact their own brushes with history. While many films use a boy-girl love relationship as a centerpiece around which to build elaborate stages, here the relationship of love is wrapped around the passage of time. History loves you and history survives you. History is slow and history is a minimalist. The feather device is yet another metaphor for history but one which would not have connected with the audience nearly as much as Tom Hanks. Tom Hanks is the feather, the loose leaf, the page from the Curious George book. Our myth/history set free in the wind yet marked by the past; the pages of our lives.

Freak!, i just got back from this dizzy after seeing it with both my parents. As a 26 year old virgin, I must say I was quite entertained by this breezy charmer. T40YOV relies on many of the postmodern comedic techniques of the films nearing the new millennial such as Napolean Dynamite, Office Space, UHF, among others prove influential, while not entirely a low-budget affair.

Evidently this movie is grossing big bucks, which is somewhat surprising given the subject matter. In the age of extremes it is not surprising that the subject of virginity would be explored as an sexual extreme reversal. While at first awkward, our protagonist fleshes out into a full and lovable character. This, in part, operates on the po-mo-com-tech of the validity of the banal and everyday. Other pomcom-techs such as reflectivity are employed at our main character's job at an electronics store where 60 inch flat screen televisions play a variety of movie-land scenes.

Additional laughs are delivered by age stratified multi-cultural potty-mouths who support our lead with narratives of competing ridiculousness. Amongst other things you will see a man pissing on himself, hair ripped off a chest, and a scene involving alcohol and an automobile which will probably upset members of M.A.D.D. While I had a whole shopping cart full of chuckles for the bulk of the picture the film doesn't end very strongly. Personally I'm not sure how I would have ended it and the psychedelic music video reference is decent, but i guess i wanted another large comedic bang toward the end. Another angle which i doubt will be explored is this film within the current political atmosphere such as the administration's attitudes toward sex, who might enjoy this film for it's somewhat obvious statement that saving sex for marriage is a good thing. However, i doubt that this contingency holds the interest to sit through 2 hours of trash talk to get to this message. Chalk up another one for the pomcom!

-spoils- andre the giant has a posse is a 15 minute documentary about a sticker campaign and the philosophy behind it. the film is a good watch, the right length, and its actually pretty motivating in a dirty sort of way. one of helen sticklers earlier works, this film is the launching pad both for fairey and stickler to their current carriers as artist/filmmaker. the short goes on a "pbs style" background information diatribe which basically says the stickers are meaningless. however it acknowledges the meaning that the viewer brings to the stickers as well as the artists intention of the distrupting blank public surfaces in order to heighten the awareness of those anonymous structures, thus the andre the giant sticker becomes concave graffiti, a portal inward, highlighting the surface on which it is stuck. combined with a montage and quirky electro-music, this is quite effective. while nothing about this film is serious, the artist and filmmaker are not ironic or sarcastic either. street culture enthusiasts will be pleased.

Penny Marshall's top grossing film, Big, was a crossover cinematic experience. Hank's film career was solidified with this here film, well deserved as he delivers an amazing portrayal of a 13-year-old in a 30-year-old's body. Never

underestimate the power of the extraordinary, especially if you have a

Hollywood tech crew in the wings,. moreover be careful what you wish for, you just might get your wish.

I've always associated Big with another 80's movie. "Mr. Mom," both sharing

boardroom scenes involving a new employee who speaks from personal

experience as opposed to well funded corporate research. And they both

produced their own instantly recognizable and forever classic moments, Big,

(frolicking on the toy store piano), Mr. Mom, (crossing the finish line in slow motion with the highly dramatic music). While Mr. Mom addresses feminist

topics in an pedestrian Hollywood manner, Big begs similar questions about

youth. Similar to Groundhog Day (though not nearly as funny or potent), in Big we are asked to swallow bizarre "impossible" plots with a spoonful of sugar

provided by amazing lead performances. Hank's boyish looks and his sugar

high antics or homesick appear so authentic. Though the plot could have

continued along the line of Hanks remaining an adult, it is with bravery that the writers return Hanks to his original family and life. The films ending was rather touching even if it is somehow inexplicable. (What exactly triggers him to be normal again, first time he was sleeping at the end it occurs while walking back up to his parents house...) Despite the incongruence we buy it because

narratively it works and it also implies that his adult love interest actually experiences the transformation, in a way sharing and proving that the

impossible was real and true.

While Big has probably become some what dusty over it's 14 year history, it will remain one of the classic 80's family films. Though we have yet to see for sure, it is my guess that well written / acted films will eclipse their CGI / special effects in the long run. In wouldn't be surprised to see a return to the precepts which inspire this types of films once the new producers / directors get board with the new bundle of toys that we have at our disposal in the 21st century.

8/10

15 writers and a randomizing DVD which creates a unique sequence of 26 scenes on every view. And some great extra features. Exquisite Corpse is the senior thesis monster from University of Iowa alumni director, David Fishel.

Quite a departure from his previous material namely, H-POL and a myriad of other slick comedy shorts. Exquisite Corpse uses Dada / Surrealist references to deliver a self-contained yet fractured narrative of the life of small town mechanic Del. There are some surprising events on this little disk which mark the beginning of David Fishel's professional career. (Possibly someday be his equivalent to Tre Parker's Cannibal! - you heard it here first). The film is rather slow paced, so it is not recommended if want in-your-face slapstick. In some ways I think of it movie as a really beautiful series of moving photographs rather than a film, because each randomized scene is very much a glimpse through the camera lens. The question is does this world translate. As someone who lived in the same town as Fishel for many years, I can't answer this.

This film actually demands multiple viewings in order to get a sense of the random assignment of scene order. Harsh criticism might lump this in the heap of collegiate "art-films," however the writing and acting are the highlight.

The score for the film deserves mention, and at moments it features William Elliott Whitmore and Ten Grand, bands local to the area which imbue the film with authenticity.

The funniest moments actually happen during an interview, featured as an extra, between the director and an SVP (Student Video Productions) interviewer. The result is amazingly couched in the tradition of Mr. Show (David Cross), and such mockumentaries as Best of Show, although in this case I understand that this was an completely ad-libbed affair. The polar bear art in the background sums it up. I feel bad finding this all so funny when it really wasn't meant to be but I just can help it. Upon first viewing I thought the whole interview was scripted and that the SVP interviewer was an actor.

Exquisite Corpse goes for the whole fruit-wagon and steals away with everything save some bruised oranges and a case of lemons. This is a well produced professional polished effort on the DIY/student level. Along with the film America's Funniest American, (director Paul Rust, University of Iowa), it was the best feature length work I saw coming out of the Iowa film school at the time. This film might find some appeal in those who are looking for a more moody comedy in the vein of Napolean Dynamite. Small town/ rural environments navigated but here our protagonist is elusive and withdrawn, making this film a more serious comedy/art-drama set in the George W. Bush voting part of our country.

spoilers... sorta....

The public needs to separate their movie experiences from their literary ones.

While one might inspire the other, and vice versa, a movie should not be judged against what was experienced in the literary work which inspired it. They are two completely different animals, and in some ways, this dichotomy is unravelling the authenticity of storytelling in general. (If you haven't enjoyed some human to human oral storytelling, please give it a shot, whether it is folklore, fiction, fantasy, reading bedtime stories to you kids, or going to your house of worship.) In many cultures traditions are passed down orally and this was the main method of communication (and entertainment) prior to the development of written text. yadda yadda -

Having said this, I just watched HP&tSorcerer's Stone on television (and i have not read the books, maybe someday I will?) As for the film. It seems many people are just overall fans of the Harry Potter phenomenon. No different from anyone who posts 10/10 comments on any other movie which happens to be their favorites. Sometimes I wish IMDb would create a sort of tag which allows people to categorize their comments. (this would save me time having to read through a whole bunch of comments which are basically fans saying yes I really like this movie too...) There is definitely a time and place for that, and room too, but as I said,and I would imagine I am not alone, in that there are those of us who are interested in reading more unbiased critiques rather than either blatantly positive or overtly negative views.

That said, I found a few very enjoyable moments and images in HPATSS, I can see for sure why children are drawn to it. Maybe it is in some ways a "gateway" narrative to the more dense Tolkein works. My impression is that this movie is geared toward kids in elementary school and through junior high.

The issue of the CGI is highly debatable, some reviewers propose that the movie should be somehow shot with lower-tech (Jim Henson) techniques. I agree with this but I am also aware of the nostalgic factor and I wonder if somehow since many of us grew up on the original Star Wars and (Henson) styled Sesame Street, we link his work with our youth and then interpret that style to be superior. This could be. Will our children, once fully grown, interpret CGI to be superior since they will associate it with their youth? And what will replace CGI? - this is the stuff of science fiction. But to thwart that whole debate, personally I really find an affinity toward the more analog (puppets) and Disney's hand drawn animation, rather than a mesh of CGI and digital film. - note - such films as Toy Story and Sharks Tale, and the (to be seen) Polar Express, which are completely CGI are better views.

Compare Potter with another children's protagonist - Fievel Mousekewitz, from An American Tale. While both are "special," and stumble through their stories almost destined like trains on rails to their climax and endings, it is Fievel who comes across as the better developed character. Potter on the other hand is constantly told almost from the beginning of the movie that he is famous, that he is special, so he must live up to this. It is somewhat surprising how this is done.

Unlike Luke Skywalker, or Fievel, or the majority of major motion picture protagonists, Potter is somewhat blase', and is guided along though the whole film by a giant, the heads of the school, and his smart female and comic relief honcho sidekicks. The surprise is of course that what this is all building to is a "fight scene" which ends in a most bizarre manner, the villain crumbling at the

mere touch of Harry Potter, to which he cries in agony, "what magic is this?" This is a most unusual confrontation and defeat. What is even more awkward is, (and m aybe i missed this), but I didn't really know why this happen. To which the very next scene explains. The fact that they needed to tell us why it happened ill ustrates that there is something major wrong with the narrative. In a good mov ie we would have known why this villain is crumbling. Did I miss that part, please fill me in, was there any foreshadowing there?

Oh, one more thing that was kind of annoying was the portrayal of the chess match near the end. Now understood, that it is difficult (extremely difficult) to communicate the complexities of ches s to the age group this movie is gear toward, but cutting from shot to shot of random chess pieces being destroyed was rather pointless, and it came across t o me as rather hollow. There could have been an attempt to maybe at least demons trate some of the very basic moves in chess. And I also didn't understand exac tly why Potter's buddy HAD to hold tight to the knight, how come Harry was able to walk on the chess board? It lost me.

However as positives, there are bunch, such as the presentation of the villain in the climax scene, the whole thing about unicorns blood and drinking unicorns blood, that resonated with me somehow, and how it was all silvery and such, this seemed very 2001, yeah, and what else. Harry Potter looks a lot like my friend David Fishel, so that made me feel good, (even though Dave is like 6'8") - maybe it's those Gandhi / Lennon spectacles, who knows... It was also refreshing to see the presentation of all the witchcraft and "magic" in such a matter of fact way, I think that is actually the motivating charisma of the venture is that it's a relatively subdued presentation of the eccentric, bizarre, and out and out balderdash. Somehow in the vein of the Reiner's Princess Bride, (sorta, maybe a stretch) - but what i am trying to say is that i appreciated the frankness with which the cast displayed in their performances. For what it's worth.

Overall some what enjoyable, not on any top tens at this writing in my book, i give it a 6.5/10 mostly for the chess blunder and questions concerning story and character development.

***Spoilers***

My friend Dave train hopped to chicago and convinced my mom and myself to go watch this movie last night at the theater in the Glen. What we have here is an exciting experiment in the creation of strong characters. Many commentors have noticed and commented on the angry side of ND and this might be the sparking motivational pivot of his character. He is definitely the most angry "dork" character we have seen on the silver screen. An emotion which is definitely consistent with the character. Side note... his anger is also somewhat benign but still genuine... he doesn't swear, but there is almost always a scowl on his face, an unwaving clenching of forehead and eyebrows.

This movie takes another step for mankind on the lunar surface of the subject of banal environments. A timely enterprise considering the recent success of many "reality" TV shows. It is interesting to see America coming to terms with certain parts of itself. Tell me what do you know about Idaho? - or for that matter, most of the other states of this country Americans share? - The comedy emanates not only from Heder's character, but also from the quirky environment he must navigate.

It seems as though "retro" is always approximately 20 years in the past, (and antique is about 50 years in the past) what is wonderful about ND is this Idaho landscape which is rife with 80's (hence retro) culture, but which is actually current for the time 2004-2005 (the time setting for the movie).... THE COMEDY in this is the TRUISM that much of "brand spanking new" cultural artifacts usually take about 20 years for them to reach this lessor traveled / lessor lived in parts of the USA. (As someone who spent 6 years living in Iowa (Iowa City) I can attest to this phenomenon.) - SO what comes across as being current and hip (in the recent "celebration" of retro culture) - (i.e. VH1's I Love The 80's, Artforum 40th Annivesary double issue (March/April 2003) focusing on the 80's) these are just a few note-able examples.))) ... IS in actuality the way places such as these more or less actually appear today in 2004. - This is fairly ingenious marketing and cultural cultivating. So for those of you who are confused about the time-setting of this film, hopefully this clears it up for you.

We will always be fascinated to glimpse the past and re-live the now outdated society of the spectacle past. In 2020 will we be watching "I Love The 00's", and in the program they will reference "I Love The 80's"??? - Computers and technology are increasing our ability to produce and archive much media, text, and ideas, and increasingly we are becoming a more reflexive society.

With the recent successes of such middle American environs such as "The Simple Life," "X-games" "Jessica Simpson and the Newlyweds" "American-IDol" more and more we see portrayal of "everyday Americans" culture which these days has become the source of much material for Television, Movies, entertainment, Jeff Foxworthy is coming back with a new sit-com. Etc.. This is the goldrush of the 2000s, digging into our own psychies, our own cultural traditions, environments. The Reality TV fascination. SOmehow ND- is perfectly nested in this current fashion.

The opening credits roll over an assortment of fabric patterns (which is an surprising 2-Dimensional way of creating a sense of setting) - and the text of the credits is handed to us spelled out in food on plates, using mustard, etc... These sorta DIY (Do It Yourself) hands on, and also edible, credits ease the audience into the setting of the film, and also reflected I comment I made in the car on the way to the movie which was "You are what you eat, you eat what you see," We see moves (consumption through viewing)... (Ask Dave... strangely enough who has also used similar crediting techniques in his own video/film project... search for "Table Scraps")

Yo. SO dude, okay then we have this sort of dragging of the action figure behind the school bus, the line is something like, "hey Napolean, what are you going to do today?" - N: "I'm gonna do whatever I darn feel like doing" - or something (someone help me out here with the exact quote...) And that pretty much sums up what we see in the movie. What Napolean feels like doing, given his existence in this environment. Nature and Nuture are both convening on this young man in the most remarkable ways.

There is some great comedy and the cutting of scene and jumping from one scene to the next used to good effect. some scenes are cut short and quickly while others are sort of drawn out to the last possible moment, characters never breaking... this contrast of quick cut, long cut, keeps your attention because it makes you pay attention to every detail, because you don't know if the scene is going to be a quick cut, or a long drawn out one. An example of the quick cut is the mini-narrative of the introduction of Pedro's bike, cut to the bike, cut to the ramp jump, cut to slapstick ND. bang bang bang bang. (film students take note)

New things on film. Have we ever seen a tether ball in a movie?? maybe.. the main character in a thrift store?.. hmmm... The main character of a movie working in a huge "industrial?" chicken coup? Comparisons to Revenge of the Nerds, Rushmore, are a given. But this movie is striving for everyday-ness... a possible connection with Spellbound, without the national spelling bee attention and possible recognition or "Spelling Skills" as Dynamite would put it. Not as dark as Gummo.

I like a movie that gives me some new ideas to play with. I am not sure what these are in particular with ND, but i think that there are some there. Something to do with the motivation for N's anger?- Maybe not so important, yes this movie claims "he's out to prove he's got nothing to prove." Sounds like Seinfeld. - question is does he prove nothing??? I they failed... Napolean Dynamite (Jon Heder) & Jared Hess have definitely proved something.

I give this movie 8.25 out of ten.

further: if you liked this movie that i would recommend seeing America's Funniest American by little known actor director genius PAUL RUST.

**SPOILERS**

I saw AAT when i was young and recently watched it again. It was a favorite then and I still got a kick out of it and will probably watch it again. The animation and backgrounds work quite well, dim grimy dull, which make the few moments when things shine (the fireworks, the bottle floating, the waterfall and lighting when Fievel and the family are reunited) all the more powerful, overall the color is great.

Its good to see that IMDb is truly an International Database, and i love that i can read reviews by people who've identified that they are from such places as Pakistan, Jamaica, Argentina, and beyond. As an American Jew myself, the connections to this film are quite obvious and my more recent viewing really gave me a sense of the contribution Steven Spielberg has made in my life, and many other lives about Jews / Americans. I enjoy the opportunity to view other's readings of the film, to see how the messages in the film are viewed by people outside America.

The film has some obvious political undertones that a child will not necessarily pick up. This is a pretty cool thing / kinda sesame street like / a subtle education. While Fievel's family is Jewish, not all the mice in the film are, as we meet other immigrant mice who are carrying crosses, etc. What the mice have in common is immigrant status as well as being under the oppression of "the Cats" (don't say it too loud).

Who are the cats? Are the cats just the bullies in any given situation? While the Russian cats that drove Fievel's family from their home in Russia mirrored the Pogroms / Nazis / Jewish oppressors, Who were the oppressors on the American soil? (is it a direct reflection to a group of oppressors in American in the late 19th century?)

In light of current political situations this movie could have many implications / readings. Does America still seem to have that silver lining? Are people round the world still singing their own equivalents to "The Are No Cats In America?"

Contrast Fievel with Mickey "Mouse" himself, a wonderful comparison. Fievel is almost a real person whereas Mickey is more cartoony. Fievel is a child mouse. As children ourselves we can put ourselves in his shoes more easily, (which is why this is a children's movie) his fascination with "the fish," and always asking questions, his curiosity, which gets him in trouble, and his ability to dream and somehow stumble through it all still surviving (if not drunk and woosie, green-ish) from it all. (a little detail i enjoy is how, invariably he always winds up in some sort of "bubble" (the soap bubble, the bottle, the bed in watertower, etc.. where ever he goes he is protected in a bubble home, he is magically kept in this safety bubble, the bubble of being the main character in a major motion picture, of being the focus for millions of children.) ... another trait of Fievel's is his amazing ability to run up a stream of falling debris to which he uses quite often to escape sticky situations.

The collective effort of the mice to build the Mouse of Minsk is wonderful and the final product is huge and beautifully grotesque and awesome. I love how it rolls out, bursting through the door of the boarded up "museum of the weird." There is something in this, how the solution to the cat problem lies in the pieces of this abandoned museum. How all sorts of knicknacks, falderall, and whatnotknots could be gumbo-ed together to create this Mouse of Minsk monster (an analogy / metaphor to the very real-life America itself.)

There are also some extremely funny moments in this film, like when Tony Toponi, (Fievels friend and escapee from the sewing sweatshop) first sees and falls head over heels in love with Bridget (our Irish rabble rouser). She is all soapbox-ish and politics and talking about getting rid of the cats, and Tony freezes stiff and falls off the roof... (this falling off the roof i have watched, re-wound and watch again about 10,000 times) i don't know why but it just cracks me up the way his body remains stiff and sort of just slides / pops off the roof, and then how he is trying to repeat "cats" when Bridget sees him and he is the only mouse who has not yet run away, she is happy that they at least have each other, and then these hippy flowers come out of nowhere and it's like a sixties love-in all of a sudden.

Also the underground imagery in the sewer is quite accurate and really beautiful. (accurate in the sense of feeling one gets when crawling through a storm drain, which is the equivalent to the film, since it was managing water) (A sewer manages human waste and waste water, while the storm drain system manages excess Weather water...).... just beautiful (yeah in that grimy sooty way)

Another fun moment is when Fievel thinks he hears his father playing his violin, but it is only a gramophone, in which he climbs into, and then when looking into the void gets sad again because he doesn't see his father, then the lady changes the recording which is now this SUDDEN LOUD American boisterous BIG BAND song POMPING great American pride which causes Fievel to fall down into the void of the Phonography and is spat out onto the music which speeds up and slows down (which is of course how Hip-Hop (turntablism) was invented)-(which is also a metaphor for the very real America, the "melting pot" or rather the mixing, scratching, rapping pot.) ... a great little scene, which exemplifies how the mice have to deal with the human environment as well. The mice are real to the humans in the movie, (they see them as real live mice, something to throw a shoe at) somehow us in the audience are different, we are able to see the world at their level, to be able to hear their story.

Overall a fun classic movie which has some important messages about collective power, what freedom is and means from an American perspective. An Adventuresome "musical" with wonderful songs (and sad songs.) A little piece of my childhood as a young American... "America, what a place!" 8/10

SPOILERS: I saw B&J around the time it came out. I remember going to the local record store and buying the sound track afterwards. I was 13/14 or so... when i was 11 i had just learned to juggle (and begin performing) so there can be some obvious connections made as to why I love this movie. I recently watched it again and took away some new feelings, while revisiting some old ones.

Depp is great in this movie, he plays his character half sane, half with-it. He is extremely soft spoken and communicates mostly through imitations of slapstick comedy routines, aping Chaplin, Keaton(Buster), among the more well known. In this way it comments on silent film. Though the film is a talkie, the love shared between Sam and Joon Pearl, is a silent yet deep one, cooked under the warmth of an iron.

The movie is also the dramatization of collage, thus invoking dada, surrealism, fluxus, and various 20th/21st century art movements / techniques. Playing cards for random house-hold items, and of course SAM's entire character and existence in this narrative, are case in point. As a performer, one learns how to cut, flip, spin, collage, and imitate (copy... think xerox)... Another movie in which this is also shown is FUNNY BONES 1995 (Jerry Lewis, Oliver Platt (Eric in B&J), and Lee Evans (who would be the equivalent of Johnny Depp's character). There are probably more, i need to think about it, but these are wonderful studies on performance, the role of the performer, as well as the lives behind these great entertainers. Yet, with Benny and Joon, what we get is as a somewhat melodramatic love story.

The movie is not a super amazing awesome film, but it deserves an 8 out of 10. As I remember the movie reminds me of a time in my life before I discovered the punk community, when I saw glimpses of an alternative / arty / different than mainstream world. This movie somehow fits into that era, at the moment when the word alternative went from being used accurately within a community to describe their artistic endeavours, to the present when "alternative" as been co-opted and is now the norm (to continue on this time-line... it also seems as if we are passing that moment into the now, which is a blending of the two the mainstream and marginalized communities to the point where the margin and mainstream are both accomplice... yadda yadda) anyway... You can imagine they were listening to Nirvana on the set, (there is something very Washington (state) Oregon-ish to the whole setting??) or maybe i am imagining things, either way the film is somehow born of the time.

With B&J you have a sappy love story, which is more or less the main plot, and on the other hand you have some wonderful examples of this trickster (joker) character of Depp's who just shows up in the movie and is a perfect match for our "matchless" Joon. It is also the story of Joon's brother and his ability to let go off his past (which involves the losing of his parents, after which he takes on the responsibility of caring for Joon.... could the death of their parents been a contributing factor to Joon's instability?) and move on to enjoying his own life and the life of Julianne Moore's character Ruthie. The end scene when Benny lays the flowers for her (them) in the doorway is especially sweet, as it shows us he is ready to move forward. ... not interrupting their "silent" moment.

Another wonderful tidbit, is that in the end, Sam is totally content and wants be Joon's partner, as opposed to Benny's dream for him of touring and performing for people. He is happiest being with Joon, she is his greatest audience. Our art-hero shines brightly in this small-town, in-love and living with Joon, working at the movie store, hanging with the fam.

(gratuitous star fawning) Oh the "woman customer" played by Lynette Walden is totally hot (in the most grunge rocker STP, Dinosaur Jr., Nirvana, Polvo way)!!! she could come back stage to my show anyday!!! amazing!!!

I saw WBBHH sometime in high school around the same time I first saw Roger and Me, and I saw them both within a year on PBS, so I sort of associate them together. Micheal Moore has gone on to obvious national and international fame while Billy Golfus and Dave Simpson it seems have stayed pretty underground. True, Mr. Moore had a 7 year head start. Anyway, this movie is the true story of radio DJ Billy Golfus who has a motorcycle accident, "Good thing I had my helmet in the trunk in case I needed it," and awakes from a coma to find himself partially paralyzed and with brain damage.

From here the documentary takes us on the road visiting various celebrities in the world of the mentally and physically challenge. A woman who is confined to a wheelchair and goes to dance practice and is a professional dancer, a man who lives in an iron lung but gets up each morning to use the internet and work on ways to make the world more accessible to the crippled. A woman who is mentally retard but drives a car and has only had one ticket in 7 years. And (my personal favorite) ... a group of people with disabilities who are fighting for their rights and we see them at a protest at the Illinois State Building in downtown Chicago, blocking the escalators so the businessmen can't get to their offices... While certain businessmen are yelling at them saying that they need to move because he can't get to work... and they are just laying there smiling .... case in point ... that that's exactly the point... people with disabilities aren't able to get to work... because of stairs, buildings without elevators... etc...

The movie has a protest / activist slant to it which I enjoy, and the people and movie as a whole makes some very powerful points about the way we live, what

can happen in a person's life, or our own lives and how we all deal with it....

This movie is perfect for almost anyone... most people probably wont want to deal with the issues the movie presents, but they are presented with humor, intelligence, and courage. ALso this movie would be of interest to people interested in civil liberties, activism, Special Education. people with disabilities, and their friends and allies, law makers, etc....

It is probably not the easiest movie to find but if you do you are in for a treat...