Cap'n Howdy Presents: The 14 Best Films I saw in 2012 (Part One)

 Why fourteen? That's an excellent question, dear readers. It was actually going to be thirteen, but I forgot to include a movie in the "Middle" section and figured "oh, what the hell?" and decided to include it here. We can pretend there are fifteen if you'd like, and I'll just leave an open spot at the bottom for you to fill in with your favorite movie that I overlooked (for example: Life of Pi, The Grey, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Battleship...), but for now I'm cutting it off at fourteen.

 Because fourteen reviews, even in a smaller than normal for the Cap'n format, is going to mean a lot of digital real estate, I'll break this up for you into two parts. Trust me, your eyes will thank me.

 As you might have heard, this would have been here a week sooner had I not been privy to a movie that hadn't been released yet and accordingly put the Cap'n under embargo. As it shifted the entire dynamic of what I considered to be the "Best" of 2012, naturally I had to wait, and in the interim most of you have since seen it. So you don't have to wait to find out what it was (or don't want to guess), we'll start the list with that film.

 The list is in no particular order, because how the hell am I going to rank such disparate (but excellent) experiences against each other?

 Here are the first seven:

 Zero Dark Thirty - I'm going to sidestep all of the debate about the politics behind killing Bin Laden or the implied advocating of torture in Kathryn Bigelow's partly-fictionalized telling of real events because it doesn't matter in this sense: the noise surrounding the film does not, in and of itself, change the fact that Zero Dark Thirty is a riveting, intense, and compulsive "edge of your seat" experience for two and a half hours. I found myself getting dragged into the ancillary issues when talking to people who hadn't seen the film, mostly because once you have it's pretty clear that the concept of "advocating torture" or "enhanced interrogation" in the film itself is overstated.

 Zero Dark Thirty is, at its core, a procedural about obsession, personified by "Maya" (Jessica Chastain), a CIA operative who fixates on the notion of finding Bin Laden's courier and killing the leader of Al Qaeda. That's it. Other members of the team come and go - some live, some die, some come back, but Maya is relentless and single-minded in her quest to track down a man she isn't even sure exists and then "kill Bin Laden." Chastain is fantastic in the film, and if for nothing other than the scene near the end when she realizes what her myopic view on the "war on terror" cost her as a human being (we know almost nothing about Maya at the outset and learn very little over the course of the film) I firmly believe she deserves an Academy Award.

 As I said in the first paragraph, Zero Dark Thirty is an intense experience. From the opening, when we hear (but do not see) 9/11 from first responder phone calls and voice mails to the harrowing final thirty minutes - where we follow Seal Team Six (led by Joel Edgerton) into the compound - the film is gripping and relentless. Despite knowing what happened, I found myself wrapped up in the film and unable to divert attention during the raid, and that's just the capper to an already gripping film. It never feels inauthentic, even when you start recognizing actors like Jason Clarke, Mark Duplass, Harold Perrineau, James Gandolfini, Stephen Dillane, and John Barrowman (yes, Doctor Who fans, Captain Jack Harkness has a small role as the CIA Director's assistant).

 I didn't honestly think that Zero Dark Thirty was a movie that I wanted to see before it came out, but I have to admit that I'm glad I did watch it. It's an excellent companion piece to a movie on part two of this list, also based on CIA operations, and while that one has a little more humor and might be seen as more palatable to most audiences, if you have the stomach for a terse, unemotional thrill ride, you must see Zero Dark Thirty.

 The Avengers - Because of how long ago it was since I saw The Avengers, I tend to forget about it when talking to people about my favorite movies. That's a mistake, because there's a tact implication that I somehow don't think that The Avengers isn't quite an achievement and also immensely satisfying as a comic book movie. I'm not in love with qualifying it as a "comic book movie" as though it makes it "less than" normal movies, because with one or two exceptions, The Avengers was the most fun I had watching a movie this year.

 To be greater than the sum of your parts, especially when those parts included Iron Man, Thor, The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and... uh, Captain America (okay, I didn't love Captain America) is impressive in and of itself, but to take those films and create a narrative that feels like a natural continuation of each of the individual story lines (especially Thor) is really something. It feels like old hat congratulating Joss Whedon for finding a way to balance so many disparate elements (and it won't be the last time I do it in this recap), but I'll be damned if he didn't manage to avoid getting bogged down in back stories and interpersonal relationships and get straight to the point, delivering a cracking fun experience along the way.

 Does it all make sense? No, not really. It's easy to nitpick things like "I'm always angry" or laughable expository lines like "Loki! Brother of Thor!" but Whedon keeps the story moving along at a brisk pace for the first and last third of the film, only slowing down on the airship to let the superhero dynamics play out in the dysfunctional way only he could imagine. It's a long film that rarely feels long, punctuated with good action, great special effects, and big laughs (it took most audiences until the second time they saw the film to hear Hulk say "Puny god" because they were laughing so hard). For sheer popcorn entertainment value, The Avengers handily takes the prize over The Dark Knight Rises, and while I've seen both films more than once already, The Avengers will probably get the edge when I'm ready to watch one of them again.

 Lincoln - So I meant to put Lincoln at the top of the "Middle" after 21 Jump Street, and despite my misgivings about how Steven Spielberg chooses to end the film (take a guess), there's something I liked so much about this film that I'm actually comfortable putting it up among the very best.

 Picture in your mind "Steven Spielberg's Lincoln": life story, big speeches, struggles with the Civil War, internal debates about emancipation, and you know, ending how it's going to end. Now throw out almost all of that, because Spielberg and Tony Kushner instead took Doris Kearns Goodwin's book Team of Rivals and focused in on the month of January, 1865, as Lincoln is trying to effectively end the Civil War by cajoling Congress into passing the Thirteenth Amendment. Specifically, the House of Representatives. While there's more going on in the background of Lincoln (including a delegation of Confederate leaders preparing to negotiate peace and Robert Todd Lincoln's determination to serve for the Union army), the film is narrowly focused on passing the amendment that outlaws slavery.

 Does Spielberg sneak in the Gettysburg address? Kind of - the film begins with Abraham Lincoln talking to a few soldiers, two of whom nervously recite most of the address, but we never hear Daniel Day-Lewis say it. Instead of a "greatest hits" approach, the film is more interested in pursuing what Abraham Lincoln was willing to do in order to ensure that his "bending of the law" through war powers would become a permanent legal decree in the United States, and if that meant hiring men to grease the right palms, he wasn't wholly opposed to it. Lincoln asks William Seward (David Strathairn)  to hire a trio of unsavory types (played by Tim Blake Nelson, John Hawkes, and James Spader, who provide much of the comic relief in the film) to entice several members of the Democratic party (played by the likes of Walton Goggins and Michael Stuhlbarg) to vote for the amendment, one vigorously fought for by Abolitionist Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones).

 And that's the film - it's about the President's willingness to do what he has to do in order to pass what he firmly believes is right, even if it means politics making strange bedfellows. It's not at all what I expected from the film and to be quite honest was less reverential than I'd assumed it would be. Lincoln is portrayed as a man who wants desperately to do right, even if it means ending the war on his terms and not through more readily available means. Aside from the foolish decision to extend the ending beyond January of 1865 and unnecessarily jump forward three months, Lincoln is a refreshingly unexpected take on the historical biopic.

 It also has just about everybody in the movie. Okay, maybe I'm exaggerating a little bit, but not by much. When David Costabile (Gale from Breaking Bad) and Adam Driver (from Girls) are in the same movie, that's no small feat, but here are some of the recognizable names in Lincoln that I haven't already mentioned: Hal Holbrook, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Jackie Earle Haley, Bruce McGill, Sally Fields, Jared Harris, Lukas Haas, Lee Pace, David Oyelowo, and Dane DeHaan (from Chronicle and Lawless). That's Spielberg, I guess; he can get anybody for his movies.

 Killer Joe - This is a tough film to watch, but damn was I impressed by the end result. William Friedkin (The French Connection, The Exorcist) re-teamed with writer Tracy Letts (Bug) to adapt his stage play and it's a nasty slice of neo-noir the likes of which haven't been seen since Joel and Ethan Coen made Blood Simple.

 On the surface, it's a pretty basic film noir structure: a down on his luck loser, Chris Smith (Emile Hirsch), owes the wrong kind of people more money than he has, so he talks his old man Ansel (Thomas Hayden Church) into killing his mother (Ansel's ex-wife) to collect the life insurance that's in Dottie (Juno Temple) - Chris' sister's name. Since they don't want to be directly involved, Chris heard about this detective, Joe Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) who moonlights as a hitman. The only problem is that they don't have the money Joe demands up front, so the deal's off. But Cooper takes an interest in Dottie, and provided they put her up as a retainer, he'll do the job.

 There are some nasty twists and turns, involving Chris' unhealthy interest in his sister, Dottie's unpredictable social awkwardness, and Ansel's new wife Sharla (Gina Gershon), but the real treat of Killer Joe is watching McConaughey's titular character dance around this family, who are in way over their heads. It all comes to a head during a particularly brutal dinner scene near the end of the film, one that almost assuredly earned Killer Joe its NC-17 rating. I'll just say you'll never think of KFC the same way again. I won't pretend that this is a movie many of you will be able to handle, but if you like your neo-noir gritty and southern fried (i.e.: you really like Blood Simple), Killer Joe is essential viewing.

 Dredd 3D - I had no interest in Dredd whatsoever from the period it was announced to the point the press screenings started. Perhaps it was the memory of the Sylvester Stallone farce from 1995, or the uninspiring announcement of Karl Urban as Judge Dredd (sorry, but when you have Doom and Pathfinder on your resume, Star Trek and The Lord of the Rings get cancelled out), but I assumed it would be another low-rent, lame-o post-action comic book adaptation that would fade away into that good night. I couldn't have been more wrong.

 The first indication that Dredd was more than just a quick cash-in on a vaguely recognizable comic character were the surprisingly positive reviews from just about everywhere. Then I heard that Urban never took the helmet off, which sounds minor but is actually quite a significant indicator that the source material was being taken seriously. Coupled with a hard "R" rating for what turns out to be pretty graphic violence and a plot structure not unlike The Raid: Redemption, Dredd started to look like it could be a pretty damn good movie.

 Sure enough, it's better than pretty damn good. while limited in scope, the decision to focus on Dredd "training" potential Judge Anderson (Olivia Thirlby) and ending up under siege by drug manufacturer Ma-Ma (Lena Headey)'s gang operation in Peachtree Tower is exactly what this film needs. It's not an "end of the world" scenario or a super villain that our heroes have to contend with; it's just the bad luck of the call that Anderson decides to answer out of any number of crimes in progress in Mega City One. We're allowed to acclimate to the world of the film with our main characters in small doses, seeing Dredd and Ma-Ma through the eyes of Anderson, a rookie who can't pass her exams but who gets a shot because of her psychic abilities. And she makes the best of it, even when the decisions get tricky (like when she realizes the husband of a woman who helps them is a perp she killed in cold blood).

 The "Slow-Mo" drug that Ma-Ma is introducing to Mega City One gives us the opportunity for even more violent moments in an already excessively violent film, but it's a satisfying kind of excess. Dredd is the sort of action movie that understands sometimes it's best to strip away all of the subplots and gimmicks and just deliver on the goods. It does that, and not at the expense of anything. It's stripped down but not "no-frills". Just "no crap," and that turns out to make a big difference in the quality department.

 The Perks of Being a Wallflower - While it wasn't my intention to have this half of the list be movies I wasn't overly enthused about initially, Stephen Chbosky's adaptation of his novel wasn't high on my list of "to see"s late in 2012. While not having read the book was probably a factor, I was more turned off by the trailer, which seemed to be marketed to the same demographic that eats up The Hunger Games and Twilight. It's not that I don't understand that it has its purpose for that generation, but it's not my cup of tea. What I didn't know about The Perks of Being a Wallflower turned out to make all the difference.

 Rather than being a movie about what it's like to be a teenager in 2012, Perks is Chbosky's story of what it's like to be in high school in the mid-1990s. Appropriately, the story of Charlie (Logan Lerman) coincides almost exactly with when I was a freshman in high school, and the film immediately was more resonant. It's not that our experiences were the same (aside from having friends involved with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, they aren't at all), but it brought back memories of what it was like to be that age in that time. It's not just the "no cell phones or internet" or any of the other generational shifts between 1990 and 2012, but it was funny when Charlie, Patrick (Ezra Miller), and Sam (Emma Watson) hear David Bowie's "Heroes" while driving around and they don't know who it is. It takes them a year to find out, which isn't as outlandish as you might think for the time period.

 I can't say that I loved the sharp left turn the film takes in the final act (even if it slowly laid the groundwork over the course of the story), but Chbosky's self-adaptation stuck with me long after I finished the movie, and that counts for something in my book. The Perks of Being a Wallflower has the ability to make an emotional connection with the audience, one that overcomes any hiccups in the story structure. Also, I appreciate the inclusion of Paul Rudd and Tom Savini as teachers at Charlie's high school. The former I knew from the trailer, but the latter was quite a surprise, much like Melanie Lynskey's cameo that weighs heavily on the second half of the film.

Cosmopolis - I'll close this first list out with one of the two movies I've actually already reviewed. I watched David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis again not too long ago, and I think I like the film more, even as it aggressively works to keep you at arm's length. I totally understand why people would opt to put it on their "worst of" lists, and while I disagree, I don't dismiss the negative reactions. One has to work very hard to find the inherent value in Cosmopolis, and even then it always threatens to slip away from your grasp, to leave you adrift in a sea of seemingly pointless philosophical meandering, often for its own sake. So yeah, I can totally understand why it may not be worth the effort. I'm still working on what the extended effort on my part towards the film amounts to, but I feel like I'm getting there, and that the time spent in DeLillo's world as told by Cronenberg through Robert Pattinson is worthwhile. In the words of Radiohead, "I might be wrong," but it's a risk I'm willing to take.

Retro Review: The Terminal

 Today's Retro Review is a special request from Blogorium regular Cranpire, who asked me to write about "anything with Chi McBride." Specifically, he asked for Let's Go to Prison, but it's hard to write a movie where I look back at something I never saw the first time around. He also mentioned Baby Mama, which I did see, but that doesn't appear to have Chi McBride in it.

 So while refreshing my memory about what Chi McBride movies I have seen (answer: not many) on IMDB*, I remembered he was in The Frighteners, and as it's October that makes sense to take a look back at. But instead I'm going to write about Steven Spielberg's The Terminal.

 I don't remember much about The Terminal because I saw it on DVD seven or eight years ago and while it was pleasant I would not consider it to be of a "higher quality" Steven Spielberg joint. It's like mid-level Spielberg, somewhere between Hook and Always. Not as bad as 1941 but not in the same league as the much better movie he made before this, Catch Me If You Can. It's definitely not a movie that anybody's going to mention in Spielberg or Tom Hanks' obituary. Chi McBride's, maybe.

 So Chi McBride plays Mulroy, who if I remember correctly is one of the guys who works in the baggage claim / behind the scenes mechanic stuff with Diego Luna (Cas de Mi Padre) and who befriends Viktor Navorski (Hanks), the foreign guy trapped in the airport because the fictional country he comes from no longer exists and he therefore cannot leave the terminal and go to America or be sent home. Why this was a movie and not a sitcom, I'm not sure, but now that I've mentioned this fact we can look forward to it on ABC next fall.

 And yes, it's based on a true story about an Iranian who lived in a French airport for 17 years because somebody stole his passport, but that's not going to stop sitcom shenanigans. Tom Hanks is clearly playing eastern European in the movie, and people love eastern European stereotypes (see: Perfect Strangers).

 Honestly I can't remember what Chi McBride's story arc is, so I'm just going to assume he's involved in helping Viktor to woo Enrique (Luna)'s love interest, Dolores Torres (Zoe Saldana) by appealing to her love of Star Trek. I wonder if JJ Abrams saw The Terminal and thought "Huh. Well, that was okay, but I think I found my new Uhura for the Star Trek remake I'll direct in five years!" Stranger things have happened (see: The Terminal sitcom next fall on ABC). They are successful, or at least more successful than Viktor is at wooing Amelia (Catherine Zeta-Jones), which if I remember correctly doesn't pan out. Sometimes it's too much to ask for a stewardess (pardon me, flight attendant) to fall in love with a Krakozhian.

 Even back then I wondered why this movie needed to be two hours long, and as impressive as the terminal is (and it's a set) and the actors being fine and all, the script by Andrew Niccol (In Time) just doesn't need to be this long. I forgot I was supposed to care about the box of photos of jazz musicians that Viktor is carrying around (is that right? I'm just going to pretend it is and somebody can correct me in the comments) and it just felt like one of those contrivances to keep this movie from seeming as trivial and formulaic as it is.

 And it's not like I hated The Terminal, I just didn't think it was all that impressive. Catch Me If You Can, which has an as arguably gimmicky "true story" premise, manages to pack in more genuine emotion and unexpected twists and turns and while I didn't like Minority Report it looked like a different movie than Spielberg usually makes. Mind you, Munich pretty much removed any questions about whether the director was taking it easy during the mid-2000s, so The Terminal is just kind of there. It's a movie people don't mention much, but I bet Chi McBride doesn't mind putting it on his filmography. I mean, he's worked with Peter Jackson and Steven Spielberg. I mean, no offense Dominic Sena**, but their track records are a little better.

 


 * He was also in I, Robot, Undercover Brother, and a bunch of movies I never saw because they were Mercury Rising, Waiting..., Still Waiting..., Cradle 2 The Grave, Roll Bounce, Annapolis, and Revenge of the Nerds Part III.
** But in all seriousness, Mr. Sena, I did like Kalifornia a lot when I saw it in high school. Haven't seen it since but I bet it's still pretty good.

Quick Review: The Shark is Still Working - The Impact and Legacy of Jaws

 If you're the kind of person who reads about movies online (and I certainly hope you are, because otherwise you wouldn't be reading this), you've probably heard about The Shark is Still Working: The Impact and Legacy of Jaws. Chances are you heard about it a few years ago, wondered if and when you'd get a chance to see it, forgot about it, heard about it again, then forgot about it again, and then recently heard it was going to be an extra on the 37th Anniversary Blu-Ray Special Edition of Jaws: The Movie That Ruined Summer Movies Forever.

 Is that a fair characterization of Jaws? Not really, but since it comes up almost every time people mention the slow decline in quality of "Summer" movies, in large part because people get tired of talking about George Lucas and Star Wars, which was the other movie where marketing and promotion factored in as much if not more than the film itself. Of course, Jaws and Star Wars are both entertaining movies that make movies like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull and Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones look like the garbage they are. I chose those two films coincidentally, of course. If I had seen a Transformers film one could argue I should substitute that for either film listed above, but I haven't and won't.

 So before you badger me about getting off on a tangent about the relative quality of "Summer" movies today vs. 30+ years ago, it is worth noting that this exact argument figures into The Shark is Still Working. Not in great detail, because there isn't much in The Shark is Still Working that approaches the phrase "in great detail," but it is a fun and comprehensive overview of Jaws. And by comprehensive I mean that it covers nearly everything you might have ever wondered about Jaws.

  That includes a brief look into the making of (with some discussion of Laurent Bouzereau's The Making of Jaws), voice-over actor Percy Rodrigues' role in the trailer narration, Peter Benchley's book, the poster art, the locations used in the film then and now, the story behind the U.S.S. Indianapolis monologue, Steven Spielberg's reaction to not being nominated for Best Director, interviews with nearly every surviving cast member, crew member, and Universal pictures executives, Jaws Fest, memorabilia collectors, John Williams explaining the shark theme, a beach that uses the theme to warn swimmers to get out of the ocean, the film's impact world-wide, the marketing, what happened to The Orca (and The Orca 2), what happened to Bruce the Shark, how CGI would ruin Jaws, interviews with fans including Eli Roth, M. Night Shyamalan, Greg Nicotero, Tom Savini, Robert Rodriguez, Kevin Smith, and Bryan Singer, and tributes to Martha's Vineyard locals who appeared in the film (both living and deceased).

 This doesn't cover everything you see in The Shark is Still Working, which is narrated by the late Roy Scheider and features Steven Spielberg, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scheider prominently. It's quite impressive for a fan made documentary to manage to bring together nearly everyone involved in the film (especially since quite a few major subject are no longer with us) but I had the distinct impression that there was so much to cover but not enough time to give it all proper attention. As a result, The Shark is Still Working jumps around from subject to subject before viewers really have time to settle in on the significance of what's being discussed.

 Now, I'm not saying that The Shark is Still Working should be Never Sleep Again: the Elm Street Legacy. That's a four hour overview of the entire Nightmare on Elm Street series that covers nearly anything you can think of in detail. The Shark is Still Working is 101 minutes long and manages to cover many bases, and much of what director Erik Hollander and writer James Gelet find was new to me. I don't wish to diminish what The Shark is Still Working accomplishes, but my honest reaction was that it covers as much Jaws ephemera as humanly possible but generally speaking doesn't go into depth about most of it. It's a very entertaining documentary and has some fantastic interview subjects, and the footage of Spielberg watching the Academy Award Nominations is worth the price of admission alone. (Spielberg tries not to be upset that Jaws is nominated for Best Picture but not Best Director, and his faux-disappointment masks the face of a 27 year old genuinely feeling slighted for his efforts).

 Getting back to where my review begin, the concept of Jaws laying the groundwork for Summer Blockbusters (including the repeated statements of Smith, Roth, Singer, and Shyamalan that emulating Jaws' impact weighed heavily on their own careers) is in The Shark is Still Working. But like many other elements of the Impact and Legacy of Jaws that bear more investigation, it only touches on the issue. The Shark is Still Working may not end up as the "Be All, End All" documentary about Jaws, but it is a fine conversation starter. Considering that you get this and Bouzereau's The Making of Jaws as extras on the Blu-Ray for a movie you should be buying anyway, that's a pretty good way to see The Shark is Still Working after all these years.

Retro Review: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

 (editor's note: After last week's Retro Review for The Dark Knight Rises, the Cap'n realized there was a series of Blogorium posts from 2008 that never made the transition from our old stomping grounds to the new one. As a result, it seemed like a good idea to share some other reviews that had been otherwise "lost" over the past four years).

We've gone a long time without Indiana Jones having a new adventure. In the time between Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, we've had to make do with imitators like National Treasure, Sahara, and The Mummy. All of them were kind of cute, kind of stupid, but they weren't Indiana Jones movies.

What I'm here to tell you may not make you happy, but Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is also not quite and Indiana Jones movie. It's pretty close, but if you had a problem with the seemingly endless exposition of National Treasure, then this movie isn't going to sit well.

That being said, there's a LOT about Kingdom of the Crystal Skull I like. I was 100% on board with the movie for the first half of the film, and then something happened. Things shifted gears and it stopped being an Indiana Jones movie; instead, it felt like someone was trying to make an Indiana Jones movie and got about half of it right.

By now, I'm guessing most of you have or are seeing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. This is good, because I need to talk *SPOILERS* and they're the kind of spoilers that most of you clearly don't know about.

Without further ado, a fucking MASSIVE SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!! IF YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS MOVIE AND YOU DON'T WANT ME SPOILING IT FOR YOU, THEN NOW IS THE TIME TO DO SOMETHING ELSE. IF YOU'RE NOT REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT PLOT POINTS, PLEASE CONTINUE.
 
as I was saying, almost everyone at work and in front of the Grande last night did not know the following:

- The movie takes place in 1957
- Indiana Jones is fighting the Russians
- The Crystal Skull belongs to an alien
- Yes, there are aliens in the movie (plural, although one is a corpse)
- There is a UFO at the end of the movie (really)
- Various other random things like Shia LeBouf IS in fact playing Indiana Jones' son, and Marion IS the mother, and John Hurt is NOT Abner Ravenwood.

I don't like being one of those "laundry list" spoilers because it feels kind of like "ha ha! I've seen it and you haven't!" Early on into the preview screenings of Episode III people were posting bullshit reviews, but as soon as the actual reviews came flooding in, bloggers and internet critics all used the same phrase as "proof" that they actually saw Revenge of the Sith. It was that retarded "code" whatever that Palpatine uses to kill the Jedi. It was stupid then and things like that are stupid now.

BUT, when the nine of us that saw KOTCS last night were trying to explain how we felt about the movie, it was clear just how little everyone knew. I was "shush"'ed for saying the alien and the UFO at the end were stupid, because nobody knew what the movie was actually about. Hell, we didn't actually know, and I think I knew more about the film than anyone else did going in.

So for those of you that didn't leave, yes, the crystal skull belongs to an alien that makes up one of the thirteen aliens in El Dorado. Yes, the city of gold was created by aliens. This is actually not the stupid part, to be honest. This stuff was different, but far from too weird for Indiana Jones. I know a few people that didn't like the replacement of religious artifacts with sci-fi elements, but Indy does even say in the film "it depends on who your God is."

Just remember we're talking about the same series of films where the Wrath of God causes people to melt, and where Shankara stones can burn the hand of a Kali Priest. It's really not that outlandish.

In fact, as I said, the first part of the film is 100% on the level Indiana Jones adventure. Everything from the opening in Area 51 (that's where the Ark went, if you were wondering) to Jones surviving a nuclear test in a refrigirator and being blacklisted as a communist and having a pretty awesome motorcycle chase with Mutt (Shia) is just fine. I was totally into the movie.

Then they go to Peru, and there's this shift. First things seem okay, but Jones slowly becomes less and less involved in things. On several occasions he stands next to someone looking at a map or something carved into a wall and says "this means this, which can translate to this word, which can also mean this." then another character will say "just like the blah de blah" and Jones says "Good!"

As the film goes on, this happens more and more, until the heroes are wholly removed from the action. Not like "tied up while the Ark is opened", but like "stand there while the mystery solves itself and then repeat something they said ten minutes ago".

The second half of the film suffers from a more recent story problem that Steven Spielberg's been having: explain basic concepts over and over again so that even the dumbest person in the audience says "I KNOW ALREADY!". It plagued A.I., Minority Report, The Terminal, and War of the Worlds, and it's so bad in Kingdom of the Crystal Skull that I became detached, especially in the second half.

It wasn't the monkeys or the giant ants of the waterfall you could not possibly survive; no, these are all things I expect from an Indiana Jones film. Even the bad cgi couldn't derail me (whoever invented digital motion blur needs to go ahead and try again), because it was inevitable. The jungle chase was still okay with the fakery because just enough of it was still real. The constant referincing of other Indiana Jones movies and the terrible Marcus Brody "blowjob" joke didn't even bother me. The problem was all the damned explanations!

Everything that happens after Indy and Mutt leave the U.S. is like National Treasure. If they aren't directly involved in an action sequence, we have to listen to people talking about what this clue means or what that riddle means, and then they SAY WHAT THE ANSWER IS INSTEAD OF JUST DOING IT! Do you know when Indy says "The Shield is the second marker" in Last Crusade? Right after they open the Knight's coffin, not while they're in the library or in Elsa's suite. While they're doing what they need to be doing, and then they continue doing things.

National Treasure is so fucking long because every single time Nicholas Cage finds a clue, they spend another ten minutes talking about the clue. It gets so bad that John Voight even makes fun of the repetitiveness of the story in the movie! What makes Indiana Jones all the worse for this is that there are some genuinely great scenes in between all this unnecessary exposition.

When Indy sees Marion again, I can't even describe how awesome it is. That big grin on her face and the really goofy reaction he gives makes it seem like old times again. Even the bickering, most of which feels like Last Crusade, is honestly pretty amusing. I chuckled anyway. Apparently Raiders screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan had a hand in writing that scene, which may be why it works so well.

The scene in the quicksand with the snake shouldn't work, but Harrison Ford sells it so well that it does. When Indy and Marion and Mutt are in the truck, it feels like Indiana Jones again, and so does the ensuing chase. But all of this is punctuated with unnecessary "what this means" talk.

The alien at the end wouldn't be so fucking stupid if it had anything to do with what Indy and company were doing, but it isn't. They just leave and then hang around while Ray Winstone slowly dies like the henchmen early in The Mummy, and then they kind of mosey out of the flooding temple. Not run, mosey.

Meanwhile, Cate Blanchett is hanging out with the crystals statues that then bond together into this alien that sort of stands there while everything is sucked into "another dimension" (according to the suddenly lucid John Hurt), and then she kind of catches fire and then dissolves in a PG version of what happens to the vampires in Blade. Then the spaceship flies off into the "space between spaces", because apparently Spielberg, Lucas, and screenwriter David Koepp couldn't commit to them actually being from outer space.

I know I'm recapping, but it's leading to the point at which I totally lost hope that Kingdom of the Crystal Skull would ever be a real Indiana Jones movie: the last explanation. Harrison Ford seems to get stuck with most of the "howlers" of bad lines in this movie, but nothing takes the cake like "the Mayan word for gold is actually treasure, so they weren't talking about gold. What it really meant was that the treasure was knowledge."

At this point, David starting laughing so hard that many of us also cracked up. It was too much, even for an Indiana Jones movie. People who tell you that all the movies are this stupid might want to watch them again. As someone who studied the "worst" film in the series*, The Temple of Doom, I can tell you that the "fortune and glory" talk at the end is nowhere near as bad as what Jones says on that mountain. Not even close.

It probably sounds like I'm bagging on the movie, which makes me feel bad. I honestly enjoyed the movie. I certainly didn't hate it or think of it as a terrible film, just a silly one. It IS a silly movie, one that has some amazing parts and some really stop dead in your tracks awful parts. It sounds terrible to say I don't regret seeing it, because that makes it sound like Star Wars prequel talk, and this is wayyyy better than Episodes 1, 2, or 3. It just could've been better than it is, and that's kind of why I'm bummed.

So should you see it, now that I've told you most of what happens (I haven't actually. I left out some really cool moments in Peru and other incidental things in the beginning)?

Yeah, I think you'd enjoy it. Understand that this is not Raiders of the Lost Ark, and nothing ever will be again. Know that Harrison Ford brought his a-game and it shows in long stretches. Shia LeBouf? He's actually pretty good as Mutt, and he gets a couple of nice moments in the film. Cate Blanchett is pretty crazy in the movie, and when she has something to do, it's cool. She's awesome in the beginning of the film. Marion has a handful of great scenes. The action is still great, and Spielberg still knows how to film it in a way today's action directors can't.

Whatever you do, don't go in expecting the movie to suck. There are plenty of goofy, silly, and stupid things that happen that could easily pull you out. Take them in stride, and remember the dinner scene in Temple of Doom. Remember the seagulls in Last Crusade, or "no ticket!". Let it happen to you, and maybe you'll be all right.

If you want to see it, call me. If I'm not working, I'd be willing to watch it again. Like I said, the first hour is awesome!

* while it's really neither here nor there, Last Crusade is actually my least favorite. I've come to appreciate Temple of Doom for what it is.

Happy Crom Day to You!

 Interesting tidbit: thirty years ago today (May 14th), Conan the Barbarian opened in theatres (and, I can hope, Drive-Ins) across the country. The Cap'n was a little too young to see Conan the Barbarian (being three years and exactly one month old), so I missed out on that and the rest of the "Class of '82," what has become a semi-legendary year for geek cinema. That's how geeks characterize it now, because I don't remember it being a big point in pop culture during the 80s or 90s, but it's all good. Starting in 2007, when the "Class of '82" turned twenty five, retrospectives kicked in, and now we're at the thirty year mark, which is right around the age of people who pay attention to things like this. Like me.

 Well, that got away from where I wanted it to go. Anyway, so if you aren't in the mood to check it out, here are some of the movies released in 1982:

 The Boogens
 Annie
 Death Wish II
 Victor / Victoria
 Rocky 3
 Six Pack
 The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas
 Zapped!
 Yes, Giorgio
 Halloween III: Season of the Witch
 Tootsie
 Gandhi
 48 Hours
 The Verdict
 The Toy
 Dead Men Don't Wear Plaid
 One from the Heart
 Visiting Hours
 Airplane 2: The Sequel


 Wait... what do you mean "that's the wrong list"? What the hell is wrong with that list? I like those movies. Geeks like The Boogens, right? What do you mean "they haven't seen The Boogens?" That's not my problem! They love Rocky 3 and Death Wish II and 48 Hours! Hell, some of them will even defend the indefensible, like Zapped! and the misguided but I guess not unwatchable Halloween III...

 Okay, fine. It's true that the list above is an "alternate" list I compiled while I was trying to get the "canonized" releases right. Honestly, I'm standing by the assertion that about half of them still fit in just fine with the actual "Class of '82" which includes:

 Conan the Barbarian
 E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial
 Blade Runner
 John Carpenter's The Thing
 First Blood
 Das Boot
 Friday the 13th Part III (in 3D)
 Porky's
 Cat People
 The Sword and the Sorcerer
 Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
 Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior
 Poltergeist
 The Secret of Nimh
 Tron
 Pink Floyd: The Wall
 Fast Times at Ridgemont High
 Class of 1984
 The Beastmaster
 Eating Raoul
 Creepshow
 Q: The Winged Serpent
 The Last Unicorn
 The Dark Crystal

 I included movies like Das Boot and cult films like Eating Raoul and Q in this list because they're frequently mentioned, but like Halloween III I suppose they could go on either list. It's a shame more of you haven't seen The Boogens though...

 Now, that is an impressive lineup. It comprises the list of movies that many people my age watched on home video along with the likes of Ghostbusters, The Goonies, and Back to the Future all the way through adolescence. I can only imagine what it must have been like to see Conan the Barbarian one week and then to see The Road Warrior the next. To be old enough to really take in a summer filled with that many cherished entries into "geek" cinema is something I can only envy from afar. I wasn't old enough to even be cognizant that Ridley Scott was adapting Philip K. Dick and John Milius would set the bar for "sword and sorcery" films that hasn't ever really been matched in the 80s, 90s, or 21st century. And it was the second of three "sword and sorcery" films just that year!

 To wonder what the guy who made Halloween, The Fog, and Escape from New York was going to do with The Thing from Another World or how Paul Schrader was going to reinvent Cat People. Most of all, to see it with fresh eyes, in a world devoid of the internet and where cable television didn't have the range of coverage it does now. By the time I'd heard of most of these movies, it was through people who had already seen them or through movie guides. By the time I knew what Season of the Witch was, I had been warned that it didn't continue the Laurie Strode / Michael Meyers story and was therefore a "mistake." On the other hand, Blade Runner's failure and stature as something of a "cult" phenomenon allowed me to approach the 1992 "Director's Cut" with intrigue.

So looking back at the way these films were released, it's understandable how Tron, Blade Runner, and The Thing were all swept aside by the "summer of E.T." Steven Spielberg had a massive hit on his hands, and Scott's narrative-ly dense dystopia and Carpenter's misanthropic and nihilistic alien invasion film weren't exactly going to fit in with a friendly extra terrestrial eating Reese's Pieces. Tron? Well, it took twenty eight years for Disney to even consider making a sequel to its "world inside a computer" film, and it fared about as well. I happen to like Tron, partly because of its place in my childhood but also because as I grew up more of it made sense and it's really not a "one sitting" kind of movie. E.T., on the other hand, has a little something for everybody, and in one go-round.

 There are so many different things you could talk about here, like Star Trek II getting everything fans wanted right where The Motion Picture didn't (again, this is based mostly on what I understand, as I was introduced to Star Trek films through Wrath of Khan and not The Motion Picture) or the way that the otherwise formulaic sequel Friday the 13th Part III introduced the iconic image for the series (Jason's hockey mask) while also having just about every "point something at the camera" 3D gimmick you can think of. You had the first John Rambo film, Sylvester Stallone fighting Mr. T, the first Mad Max film most Americans had seen (and without dubbing), the movie that launched Arnold Schwarzenegger as an action star, two legendary comedies, and George Romero and Stephen King's homage to EC Comics.

 Okay, so I poked a little fun at the beginning, but it is clear why 1982 was such a rich year for revisiting. Most of those films were regulars at the Howdy household, at least during age-appropriate periods. Some of them were discoveries in high school and in college because of their release in proximity to the rise of home video. It was hard not to know they existed because whether I'd seen them or not, the box covers were at both video stores in town. Filling in the context came later, and being nostalgic for a period that I lived through but couldn't participate in after that. I get why so many geeks of my generation fixate on this particular year.

  But the real takeaway here - other than wishing Conan the Barbarian a happy 30th birthday / anniversary - is that you should see The Boogens. Seriously - it's a pretty good slasher movie with kinda goofy monsters but you don't see them until the very end. It's one of those under represented horror films that deserves its day. And if you're not the horror type - and honestly, if you're reading this blog I don't know how that's possible - there's always Six Pack. Kenny Rogers, Diane Lane, Anthony Michael Hall, Erin Gray, an RV full of orphans and a grizzled stock car racer. Or something like that. It clearly doesn't suck is what I'm saying here.

A Few Thoughts on the Academy Awards Nominations

 And we're off! Some of you might protest that "awards season" begins with The Golden Globes, but I don't watch the show and don't consider any stamp of approval that The Hollywood Foreign Press Association to be worth much of anything. The SAG Awards, the BAFTAs, the DGA, and something I'm sure I'm forgetting are worth looking into in passing, but the Cap'n actually only bothers watching one awards show - the Super Bowl of awards shows, The Academy Awards.

 Like the Super Bowl, it sometimes takes patience to slog through - it's an "insider"'s event, often testing the interest of casual viewers despite its continued effort to be "hip" or "edgy." The abject failure of last years Oscars telecast, one that temporarily set audiences against James Franco and politely look away from Anne Hathaway, is honestly just a continued step in the direction towards more streamlined, less bloated, but less entertaining programming. That the Academy turned back to 1990s standby Billy Crystal is an indication that they really don't understand why people hated last year's show (personally, I kinda liked it) - let's get that guy everybody liked from twenty years ago!

 That's not a slight against Billy Crystal, by the way - the best hosts are consummate showmen (and women) like Crystal, Bob Hope, Whoopi Goldberg, Steve Martin, Ellen Degeneres, and Hugh Jackman. All were involved in very entertaining Oscar shows. Jon Stewart was less successful, as were David Letterman and Chris Rock. But it's not all on the host - the elimination of nearly all of the "Best Songs" from the show was a bad idea, as was the skipping as quickly as possible through technical awards and last year's inexplicable decision to cut down the "major" awards (acting, directing, screenplay, editing, picture) to a bare minimum. In its place, shorter and less relevant montages, more inane scripted "banter" by presenters, and longer commercial breaks.

 Yikes. I didn't mean for this to get into Academy Awards bashing because, like the Super Bowl, I've been tuning in regularly for years now. I'm always hoping for something lively (the Hugh Jackman one, in particular, was a lot of fun to watch) but one can never tell. Sometimes the nominees can give us a clue of where it might be headed, so let's take a look at some of the categories, shall we?

 Disclaimer: Speculating on who will win or why is not my specialty any more. When I was younger, I pontificated endlessly about the logistics and politics of award shows, but at this point, I concede that I can't predict with any more accuracy than the average March Madness bracket pool in your office. That's where Neil comes in handy, so I might ask him to throw in his thoughts this weekend.


 Best Picture

 The Artist
 The Descendants
 The Help
  Hugo
  Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close
  Midnight in Paris
  War Horse
  Moneyball
  The Tree of Life

 Okay, so I haven't seen more than half of the nine nominees. I want to see Hugo, The Descendants, and Moneyball. I plan on seeing The Artist this weekend. I honestly have no interest in The Help and War Horse, and haven't heard a kind word about Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close until this announcement. And I read the book, so it was a shame to see it savaged by critics.

 Neil might be able to confirm this, but The Artist has the "hot hand" after the Golden Globes, so if it starts picking up wins, I guess that's the favored bet this year.

 Best Director

 Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
 Alexander Payne - The Descendants
 Martin Scorsese - Hugo
 Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life
 Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris

 Damn. That's a lineup, with only one name I don't recognize immediately. That name is also attached to The Artist, which is red hot.

 Best Original Screenplay

 Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
 Kristen Wiig & Annie Mumolo - Bridesmaids
 J.C. Chandor - Margin Call
 Woody Allen - Midnight in Paris
 Asghar Farhadi - A Separation

 It would be great to see Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo win for Bridesmaids, but there's that movie The Artist again... I'm sensing a trend here.

 Best Adapted Screenplay

 Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash - The Descendants
 John Logan - Hugo
 George Clooney, Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon - The Ides of March
 Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin (story by Stan Chervin) - Moneyball
 Bridget O'Connor & Peter Straughan - Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

  Ummmm... well, I've only seen Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. It had a great script and great acting...

 Best Animated Picture

 A Cat in Paris
 Chico and Rita
 Kung Fu Panda 2 
 Puss in Boots
 Rango

I brought this up because Pixar's Cars 2, a pretty much dismissed sequel, is shut out. In its place? Puss in Boots? Nothing against Kung Fu Panda 2, which I haven't seen, but I heard that it didn't quite live up to the first film's breath of fresh air. Even Rango, while critically well received, was frequently returned to a store I used to work at because its mostly adult themes were lost on kids. Adults didn't seem all that thrilled with its "Chinatown for kids" story, but I'm still interested. I can't speak for the first two films, but if one of them doesn't win, I guess Rango gets it.

 Best Cinematography

 Guillame Schiffman - The Artist
 Jeff Cronenweth - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
 Robert Richardson - Hugo
 Janusz Kaminski - War Horse
 Emmanuel Lubezki - The Tree of Life

 I think you know what I'd pick. You read the review. That said, there's The Artist again...

 Best Editing

 Anne Sophie-Bion and Michel Hazanavicius - The Artist
 Kevin Tent - The Descendants
 Kirk Baxter, Angus Wall - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
 Thelma Schoonmaker - Hugo
 Christopher Tellefsen - Moneyball

 Hrm. The Artist, anyone?

 I'm not going to say I'm surprised not to see Drive (too many confused people), Melancholia (too many people who hate Lars von Trier), The Guard (too Irish), or any of the other films on my best or near best of list. It seems that not being a blockbuster (or being a remake) derailed most of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo's attention. I'm a little boggled by some of the acting nominations, which I chose to leave out but are easy to find. This year, aside from the omnipresence of The Artist, I have no clue. None at all. I turn it over to Neil, sometime in the near future.

Fifteen Minute Movies: Adventures in Babysitting (Part One)

 Walking on a treadmill in short increments is going to provide a fun and hopefully continuing series for the Blogorium, one I'm going to call Fifteen Minute Movies. The length will eventually increase slowly but surely, but as it does, I'll generally be finished with one movie and starting another.

 You see, there's an old TV / VCR combo unit upstairs, and all of the surviving tapes that I didn't banish to storage purgatory are up there, including the original Star Wars trilogy, the Thin Man series, various Disney movies, and all sorts of films that my parents found interesting and *cough* made copies of. I mean, taped off of AMC. Yeah... that's the ticket. Back when AMC didn't have commercial breaks during movies - which actually was the case twenty years ago.

 Anyway, so today we'll look at the first fifteen minutes of Adventures in Babysitting, a movie I'd been orbiting around since finding $4.99 copies of the DVD at the place I worked at before the place I work at now (I was forbidden to mention it by name, mention it's logo with the star in it, or mention the giraffe by name, so why start giving it props now?). I never did pick up that DVD, but the tape sure was upstairs, and I haven't seen Adventures in Babysitting since high school (I'm pretty sure that's the last time I saw it all the way through). It seemed like a good place to start; I didn't remember many of the details but recall enjoying it at age 8.

 Also, since David Gordon Green is all-but-giving-it-the-same-name remaking the film as The Sitter with Jonah Hill, it seemed appropriate to watch the movie that's pretty much entirely based on, at least from the trailers I've seen.

 Here are a few tidbits I didn't remember / didn't know from the first fifteen minutes of Adventures in Babysitting (the only thing I did recognize immediately was Elisabeth Shue dancing and lip-synching to "And Then He Kissed Me" in what is now obviously an appropriation of Tom Cruise's "Old Time Rock 'n Roll" Risky Business scene).

 - I forgot that Chris Columbus (Mrs. Doubtfire, Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone) made his transition from writing for Steven Spielberg-produced films like Gremlins and The Goonies to directing with Adventures in Babysitting.

 - This is, by the way, a pre-Back to the Future part 2 Elisabeth Shue, but post-Karate Kid.

- On the other hand, the film was a post-Back to the Future for Maia Brewton (who appeared as one of Lorraine's younger sisters) before playing Thor-obsessed Sara Anderson, but pre-Parker Lewis Can't Lose, where she played Parker's sister Shelley.

 - Other casting notes during character introductions: Chris (Shue)'s boyfriend at the beginning of the film? The West Wing's Bradley Whitford. Brad Anderson (The Walton's Keith Coogan)'s best friend? Dazed and Confused (or Rent)'s Anthony Rapp. Chris's best friend Brenda? Carlito's Way's Penelope Ann Miller (or, if you prefer, Big Top Pee Wee's Penelope Ann Miller).

 Now, based on what I just looked up on IMDB, I could tell you who it was that played Thor in the movie, but that's a few more "Fifteen Minute"'s away. Let's just say it's a name you're recognize, and considering the other movie he was prominently featured in for 1987, you'd be surprised. But we'll get to that.

 So what else did I get in the first fifteen minutes of Adventures in Babysitting? Well, Columbus and writers David Simkins and Elizabeth Faucher efficiently set up why Chris Parker doesn't have a hot date, why Brenda prevents her from dodging babysitting the Anderson kids, that Brad has the hots for Chris, Darryl (Rapp) is kind of a pervert, and provides the impetus for the whole gang to head downtown. Not too shabby to include a song-and-dance scene and the credits. Well played, Columbus.

 Join us next time for more Fifteen Minute Movies, wherein I pick another section of Adventures in Babysitting to report back with!

Spoiler of the Day: Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

  Aliens (oh, I'm sorry Mr. Lucas, "extra-dimensional beings") have been waiting for someone to bring back the last crystal skull to their ship somewhere in the Amazon. When Indiana Jones, et al, return the skull, one of the "aliens" ceases to be a crystal skeleton (or something like that, I really don't remember), and the ship flies off. Our heroes sit down at the top of a mountain near where the ship was and Henry Jones, Jr. explains that the translation of "treasure" could also mean "knowledge," at which point everybody in the audience starts laughing.


 Tomorrow's Spoiler of the Day: Forgotten

Let the Blogorium Speak for Itself...?

 Hrm. The Cap'n doesn't really have a review today. I thought I might, but over the last two days I watched Halloween II with Rob Zombie's commentary track and the group commentary for Trick 'R Treat. I've toyed with the idea of doing write-ups of commentary tracks, as they seem to be the least accessed feature on nearly every DVD and Blu-Ray release. For some reason, it never seems as interesting to write about them as it does to listen to them. Appropriately, many directors, writers, producers, and actors feel like it's not as interesting to listen to them talk about a film when you can let the film speak for itself. Steven Spielberg doesn't record commentary tracks for just that reason, along with David Lynch and the Coen brothers*.

  Part of the appeal of a "Rogue Commentary Track" is that it would allow people who have a marginal history with the film, but who appreciate something about the film, to speak at length about what they take away from it without forcing people to pay anything. If it ever happens, that is. I certainly don't have the equipment to make that happen, but I do know a number of well versed cinephiles who could sit down and provide insightful and entertaining tracks for films that go underrepresented. It's the technical end that's hanging that idea up, and the scheduling; there's rarely time that everyone could get together.

 Well, let's try to make something out of this commentary-centric Saturday. Trick 'R Treat was fun to watch (virtually) with the director, editor, composer, producer, and storyboard artist, and I picked up a few more connective tidbits that I hadn't caught yet. The film really does reward multiple viewings, because it is packed with overlapping character moments. I honestly had no idea that Brian Cox wanted Mr. Kreeg to look like John Carpenter, but it's actually a clever nod that I can see during his segment.

 After listening to the Halloween II "Unrated Director's Cut" commentary, it's clear that two things dominated the making of the film: the decreasing budget / schedule and the editing. Zombie is clearly frustrated that a number of sequences were hampered by schedule cuts, including the Phantom Jam (which was supposed to take four days to shoot but was shortened to one night), and while he feels the film suffers from the shortcuts they had to take, he's reasonably satisfied with the director's cut.

 I'm happy that I found a copy of the Theatrical Cut (available in Canada, but I'm not sure if it is here in the US), because based on Zombie's description of what was cut, alterations made to existing footage, and his feelings about the changes, that unlike many "director's cuts," this is a radically different version of the film. Tonally the films sound quite different: the relationship between Laurie and Annie is less antagonistic, Michael's visions are more ambiguous, and the ending heads in a different direction. Zombie is happier with his cut of the film (available on Blu-Ray), but I think being able to watch both will be a valuable point of comparison. There's also a commentary on that DVD, and I wonder if it's also distinct from the director's cut, as it would be difficult to simply cut out many of the descriptions of what differs.

 All of this may seem irrelevant to many of you, as I understand that people really seem to hate Halloween II. As someone who really hated Halloween, I find it odd that people were less interested in seeing Zombie go off in his own direction with the sequel, and it makes me wonder what exactly it was that you all liked about the 2007 remake. Aside from the hospital dream sequence, Zombie makes no effort to stick to remake "rules," and while it may have problems, I think that Halloween II works as a sequel, and considering that the original Halloween II is a mess of sloppy plot points, needless coincidences, and stupid characters, I'm going to give the edge to Rob.

 Oh well. That seemed more interesting to write than it probably was to read for you. I'll see what I can do to rectify that in the coming days. I have found more than a dozen horror films from the 1980s that I've never heard of before that seem like they'll be fun to review. Until then...



* With the notable exception of The Man Who Wasn't There, which is a low-key affair featuring Joel, Ethan, and Billy Bob Thornton, where they impart a number of interesting details along with what may or may not be a whole bunch of trickery about the film. It depends on whether you trust the mercurial Coens or academics, who claim to have "figured them out" without actually knowing them.

Retro Review: The Goonies (on VHS)

Today's Retro Review is going to be a little bit different, in that I'll be reviewing the experience of watching The Goonies on VHS as much as (if not more than) the film itself. There are a handful of VCRs in the temporary headquarters for the Blogorium, and the Cap'n has been taking advantage of a large collection of cassette tapes I haven't played in years. For what it's worth, I do actually have a copy of The Goonies on Blu Ray, and it would be easy to review that, but in the spirit of this series, let's take a look at an analog version*.

The Goonies are a gang of kids that live in the "Goondocks," a neighborhood in Astoria, Oregon, consisting of Mikey Walsh (Sean Astin), his older brother Brand (Josh Brolin), "Mouth" (Corey Feldman), "Data" (Ke Huy Quan), and "Chunk" (Jeff Cohen), who are preparing for relocation as the neighborhood is scheduled to be demolished and replaced with a golf course. While digging through Mikey's attic, they discover a treasure map and doubloon that point to the long lost treasure of "One Eyed Willie" a pirate from the 17th century. The boys incapacitate Brand and head out, only to find the path to treasure is blocked by booby traps, and obstacles natural and man made. Brand catches up to the boys with Andy Carmichael (Keri Green) and Stef Steinbrenner (Martha Plimpton) in tow, but they aren't the only ones searching for "One Eyed Willie"'s treasure - the Fratelli family (Ann Ramsey, Joe Pantoliano, and Robert Davi) are in hot pursuit, having captured "Chunk" and locking him in with the Fratelli's youngest, the monster "Sloth" (John Matsuzak).

I've always been willing to overlook The Goonies many logic lapses (and there are plenty if you try to follow the story carefully) and simply enjoy Richard Donner, Chris Columbus, and Steven Spielberg's treasure hunt for its whirlwind pacing and ability to install a sense of awe in what could be just another "kids' movie." Donner, who had previously directed The Omen and Superman and would later make The Lethal Weapon series, is an underrated visual storyteller able to make otherwise inauspicious films imminently watchable.

I'm not sure quite how to dole out the credit between Columbus (who wrote the film and would go on to direct) and Spielberg (who came up with the story and was executive producer, part of the 1985 productions that included Back to the Future, Gremlins, and Young Sherlock Holmes) but I tend to defer to Donner for recurring jokes (like the inability of any of the characters to pronounce words, responding to corrections with "that's what I said!") and a moment that can either be read as intertextual or self-reflexive (when Sloth tears his shirt open, revealing the Superman logo, as John Williams cues the theme from Donner's film).

The VHS experience changes watching The Goonies considerably: Donner shot the film in "scope" (2.35:1), and the cropping is severe. It's one thing to describe the image shift, but here's an extra from the Die Hard DVD that will show you exactly what happens, and then I'll join you on the other side to apply this to the Goonies experience.



On a well worn VHS like the copy of The Goonies I watched, the frame is not only tighter on actors, and group scenes cropped in strange ways, but the tape had a slight fading of the image towards the middle, mixed with some distortion as the magnetic tape had degraded over time. The effect can be jarring in the era of widescreen TVs and anamorphic DVDs, but there's also a sense of nostalgia that accompanies watching a tape like this, one that won't exist for much longer.

Videocassettes were the only way to watch films when I was growing up (people born five years earlier didn't even have that); laserdiscs were too expensive and DVD didn't exist until I was in high school, so if you wanted to see a movie after it left theatres, you rented it at the local video store. Sometimes they sold used tapes, sometimes a friend might be able to make an "extra" copy if you were really lucky, but for the first ten years or so of VHS, the concept of "widescreen" didn't really exist. For people who didn't live on the west coast and have Z Channel, then movies were cropped to a 4X3 format, in order to fill up the screen of standard "square" TVs. It made sense, but it did for a very long time skew the perspective of a generation raised on VHS: every film, classic or new, fit inside the square box. Cognitively, many of us never made the connection that movie screens weren't the same size and something might be missing.

I was six when The Goonies opened, and I remember seeing the film and enjoying the kid friendly narrative with a decidedly un-kid friendly execution (Donner and Columbus display a barely hidden mean streak throughout the film, with a number of moments - like the blender and Chunk's hand or the "Truffle Shuffle" - that would never make a PG film today), and until the film was released on DVD more than fifteen years later, I'd only seen the film in its "pan and scan" iteration. There was a strange familiarity watching The Goonies on videocassette, and while I knew what was missing, the framing was conscientious enough never to disrupt Donner's visual storytelling, as it has on other films I've seen.

In all honesty, as a film geek / purist / whatever, I'm not going to suggest you hunt down a VCR and VHS copy of The Goonies - for one I already know the film is polarizing among people my age, as many people can't overlook the flaws in premise or the film's many "easy out" plot holes. Back to the Future is better constructed, Gremlins balances the light and dark elements with more flair, leaving only Young Sherlock Holmes as a film The Goonies is easily more defensible than. Like Tron, I do feel it holds up better than the "haze of nostalgia" that people assume I view childhood films in, but I freely admit that advocating for The Goonies can be an uphill battle. Watch it for yourself and decide - if you like The Monster Squad, I think it's a safe bet you'll understand why I like The Goonies.


* In the spirit of full disclosure, this is not the worn out copy of The Goonies I grew up with, but a clamshell version circa 2000/01. It still had some wear on it, so that's nice to see it was still being viewed.