I thought this film was good for its cinematography and its attempt to remind audiences about the evil of political witch hunts. Its release timing – during the era of Camp X-ray (oh, wait, we’re still there) – only adds meaning. But as pretty as the shots are, as authentic as the dialog may be, it is a lesson in hypocrisy.

Nowhere was this more evident than in a closing scene where the two protagonists lament that disgraced Senator Joseph McCarthy would keep his job while some of the journalists who fought him would lose theirs. The hypocrisy is this: These same characters spent the entire film complaining that McCarthy had overstepped his authority and trampled the rights of those he accused. Suddenly they wish the senate to do the same: to expel McCarthy against the will of his constituents who sent him to Washington.

This is still a film worth watching, but viewers should read some knowledgeable (if not entirely on-base) reviews as well.

I’ve fallen a ways behind on reviewing movies, but that’s because most of the ones I’ve seen recently have been… meh.

But last week we had a real treat with the trilingual film Merry Christmas. I won’t say much (so as not to spoil the plot), but it is the most effective antiwar film I have ever seen. While the standard pacifist fare tries to shock the viewer into opposing conflict, Merry Christmas warms their hearts by showing what soldiers have in common with their “enemies.”

It’s very effective (you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar), and it’s well worth watching.

This is the original version of one of our favorite movies (Move Over Darling), and it’s one of the rare times when the remake is better. Whoever took this 1940 Cary Grant flick and rewrote it for Doris Day in 1963 did a great job. They took the best parts (word-for-word) and reworked everything that could be improved – especially the ending. Having seen the 1963 version makes watching this original much, much harder.

Brooke loves the Pimpernel books, and I’ve always found the movie adaptations interesting. So, when the latest BBC miniseries version came across Netflix on-demand, we started watching them. While I appreciate the darker tone to this version, the fact that there is no real conclusion in the three tales rubbed me the wrong way. The first two episodes are worth watching, but the third (“A King’s Ransom”) was blah.

I see that there are three more episodes. If they get on Netflix, I may have to check them out.

This is a very well made movie with a lot of heart, usually. The cinematography is moving at times – flat at others. The characters are clichés, but complex clichés. It’s a touching tale that would have been more with less depth. Let me explain.

Phoebe appears, as do so many children in the movies, as the only sane person in her school. Squished between the popular (i.e. mean) kids and teachers who only care about rules, she finds trouble at every turn. (Or does trouble find her?) As the story progresses, Phoebe’s interactions and inconsistent behavior force the viewer to consider whether there might be something really wrong with the child. Voices on both sides of the debate (and plenty in the middle) don’t make the situations any clearer until the (rather disappointing) conclusion.

It’s somewhere in the middle that this film lost me. It seemed to be making contradictory statements. For example: 1) Adults (and the other children) should be permissive of Phoebe’s actions because she can’t control her outbursts. 2) Several characters have similar outbursts to show that everyone shares a certain degree of Phoebe’s condition.

The problem is that when “everybody else” makes one of these mistakes, they are expected to take responsibility for it, while we are expected to understand and pity Phoebe when she does likewise. You might say that this is reasonable because Phoebe’s condition warrants special considerations, but then she’s not like the rest of the characters and Point 2 is false.

Perhaps the screenwriter wanted to bring these contradictions to the surface – to ask questions rather than make statements. But other contradictions are specifically noted (primarily in Phoebe’s mother’s monologue), which hints that these others went unnoticed.

(I could write another paragraph on the inconsistency of a drama teacher who wants the students to be in charge, but constantly corrects the students’ performances.)

But there are very thoughtful connections made when Phoebe’s is off-screen. Her mother’s interactions with… well, just about everyone… shows how adults can talk and listen without understanding anything. Her sister’s perspicuous lines are a wonderful reminder that not all special children have problems – we just disproportionately distribute our attention to the ones with the problems.

This movie could have been a great shallow-but-meaningful survey of one young child’s experience with being different. The problems only arise when it tries to dive to depth where the salient issues cannot be resolved in 90 minutes. So it is just a good film.

I haven’t had time to write up most of the movies we’ve watched, but here’s a quick rundown.

Better off dead
This wasn’t as funny as I remembered it. Granted, I had never actually watched the whole thing in one sitting, so I had never noticed the boring and/or whacked-out parts. But I have a new appreciation for the geometry class sequence.

The Omega Man
I’ll write more about this later. I thought it was the first attempt to turn “I am Legend” into a movie, but I just found out that Vincent Price starred in one call The Last Man on Earth. So, once I’ve watched that and the Will Smith version, I’ll write something up.

Julie & Julia
This was the first movie in a long time that had Brooke and me laughing at the same time. It kind of dies in the end, but then, so do most real-life stories. It’s very much worth watching, especially for those of you who appreciate French food.

Fletch
Why can’t more comedies have well-written stories like this (and So I Married an Axe Murderer)? All you need to know is that it includes the line “Well, Utah’s not exactly a cure for boredom.”

(500) days of summer
This movie showed me why non-sequential storytelling isn’t used more often: It’s really hard to get it right. Also, are there really adults in this world who act like they’re still in high school? We mocked Uncle Rico for that, why is it OK for other people?

Monsters vs. Aliens
This joined the ranks of most Adam Sandler movies: I didn’t think it was funny at all. Brooke pointed out that many of their gags would have been funny with live action, which I think is yet another distinction between Dreamworks and Pixar. Pixar understands the medium because, well, they invented it.

Princess and the Frog
Brooke and the kids liked it, I didn’t see it.

The Proposal
Brooke liked it so much she wants me to watch it with her. Um, let’s find something else…

Invincible
Not as good as The Rookie, but the same basic premise. It has an added dimension of the economic difficulties at the end of the industrial era – points that may resonate today. Unfortunately, people no longer gaze starry-eyed at professional athletes (or is that just me?), so the biggest contribution of this movie may be nostalgia.

Move Over Darling
I love this movie. Doris Day plays a woman who is presumed dead. The day her husband remarries she reappears quite alive. Complications and hilarity ensue. It has the best “You don’t love me… You do love me!” man/woman conversations.

Last week was odd for our movies. I chose a comedy (the classic Chevy Chase/Dan Aykroyd Spies Like Us), while Brooke went for something more thoughtful. No Reservations is a remake of the German/Italian Bella Martha, and almost replicates the feel of a decent European flick. There are notable issues (like the music having to play through every scene) and it seems to drag on more than French films of comparable-length, but it was an OK movie.

One personal pet peeve I had was the apparition of Abigail Breslin who, though I’m sure is a delightful kid, tends to play parts that annoy the heck out of me. It’s just that her lines usually project not how kids are, but how Hollywood thinks they should be: Uber mature. This is more apparent in Definitely Maybe, but you could still see it here. Again, I think she can act – she did a great normal-kid role in Raising Helen – but someone needs to write her more realistic parts. And, speaking of Raising Helen, how many roles will she wind up playing where her mother dies in a car accident?

Anyway, No Reservations is an OK movie if you’re bored.

Netflix has opened my eyes: There are French films with happy endings. How disappointing. I only liked this movie, but Brooke loved it. And who could blame her?

Despite the potty humor of the young boys at Fond d’étang reform school, the music is captivating, and the story is interesting enough to keep most adults’ attention. There is a fair amount of symbolism and presentism (looking back, poking fun at how stupid we used to be), and the acting is very good. The photography is between good-for-an-American and mediocre-for-the-French, but didn’t distract too much.

I dunno’; after this feel-good story, I might have to go on a Goddard trip to get my bearings on francophone cinema.

PS – You all need to email Brooke and tell her to start posting her point-of-view on these movies.

This one’s available to watch online from Netflix. It’s actually an OK movie with some good points, but its incoherent moments belie its low budget. So, here are ten things I learned…

1. Rugby is a game of shaky camera work, grunting, and running into each other… played with 15 to a side.
2. There are positions called “hook” and “wing” in rugby, and, it seems, “wings” just score.
3. The “hook” can score the winning touchdown – so long as the plot has built sufficient tension.
4. Rugby teams have “plays,” but they never practice them.
5. No one involved in rugby has a healthy relationship with their father: not the rummy/druggy star whose father just wants to win, not the wing who cheats in school to live up to his dad’s expectations, not even the inspiring coach whose daddy never had time for him. At one point it’s even used as a joke.
6. Even Satan himself would eventually tire of dirty hits… but only after one knocks out his son.
7. If I give up drugs, alcohol, and sex, my old friends will beat me up.
8. Samwise Gamgee now works at a juvi in Utah.
9. Brooke’s Springville High School has been transplanted to Flagstaff, Arizona (just like the Lehi Roller Mills used to be in Beaumont, Texas, and East High is now in Albuquerque, New Mexico).
10. Video color correction has become so cheap that even low-budget movies can afford to overuse it.

And a bonus one: The entire Utah D-list of media personalities can still find work. Brooke and I kept saying, “Look, it’s so-and-so from channel…” I finally asked when there would be a Jimmy Chunga sighting. He turned out the be the play-by-play guy at the national tournament.

PS – I looked it up, and I couldn’t find any info on a rugby position called “hook.” There is one called “hooker” though. I wonder if “hook” is just the American name or if they changed it so as not to offend the audience.

This is a little-known movie about a single mom who moves with her son from Palestine to Indiana. While their imaginations shimmer with the thought of a Land of Opportunity, the reality of politics slaps them in the face. Did I mention they arrive on the eve of the Iraq War?

This movie makes several good points, but none of them very well. It builds to encounters, and then rushes through them and on to the next sequence. The one or two moments worth remembering at the rare times where the pace slows enough to appreciate what is happening. Unfortunately, those are also the more opaque connections that require more than a glancing familiarity with the Middle East, its customs, and its language.

I thought it was very much worth watching – especially for all my friends who ytikelmu arabii akbar minii.