Guiltless Review: Raising Arizona

I saw Raising Arizona - AGAIN, with some friends last week. I remember one month in the late 80's this movie was on HBO like every night. I joked that it was on about 25 times and I watched about 24 of those showings (not too far from the truth).

Summary:
Reformed convict H.I. McDonough (Nicolas Cage) and his police officer wife Ed (Holly Hunter) steal a baby boy from a recently born litter of quintuplets because they can't have any of their own. A bounty is set on the baby's return by his father Nathan Arizona (Trey Wilson). This sets off a series of zany conversations and bizarre chase scenes. Of course the plot is completely secondary to the great music, over-the-top performances, and quotable dialogue.

Laughs: 9
I liked 'The Big Lebowski' and loved 'O Brother Where art Thou' but this is easily the Coen brothers' funniest movie. It is the rarest of comedy feats, a movie that stays funny after repeated viewings. There are scenes that become funnier the more you think about them. Like when escaped convicts Gail (John Goodman) and Evelle (William Forsythe) are shown listening to what sounds like a children's record in a drunken stupor admist about 30 empty beer cans. Sometimes its a running gag, like the opening montage where Hi repeatedly is caught for attempting to rob the same convenience store. I can't explain why its funny, it just is.

Investment: 9
This is where the Coen brothers' other films have run into problems for me. Sometimes their characters are just so stylized that they seem completely alien and its hard to be invested in them ('The Ladykillers' and 'Intolerable Cruelty' come to mind here). The characters in 'Raising Arizona' however, happily avoid this fate. These are not realistic performances, mind you, Hi, Ed, and the rest of the cast are often treated as cartoon characters. The opening montage, for example, is pure Wile E. Coyote. Yet somehow, I really empathized w Hi & Ed, a testament to a pair of brilliant performances.

Bizareness: 11
Off the charts. Randall 'Tex' Cobbs plays bounty hunter Leonard Smalls, who is just about the meanest, grimiest biker ever put on film. Leonard blows up small animals off the side of the road as a matter of course.

There's a chase scene involving heavily armed store clerks, cops, dogs, and bag of diapers that needs to be seen to be believed.

The music by Carter Burwell mixes bluegrass banjoes with gothic organs and is absolutley haunting (it will stay in your head for days, and in my case, years).

Even the extras speak in a quotable, hyper-stylized manner ("Which is it young feller, you want I should freeze? Or you want I should get down on the ground? If I freeze I can't very well drop, and if I drop, I'm a gonna be in motion").

Immersion: 10
Like most Coen brothers' films, Raising Arizona exists in a hyper-real alternate universe where everyone speaks snappy dialogue. However, none, of their movies (with the exception of 'O Brother') is as immersive as this.

A lot of this has to do with the pacing, the film is lilsted at 94 min long, but it feels more like 30. There are no wasted scenes. The dialogue itself is extremely efficient, much is accomplished with each scene. In addition, The characters all speak with thick accents, there is a real sense of locale that is transporting. I have a real hard time getting up during this movie.

Twists: 7
The plot is not unconventional, but the pacing really helps how much the twists drew me into this one.

Awe: 3
Some of the surreal dream sequences, paired with the unique music create some sense of awe.

Dread: 5
Randall 'Tex' Cobb is one scary mofo in this movie, while his character has something of a silly side, I was surprised how much I dreaded him by the end.

Final Word:
A classic, one of the only movies I can think of that is both surreally (is that a word?) immersive and laugh-out loud funny. Now I'm wondering why this still isn't in my DVD collection? Must rectify that soon . . .

Format changes

I'm still fiddling with changes to the guiltless format. What I've decided is not all categories are relevant to all movies. In addition, while watching a few things recently (mostly the entire run of 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer', I'm up to season 5 and it rocks!) I've thought of a few additional reasons I may like something. They are as follows:

Resonance:
Resonance is the degree to which something you've seen or heard sticks with you after its over. This may happen for any number of reasons such as a thoughtful quote or a disturbing image. The way I see it, if a movie or show causes resonance it's definitely worth something.

Immersion:
I've kind of taken part of the old 'spectacle' category and merged it into 'awe.' What I really wanted to get out 'spectacle' is now defined as immersion. Immersion is the sensation of being in the middle the events depicted on screen. This is done by pacing, music, realistic performances, and other things. A movie is immersive if you forget where you are for extended periods of time and reality is instead replaced by the on-screen experience.

Guiltless Review: War of the Worlds (2005)

Run away!

Summary:

Shiny new adaptation of War of the Worlds. Aliens invade and overpower our puny intellects with their superior firepower. Explosions and disentegrations ensue, lots of people running away . . .

Laughs: 0

Nothing funny going on here. That's kind of the point I suppose, but with an action fantasy such as this, having no laughs really hurts how much I care about the characters. Which leads us to . . .

Investment: 2

I don't get Tom Cruise. I mean I get why everyone thinks he's a loon nowadays, I just don't get why people found him so appealing in the first place. The thing is he's actually a good actor. His performance here isn't bad at all. It's just that the movie asks us to follow his adventure throughout the entire running time and the guy he's playing is kind of a jerk. Cruise as always does a good job of playing a jerk, but as a lead character he's a hard guy to get invested in. Speaking of which, I think Cruise would be much more interesting playing a flat-out bastard rather than these arrogant-but-heroic leads he usually gets. I'll even go as far to say that my favorite 2 Tom Cruise characters are when he played flat-out bastards in 'Interview with the Vampire' and 'Magnolia.'

Tears & Lumps: 0

One scene that was supposed to be dramatic featuring the parting of the ways between 2 main characters feels limp precisely because there was no investment from me.

Bizareness: 4

The weird red growth the aliens leave on the ground is icky cool.

Dread: 6

This score should really be higher and would've been had I found the characters more appealing and thus the danger more dread-inspiring. The alien tripods are pretty scary. Love the otherworldly foghorn sounds they make when they're about to let loose.

Twists: 6

Not much plot other than aliens appear and our main characters run away from them for 90 minutes. The end twist (which anyone who's read the book, heard the radio drama, or seen the 1953 film version will know)however, is a classic, and gets 6 points practically all by itself.

Awe/Spectacle: 8

The effects are top-notch. The tri-pods unlike many other effects depicting mechanical contraptions, look like they exist in the real world. I love how they are almost always seen in the distance with no artificial backlighting used to illuminate their every detail. For the most part we see them as the characters see them, they're huge and menacing, and it would be foolish to get close to them.

Thrills: 4

While the appearance of the tri-pods was indeed very effective, the action in the movie falls a bit short. Some of this has to do with the lack of investment in the characters. The encounters in this movie produced some awe, but were not particularly thrilling for me.

Final Word:

Watchable but not truly memorable except for the scenes featuring the Tri-pods.

Guiltless Review: The Family Stone

Oh my god! We ruined Christmas!

So I saw a movie during the Christmas break. With the family. With King Kong being deemed to intense for the 10 year old present and Narnia being deemed to childish for the adults who weren't me, we at last settled on 'The Family Stone.' Actually "we" didn't settle on anything, the decision was made and tickets purchased behind my back (and yes, the wife will pay for this). The review has something of a spoiler, but if you want my honest opinion, it'll have more laughs than the actual movie.

Summary:

New England family that the writers really wished were funny, quirky, or remotely interesting have a reunion for Christmas, hilarity ensues (oh, if only . . . .).

Laughs: 2

I laughed exactly twice, both during slapstick jokes that were not particularly well done. This movie is advertised as a comedy, draw your own conclusions.

Tears and Lumps: 0

As some of you may know, I've had my share of family tragedy this year. You'd think that a movie that tries its hardest to illicit tears through depicting a family tragedy would effect me more than this does. What I felt worse about was the sinking feeling that we could've been seeing King Kong.

Investment: -5

Heres where the movie falls apart. Being that this is an ensemble piece with few laughs and virtually no plot, it is absolutely essential that the characters be appealing. Yes they are pleasant enough, just not very memorable or entertaining. I'm not a huge fan of Diane Keaton, but I can understand her appeal. She's fine here, but there's just not much to her character. Dermot Mulroney has got to be the blandest leading man in the history of film, the fact that the movie follows his story closely is a huge minus. Sarah Jessica Parker is ok playing the jittery neurotic girlfriend. Nothing terribly wrong with the rest of the performances, its just that the characters and circumstances are so uncompelling that I did not get invested at all.

Twists: -10

Compounding the fact that the characters had me bored was the complete lack of anything interesting for them to do. From the moment Claire Danes' character was introduced, I knew exactly where this movie was headed. There were no twists worth anything for anyone who's seen at least 10 movies in their lifetime. Did I mention there's a tragedy? Just what I love seeing on Christmas.

Bizareness: 3

Here's where the movie scores highest, all due to one shot of topless Diane Keaton post-mastectomy (i.e. theres a scar there instead of boobie). Yes, it was repulsive and made me cringe, but it was also easily the biggest reaction the movie got from me.

Final Word:

The other guiltless categories don't really apply here. The least appealing film I've seen in quite some time. Only if you enjoy mind-numbing predictability with your feel-good Christmas tragedy.

Embracing normality

Holidays are over and I'm embracing that some or any semblance of normality will shortly return to my life. As part of my new definition of "normal" I'd like to post here more often, at least twice a week. Hope to hear from you all soon.

Happy Thanksgiving

Woohoo long weekend! I'll be adding new stuff now that my insane week is over and I have a few days to do it. One thing that will change is the guiltless format, I've watched some movies lately and thought of new things that make some of them fun so the format will be a little less rigid while remaining guiltless. Anyway, Happy Thanksgiving! Talk to you all soon.

Guiltless Review: Star Wars

Star Wars? But everyone likes Star Wars, right? Well it seems like that used to be the case, but lately the understandably negative reaction to the prequel trilogy has colored many people's opinions on the original films. I've had several friends who grew up loving Star Wars now talking about the original film as a flukey piece of camp that succeeded in spite of itself. That if we were to look back as adults with an 'objective' eye (whatever the hell that means, objectivity when discussing one's preferences is a bit of an oxymoron), we'd see the film much like we see the prequel trilogy: wooden, clumsy, overly concerned with selling toys to kids. Well, I've seen Star Wars fairly recently (although it was the special edition), and I'm happy to say it bares little resemblance to the profound mess found in much of the prequel trilogy. And now, the Guiltless Review:

Summary: Yeesh, there's something I say there's something a little bit 'Ewwww' about someone who's never seen Star Wars (Foghorn Leghorn rules)! Ok, 1977 Space Fantasy that along with 'Jaws' practically invented the summer blockbuster. Essentially the story of restless young farm boy Luke Skywalker who responds to a mysterious distress call from a distant world and finds his destiny in an intergalactic struggle between a heroic rebellion and an evil empire. Featuring heroes, villains, droids, wookies, space battles, lightsabre duels, Star Wars created spectacle the likes of which had never been seen at the time. So how's my reaction to it now?

1.) Laughs (6): Mostly provided by the sheer charisma of Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher in their iconic roles as Han Solo and Princess Leia. Some good stuff with the droids R2-D2 & C-3PO as well. Ford's smugness as Solo is the winner here ("You've never heard of the Millenium Falcon?" "What a wonderful smell you've discovered," ).

2.) Tears & Lumps (3): Exactly one scene was potentially sadness-inducing when one of the characters dies, however that character's continued existence in every other film in the series prevents any true tears.

3.) Awe (10): Ok, I'd be remiss if I didn't give it up to the man responsible for more feelings of awe than any other person in film history: the great John Williams. I have no idea how he does it, but the musical cues at 2 key moments in the film are for lack of better words - incredible, amazing, profound. When Luke stares at the twin suns of Tatooine, realizing he's doomed to life as a farm fresh egg boy and again when he lets go of his dependence on technology during the final space battle and embraces the use of the force; these scenes accompanied by the music just create chills.

4.) Thrills (8): The actual battle scenes in this movie pale in comparison to those found in the rest of the original trilogy with the exception of the final death star battle which is still brilliant.

5.) Dread (7): Darth Vader is a true cinematic badass in this movie. He combines supreme physical and mental power with a very short fuse, evidenced by his willingness to kill even allies who 'disturb' him.

6.) Investment (10): Here's where the film flies despite it's somewhat dated effects and action sequences. Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie, Obi-Wan are all likable protagonists, I have no problem whatsoever caring about what happens to these characters. Incidentally this is where the prequel films failed most miserably.

7.) Twists (5): Nothing terribly unexpected happens, not the point of the movie so it doesn't detract.

8.) Bizareness (7): Hard to gauge since everything is so familiar by now. Still the Jawas with their travelling droid junkyard, and the alien cantina with the obvious rubber masks are pretty weird.

9.) Spectacle (11): Off the charts; alien species, planets, technology, and religions are introduced throughout at a breakneck pace. By the time the music at final awards ceremony (which I incidentally marched to at my wedding) is blasted triumphantly from the speakers you're in a completely other world.

Final word: Not a fluke, not a hallucination, Star Wars is still a great movie.

The Guiltless Format

Ok I have a confession to make, I like to read movie reviews on the internet . . . lots of them. While there are a handful of reviewers I feel are informative and genuinely helpful in deciding what movies to watch (my favorite being MaryAnn Johanson at flickfilosopher.com), I have to say the majority are crap. The problem with most reviewers is they place themselves and their opinions above the movie going experience, as if they are an official arbiter of what a 'good' movie is. They feel a need to be 'objective' and 'journalistic' in their approach, meanwhile suppressing their actual reaction to a movie in favor of their estimation of what the general public will like. The resulting reviews are dull, scared, and trite. Sorry but I don't need a complete stranger to tell me what he or she thinks I will like. Just tell me if what you like and why, and I'll decide if I trust you.

Well as you've probably surmised by now, we here at Guiltless Pleasures © are all about honest responses to a piece of entertainment. I don't pretend to be anything other than a flawed human being with honest reactions to pretty lights and sounds. I have my own biases which will not coincide with everyone else's. However, do not fear that this will become the home of meandering word salads gushing about my favorite things, the scientist in me won't let that happen. Instead, my meandering will be tightly structured into the Guiltless Format.

So what's the guiltless format? Glad you asked. Another failing of mainstream movie critics is they spend most of their time talking about the filmakers: actors and directors mostly, but also cinematographers, composers, producers, writers, and so on. There's nothing wrong with giving great performers their due, but I've always looked at the people involved in the process as a means to an end. In the end, the purpose of a piece of entertainment is to elicit a reaction from those that see or hear it. When experiencing a movie and attempting to express my response to it, my first thought is always about how it made me feel rather than "so & so was great in it." Granted different types of movies aim to elicit different reactions from the audience, and likewise, I'll enjoy different movies for different reasons. While it's probably impossible to quantify how much I liked something, I'm gonna try anyway by rating things I see in each of 9 categories, nine reasons I may like or dislike something. Without further ado, the Guiltless Format:

1.) Laughs: This is the easiest to explain, but one of the hardest to elicit. Laughs make life good. If something I see makes me laugh, its worth something, period. Sense of humor is a very peculiar, personal thing, which is why its one of the hardest things for film reviewers to write about (and to predict from your own reaction to something) but I'm gonna try anyway.

2.) Tears & Lumps: In the throat, that is. Another one easy to explain. Movies that make you sad are worth something too. Granted, I'm less often in the mood to cry at something than to laugh, but it's still an honest reaction and something to consider when evaluating a work.

3.) Awe: Most often manifested as chills down your spine. A feeling of awe from movies is rare but the effect is devastating. If something makes me feel awe, I can almost never dislike it.

4.) Thrills: The adrenaline rush of the guiltless format. Thrills usually come from action scenes. Rarely are they good enough to elicit genuine thrills.

5.) Dread: It's a very worthy goal for a movie to elicit dread in my opinion. Like thrills, genuine dread is elusive and noteworthy.

6.) Investment: One of the harder categories to define; investment occurs when a movie successfully makes you feel for the characters and and universe that are presented. You can tell if your invested if you look forward to seeing what happens next. Usually to generate most of the other responses I've described, some investment is neccessary.

7.) Twists: Unexpected plot twists are hard to come by. When they happen they're typically welcome.

8.) Bizareness: Being weird usually doesn't hurt. The bizarre factor can make entertainment worthwhile even when other responses are lacking.

9.) Spectacle: Despite being overly relied on in the age of the blockbuster, sheer spectacle can still enhance a work when used properly (i.e. when it's not the only point).

For the most part these will be rated on a scale of 1-10, however, there will always be exceptions, some things just break the mold.

Looking forward to actually using this format.

Books too...

I know there are not many Jane Austen fans among you, but I'm going to post anyway to say that the Jane Austen Mysteries by Stephanie Barron are really fun if you are a fan. Yes, that's right, a mystery series with Jane Austen as the crime solving heroine. I am so many different kinds of dorky.

Right! What's this blog about then?

I don't believe in guilty pleasures in entertainment.

When I hear someone say "This movie is fun! It's stupid but its a guilty pleasure!" all it means to me is the person liked something they felt they shouldn't and feel guilty about admitting it. It's like they are apologizing for liking something. They don't want to own up to thinking something is good that they expect other people not to like. Why the guilt? I say if you like something, have the balls to say it without the copout of calling it a guilty pleasure. Say it loud!

There's a reason I own the DVDs of "Krull," "Dune," "Transformers the Movie," "The Black Hole," and many other movies even hardcore geeks will have trouble admitting they like. I like them, it's that simple. They do their job of putting a smile on my face for whatever reason (and I'll probably go into some of those reasons if I ever get a chance to write here with any consistency). I don't feel a need to defend my particular preferences to anyone (unless they ask of course, in which case I'll give 'em an earful). My tastes are my own, no matter how much social isolation and personal pain they've caused ('snif'). Dammit I need my pain! (more Star Trek references to come).

Anyway that's what this blog'll be about. Just me talking about what I like (and don't) be it good, bad, or ugly to other people. No guilty pleasures here.