"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Goya's Ghosts

The movie is called “Goya’s Ghosts” – was I COMPLETELY wrong to expect the flick to actually focus on famous Spanish painter Francisco Goya. (Or at least the bean guy?)

Goya is merely a supporting player in the movie that bears his name (mostly wasting a lively performance by Stellan Skarsgard as the painter). Instead, the focus is on one of the artist’s muses (played by Natalie Portman) who is labeled a heretic, and a client of Goya’s (played by Javier Bardem) who also happens to be a prominent monk during the Spanish Inquisition.

Then again, the fact that this isn’t a Goya biopic is not all bad (it’s not like I was DYING to see a Francisco Goya biopic).

Director Milos Forman’s drama looks great and certainly deals with a compelling topic (maybe it’s just me, but I don’t think we’ve gotten THE great movie about the Spanish Inquisition) while finding a way to make it relevant to today’s audiences. In fact, the scene that addresses whether or not a confession acquired through torture is valid was probably a little too on-the-nose.

Unfortunately, the movie is also plagued by a general chintziness that should NOT be associated with the guy who made “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest” and “Amadeus.”

Bardem, for example, gives a solid performance as the complex, charismatic Lorenzo. However, I spent about 60% of his time onscreen wondering why a director would hire Bardem (probably Spain’s greatest actor) to play a Spanish character only to have him speak in heavily-accented English. Yes, I know the rest of the movie is in English, but English is CLEARLY not Bardem’s first language and he probably would’ve been more comfortable acting in Spanish. Hiring Javier Bardem to play a Spanish character while forcing him to speak English is kind of like buying a Porsche, but only using it to drive your kid to baseball practice - it’s kind of a waste.

At least Bardem came out ahead of Natalie Portman. Portman is effective during the scenes in which her character is brutally interrogated. However, she definitely falls into that American actor trap where they use the same vaguely European accent no matter where in Europe the character is supposed to be from (Angelina Jolie in “Alexander” is in this Hall of Fame). Later, Portman is asked to wear borderline-embarrassing old age makeup. Even more questionably, she plays a second role, turning up as her own character’s daughter. Let’s pause a second to get Erica’s reaction:

“That’s retarded.” – Erica.

I agree 100%.

Though the movie boasts some interesting characters (even the bad guys get a shot at being somewhat sympathetic) and “interesting” performances, “Goya’s Ghosts” ends up being a fine-looking wasted opportunity. The good news is that the great defining Spanish Inquisition movie is yet to be made, in case anybody’s interested in making a movie that’s not a remake, sequel or an adaptation of an old TV show.

Goya’s Ghosts…C+

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Mansfield Park

After a brief detour to the Land of Super Indulgent Al Pacino Flicks, and the World of Gay Interracial "Dramas" Possibly Directed by Student Filmmakers, we’re now back to reviewing movies people have actually heard of.

Or not.

Though "Mansfield Park" is based on the Jane Austen novel of the same name, I don’t think it’s a stretch to say it’s the one feature film adaptation of an Austen work from the past decade and a half that ended up getting lost in the shuffle. That may or may not be due to the lack of a BOLD FACE name like Emma Thompson, Kate Winslet, Gwyneth Paltrow or Keira Knightley in the lead role.

Maybe the hope was that Frances O’Connor could join some of the names in the previous paragraph without anybody thinking it was a game of "One of These Things is Not Like the Other." Based on her work in this movie, I think she came closer than people realize - if they’d bothered to see the movie.

O’Connor plays Fanny Price who, at 10 years old, is unexpectedly shipped from the poverty of her parents' house (we know they’re poor because there’s a ginormous cockroach moving around the house) to live at Mansfield Park, the estate of her aunt’s husband, Sir Thomas Bertram (Harold Pinter). Apparently, O’Connor also plays a version of Jane Austen, as she recites passages from the author’s "Juvenilia" in letters to Fanny’s younger sister.

One of the problems with the early portion of the movie is that, before I checked this movie’s IMDb page, I had no idea that’s what had actually happened. At first, I gave writer-director Patricia Rozema the benefit of the doubt and assumed that the movie’s jumbled first 20 minutes were meant to convey Fanny’s disorientation at being ripped away from her home and placed in a somewhat hostile environment. Eventually, I decided the movie’s opening was just flat-out rushed and not good.

Fortunately, things settle in after that. Fanny grows into a young woman at "Mansfield Park" alongside Sir Thomas Bertram’s children, including soft-spoken Edmund (Jonny Lee Miller), who becomes her pal, confidante and nothing more. Eventually, Henry and Mary Crawford (Alessandro Nivola, Embeth Davidtz), a pair of well-to-do and vaguely incestuous siblings arrive and create a bunch of romantic entanglements.

Now, I’ve never read the book (which this movie apparently butchers), but even if I had, I doubt I would care. I’ve always felt like a movie should be able to stand alone as an individual work in its own medium.

In my opinion, this movie stands alone pretty well. I think all the performances, led by O’Connor and Miller’s subtle work, were very strong. Nivola and Davidtz probably have the showier roles and deliver suitably charismatic (but not over-the-top) performances. Also impressive is Pinter, best known as one of the U.K.’s greatest playwrights, who delivers a VERY strong performance as Thomas Bertram.

Each character is given his or her flaws and his or her virtues, which I always appreciate. I get irritated whenever the choice of who a movie character should end up with is painfully obvious. Fanny’s choice is presented in a patient and even-handed way, which actually made me get more invested in the character.

In fact, this movie’s relative subtlety (and the understatement in O’Connor’s performance) is probably the reason why it never caught on like the other Austen adaptations.

It could also be that the movie’s far from perfect. Rozema also makes several decisions (having the characters freeze ala a Zack Morris "timeout" in the middle of a scene, Mary Crawford’s random flashes of lesbianism, more overt incest-iness from Sir Thomas, and an underdeveloped and heavy-handed subplot involving slavery) that come off as more odd than interesting.

Overall, no matter how much Rozema changed from the book, Austen’s story and her familiar themes (including social status and gender roles) can never be completely deleted and are well-played by a solid cast of actors in this good-looking movie.

Mansfield Park...B+

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: The Reception

Out of all the movies we’ve watched so far, this is the one that truly made me exclaim “WHY, ERICA, WHY?!” (all caps) when Erica brought it home.

I mean, look at the DVD cover (pictured, right). The pull-out quote promises “a unique and seductive drama”, but I couldn’t help but think, “porn” (and that the library is a LOT edgier than I thought). I don’t know why, but I also remember thinking the two guys looked like they were gay. (It was probably the fact that they agreed to appear huddled together and shirtless on a DVD cover with smoldering looks on their faces.)

And I was right — well about the gay part, not necessarily the porn.

“The Reception” is a 2005 drama starring a bunch of people no one’s ever heard of. It examines the relationship between a middle-aged Frenchwoman named Jeanette (played by Emma Thompson lookalike Pamela Stewart) and Martin (Wayne Lamont Sims), whom she shares a home with in upstate New York. During a snowy winter, Jeanette’s estranged daughter Sierra (Margaret Burkwith) shows up with her new husband Andrew (Darien Sills-Evans). See, I told you you’d never heard of these actors.

Things quickly unravel over the next few wine-soaked, argument-filled days. I’m not going to say anymore because I don’t want to give anything in the movie (that you’ll probably never, EVER watch) away.

So what CAN I say about this movie? I can probably mention that the acting, writing and direction (by John G. Young) was so questionable and amateurish during the first 15 minutes that Erica turned to me and seriously asked me if this was a student movie. She also asked more than once if we HAD to watch the whole thing. (That’s bad, right?) Those first 15 minutes are also a little confusing given the way the characters (and their relationships to each other) are hurriedly and inadequately introduced.

However, if you stick with the movie past those first 15 or so minutes, things get considerably better. Stewart is especially good as a woman who seems terrified of being alone, but continually pushes away those close to her.

Sims and Evans give some questionable line readings at times, but end up being adequate-to-solid in their performances overall. More importantly, they’re good and believable together. Burkwith, on the other hand, is mostly flat-out bad.

I also like that we weren’t seeing the typical types of characters on screen. Not only is it refreshing to see African Americans leads in a drama for adults (and away from the simplistic Tyler Perry umbrella) that also features white actors in prominent roles but it’s always good see a gay black man portrayed as something other than the tired “sassy, gay best friend” role. (Erica and I can also thank this movie for bringing the first soft-core gay sex scene into our lives. Ah memories)

Of course, the movie just can’t shake that “I got some buddies together and shot a movie in my friend’s vacation house for my senior project” vibe. In the end, it turns out being a better bad movie than I expected, and it’s certainly the best interracial, gay drama (?) I’ve seen this year. (Pull THAT quote out and use it on the DVD!)

The Reception…C

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: The Local Stigmatic

So about five years ago, Erica and I went to a T.G.I. Fridays in Gainesville for a dinner date and we decided that we were going to speak in British accents the entire time.

We didn’t plan it. We didn’t say to each other, "Hey, wouldn’t it be funny if we pretended like we were British tonight." We just randomly started doing it while we were waiting for our table. We even gave ourselves different, British-sounding (to us) names - I was Alistair and she was Moira. We actually kept it up through the entire date. (Well, almost: when the waitress came by to take our order, we chickened out at the exact same time and used our regular accents.)

Why am I sharing this odd and potentially-embarrassing anecdote to kick off my review of "The Local Stigmatic", the latest movie in the "Why, Erica,Why" Summer Movie Library Series? Because the movie also features misguided British accents and can be described as odd and potentially-embarrassing.

You see, our little English trip (or is it "holiday"?) to T.G.I. Fridays is hilarious to me and Erica and something that we’ll likely never forget. However, if somebody else had been watching us, the whole thing would’ve been indulgent, confusing and too insider-y. It’d be like watching "The Local Stigmatic."

The movie is based on a play by Heathcoate Williams. It’s a glimpse into the life of two disturbed, co-dependent individuals in England. Graham (Al Pacino) is a dog-racing enthusiast and talks a hell of a lot more than his lumbering companion Ray (Paul Guilfoyle of "CSI"). Together, they have confusing, loaded debates and decide they’re going to beat up a famous film actor (played by Joseph Maher) just because.

Pacino co-directed the movie with David F. Wheeler and his zest for the material is obvious and infectious (more on this in a bit). In fact, I’d probably argue that he’s probably a little too enthusiastic about the source play.

In casting himself as one of the two leads, he hijacks the material of much of its impact from the very second he opens his mouth. Besides how incredibly jarring it is to hear Pacino do a cockney accent (and it’s like a smack in the face), his very presence sort of undercuts what the story has to say about fame. It’s not even that his accent is that terrible (though it’s a little bad) - it’s more that Pacino is WAY too famous to pull it off. The entire time I’m thinking, "What is Al Pacino DOING?" "Is this a worse accent than Dick Van Dyke in "Chitty, Chitty, Bang, Bang?" "Hmm, I’m actually starting to get used to...oh wait, that was bad!" Notice that none of these thoughts have anything to do with what’s going on in the movie.

At least Pacino commits to his hot mess of a cockney accent. Guilfoyle’s is more passive (or you can say "understated" if you want to be nice), seeming to flit in and out during certain instances.

I’m not suggesting that Americanizing it would’ve been the way to go. Instead, if Pacino wanted to turn this play into an experimental film, I think he would’ve been better served using unknown actors.

Then again, what the two characters say is often cryptic, repetitive and seemingly inconsequential, so I didn’t really feel like I was missing out on much. I believe this is the first time in the history of the world that a 56-minute movie has felt tortuously overlong.

Thank goodness for the epilogue (featuring Al Pacino) that follows the movie on the DVD.

I won’t get too much into it, but Pacino eloquently speaks about the material with a modest passion and a hint of embarrassment that a lot of the greatest screen actors seem to possess. More importantly, he clears up a few things about the movie’s plot (or lack thereof), which actually made me appreciate what everyone involved was trying to accomplish. (I especially liked the idea that we were only checking in on the life of these two sociopaths, so it makes sense that they’d have a lot of shorthand we’re not privy to.)

The problem is that I believe a movie - whether it’s based on a book, based on a play, or even if it’s a sequel - should be able to mostly stand on its own. In this case, Erica and I (objectively semi-bright people, in my humble opinion) shouldn’t need Al Pacino to come on after the movie is done and explain what the hell just happened.

I don’t have a problem with being challenged (I kinda like it, actually) or movies that make you think. Hell, the movie’s only 56 minutes long, so I should be able to go back and see it again to catch what I missed, right? The problem is that the movie is so indulgent and intensely unpleasant that I wouldn’t necessarily want to see it for FIVE more minutes, much less 56.

In the end, "The Local Stigmatic" is more an interesting experiment than a good, effective movie. Just like pretending to be British on a date is more of an interesting experiment than a good, solid idea for a date.

The Local Stigmatic (without seeing the epilogue)...F
The Local Stigmatic (after seeing the epilogue)...C
The epilogue...A

What John Thinks...of "Ally McBeal" coming to DVD

"Yay!" That’s what I think.

The news that "Ally McBeal" is FINALLY getting a proper (i.e. legal) release in the United States is so cool and exciting that I don’t even mind the sideways, judge-y looks you’re giving me right now.

Is David E. Kelley’s ode to dancing babies, neck wattle and knee pits the best show ever produced? Of course not. In fact, it was often downright bad during the second half of its run - except of course for the part where Robert Downey Jr. showed up in season 4 and delivered the best performance of his career. (Yeah I said it! He was so good that I was genuinely pissed off at him for getting fired due to his drug problems after his one year on the show.)

Still, this show was pretty much superproducer Kelley near the height of his creative (and kooky) powers. As a result, I’m looking forward to revisiting the great, musical-fantasy-loving characters (right in my wheelhouse), and all the ridiculously-talented regular and guest performers who stopped by the show during its five-season run.

I’m guessing whatever music licensing issues were responsible for holding up the "Ally McBeal" DVD release in the U.S. were somehow resolved. Now if we could only do the same for "The Wonder Years" and get THAT show on DVD. (I’d also like ALL the episodes to "The Larry Sanders Show" please.)

So what’s your favorite "Ally McBeal" moment? I’ll go first: any and everything involving Peter MacNicol’s brilliant John "The Biscuit" Cage. (Ok, I REALLY like this one.)

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Castle in the Sky

You know what they say: things come in twos.

Ok, so I know that what they REALLY say is that “things come in threes”, but in the case of the “WEW? Summer Movie Library Series” things come in twos. First we had two movies from the British Senior Citizen Nudity genre. Now we have two Hayao Miyazaki Films Involving Mobile Castles. (Stay tuned for the second entry in the Actors Directing Laughably Indulgent Movies genre, coming soon.)

I realize “Castle in the Sky” came out almost 20 years before “Howl’s Moving Castle”, but since I saw “Howl’s” first, “Sky” had this unshakable whiff of leftovers for me.

Don’t worry — the unfairness in how I’ll judge “Castle in the Sky” doesn’t end there.

Once again, I decided to watch the English dub instead of the Japanese original with subtitles (I have nothing against subtitles, I was just curious about the semi-famous American actors in the English dub). Unlike “Howl”, the American dub in “Castle in the Sky” is fairly brutal.

The story opens as pirates led by a tough old broad named Dola (voice of Cloris Leachman — yes, THAT Cloris Leachman) try to get a crystal away from a young girl named Sheeta (voiced by Anna Paquin). Sheeta eventually teams up with a boy named Pazu (voice of James Van Der Beek — wha?!) to try and outrun the pirates and slithery government agents led by Muska (voice of Mark Hamill) who want the crystal. The crystal is the key to finding the mythical, sky castle known as Laputa.

Van Der Beek and Paquin are the worst voice actors in the cast by a mile, which is a bit of a problem since they’re our two leads. Van Der Beek’s whiny young adult voice is a terrible fit for Pazu, who doesn’t look like he’s any older than 13 or 14. For her part, Paquin appears to attempt a British at a few junctions, but abandons it just as quickly. A bigger problem is that both of their performances range from irritating (Van Der Beek) to completely ineffective and forgettable (Paquin).

Leachman and Hamill fare much, MUCH better. Leachman is the movie’s effective comic relief as the semi-grotesque older pirate who eventually takes a liking to Sheeta. You can tell Leachman is having fun with the character and that’s conveyed in the movie. Meanwhile, Hamill (an accomplished voice actor following his Luke Skywalker days) makes for an effective, scary, villain.

Still, not all of the movie’s faults have to do with the disappointing English dub. Though it has considerably more action than “Howl’s Moving Castle”, “Castle in the Sky” manages to be more boring (we lost Erica to a nap about 45 minutes in). That just goes to show that you can have all the action in the world, but if we don’t care about the people in the middle of the action, it can all result in a big yawn.

This movie still boasts some stunning visuals (pretty much all the aerial action sequences) and impressive imagination. However, it also features a few too many jarring headscratchers for my taste (why was everyone ok with the pirates hitting on Sheeta, who looked like she was 12 years old?)

In the end, I can see why Miyazaki is so revered and I’d certainly be open to seeing more of his movies (especially “Spirited Away”, which is supposed to be his masterpiece). However, I found them a bit lacking in the storytelling department.

Castle in the Sky…C (Probably a C+ or a B- with the original Japanese track)

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Howl's Moving Castle

I’d always heard about the great animated films (yes, “films” not “movies”) of Hayao Miyazaki, but I never actually got off my butt to check one out myself.

Enter my indispensible girlfriend Erica.

Thanks to the hit new “Why, Erica, Why?” Summer Movie Library Series, I’ve now seen two Miyazaki movies in the last couple of weeks. (The review for that second movie will be up as soon as I shake off this slacker dust.) I’m not really a fan of anime, but I was particularly interested in checking out a few Miyazaki films since finding out the Japanese filmmaker has been a huge influence on the people who work at Pixar, who just happen to be making my favorite and some of the very best movies today. (Pixar honcho John Lasseter pops up to give us a fawning introduction on the DVD.)

So after being exposed to the world of Miyazaki, all I’ve got to say is, “Oh okay.”

“Howl’s Moving Castle” — adapted from the novel b Diana Wynne Jones — involves a strong-willed, unconfident young woman named Sophie (voiced by Emily Mortimer) who is turned into an elderly woman (voiced by Jean Simmons) by a spiteful, tubby witch (voiced by Lauren Bacall). She eventually meets up with the vain, insecure wizard (voiced by Christian Bale) who lives in the titular structure.

Maybe it was the fact that we decided to watch the dub (which was actually pretty solid) instead of viewing the movie with subtitles, but I had trouble connecting to any of the characters besides beyond Sophie. (I decided to go with the dub since they went through the trouble of hiring relatively famous actors.) This helps explain why my favorite character was probably Turniphead, a helpful, mute scarecrow.

More importantly, I never really felt like the characters effectively connected with each other. I didn’t totally buy the connection between Sophie and Howl. It just felt like those two characters are thrown together because they’re the female and male protagonists.

I can’t really fault the performances. Simmons/Mortimer make for an admirable, strong heroine, Bale’s voice conveys his mix of creepiness and magnetism equally as well as his live action work, and Bacall makes for a compelling Witch of the Waste. I was considerably less impressed by Billy Crystal’s capital C Comic Relief turn as Calcifer, the fire demon who lives in Howl’s castle. His shtick just didn’t seem to fit in with everything else that was going on.

What works about this movie (and what I suspect REALLY earns Miyazaki all the adoration) is how stunning it looks. Computer animation and 3D technology can try to dazzle us all they want with their lifelike renderings, but they’re no match for the power of imagination.

Miyazaki simply visualizes and is able to realize on screen unbelievable and dreamlike/nightmarish images like a castle that walks along the countryside and a man who morphs into a bird to do battle. Most importantly, these images complement and sort of end up grounding his stories. Rarely have more fantastical things seemed more normal.

The filmmaker’s hand-drawn animation feels just as (if not more) fresh than any shiny Hollywood cartoon with marquee voice talent. I just wish I could say the same for the characters populating his movies.

Howl’s Moving Castle…B

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Romance & Cigarettes

What if I was to tell you that James Gandolfini, Kate Winslet, Susan Sarandon, Mary Louise Parker, Steve Buscemi, Christopher Walken and Mandy Moore were all in one movie? (That’s 3 Oscars and countless Emmy and Golden Globe nominations and wins) Is that something you might be interested in?

Of course, it is.

We were off to a 3 for 3 start with good movies in the "Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library series. That’s pretty remarkable when you consider that there’s just no way to predict what’s going to come out of Erica’s bag when she brings a new batch home.

I was looking forward to continuing the winning streak and then (needle scratching on record sound) we watched "Romance & Cigarettes."

Written and directed by John Turturro - the terrific actor from movies like "Do the Right Thing" and "The Big Lebowski" - the movie bills itself as a "down and dirty musical" and is set among a working-class cast of characters in New York. Nick Murder (Gandolfini and, yes, that’s his character’s real name) is cheating on his wife Kitty (Sarandon) with Tula (Winslet) - his seductive and "down and dirty" mistress - and we see the resulting fallout.

To be honest, the best thing about this movie is that you can watch it with a friend and try to figure out what the WORST thing about it is. Actually, scratch that - I don’t want you to think you should watch this movie (even to make fun of it).

Let’s get back to some of the things that make this movie so horrible. Why would Turturro cast two actresses in their 40’s (Parker and Aida Turturro) to play two of Nick’s three daughters (Gandolfini is also in his 40’s and Aida Turturro played his SISTER in "The Sopranos"!). Mandy Moore is the only one of the three who looks like she could be his daughter. If the director wanted to make this situation weird, he could’ve at least had it be CONSISTENTLY weird and cast three actresses in their 40’s. Finally, why were Parker and Aida Turturro instructed to act as if they were mentally handicapped? Ugh!

Though that’s a relatively minor issue, it speaks to a much larger problem I have with the movie - the nearly-perverse waste of talent on display. I get that respected actors don’t want to do Oscar-caliber material all the time (see the all-star cast in a trifle like "Mars Attacks!") and sometimes they just want to have fun. However, if it’s not fun for the audience too, what we get is something I’ll call the "Ocean’s 12 Effect."

If you remember, "Ocean’s 12" was little more than an excuse for George Clooney and Co. to hang out in Europe and smugly celebrate how cool they are. Then again, even "Ocean’s 12" had a steady director (somewhat) guiding the way. Turturro seems content to let (encourage) his actors do whatever the hell they want, even (especially!) if it doesn’t make sense - which is probably the reason they signed on in the first place. I honestly believe gathering these actors and forming a softball team would've been a more worthwhile use of their skills.

It’s no surprise that the one cast member who really shines in this environment is Christopher Walken because Turturro basically brought him in to "do Christopher Walken" and the actor was happy to oblige. Unfortunately, the movie is basically filled with "Christopher Walkens." (And, no, I don’t mean everyone doing an impression of the man - I mean they’re acting as crazy as they possibly can.)

The highlight of the movie for me is Walken’s zany musical number to Tom Jones’ "Delilah." It would’ve been even better if I could actually clearly hear Walken singing.

Instead of having his actors sing the movie’s songs - tunes popularized by the likes of James Brown and Janis Joplin - Turturro had his actors sing ALONG to them. I hated this with the passion of 10,000 burning suns, while Erica actually preferred this method. Quick recap of our debate: I’d rather hear characters use their own voice, even if it’s kinda bad, while she thinks bad singing is simply too distracting. Call it, the "Mamma Mia Effect." (If we’d had this discussion on IM, we might have another "Great Debate" on our hands to rival our famed "Lion King vs. Toy Story Debate of 2006." But I digress.)

I still say Turturro is kind of a phony for dubbing this a "down and dirty" musical and then not letting his actors do their own singing, ESPECIALLY if they’re a little bad (what would be more "down and dirty" than that?). Look, I have no idea whether Gandolfini, Sarandon, Winslet and the rest can sing or not - and I still don’t. From an artistic and creative standpoint, this aspect of Turturro’s experiment is a waste of time, in my opinion. Then again, it’s entirely possible that Turturro has his actors sing along to these classic songs instead of performing them because it somehow saved him money in the end. (I’m not entirely sure how song licensing fees work). So he either made this disastrous artistic decision on purpose, or his production is too low rent to allow his actors to REALLY challenge themselves. Great.

Still, the worst thing about the movie is how painfully conscious it is in its quest to be offbeat and quirky. It’s like anybody who tries to be cool - you’re either cool or you’re not. Anyone who tries to consciously "act cool" comes off looking like a tool. This movie is kind of the equivalent of a tool.

If Turturro wanted to make a self-indulgent crapsterpiece (and his actor friends agree to help him) more power to him. (THAT might’ve actually been more interesting.) Unfortunately, he also tries to insert scenes of genuine emotion and drama, which turns out to be a complete waste of time since there’s no possible way we can care for any of these ridiculous characters. I’ll agree that there was a certain charm and intrigue in trying to figure out what insanity Turturro was going to throw at us next. (Gandolfini throwing Winslet into a lake = a great WTF moment). However, after a while you realize that it doesn’t really matter.

The more I think about this movie, the more I feel like it’s not even an interesting failure - it’s a tedious, self-indulgent failure. Right now I’m hoping Turturro sticks to showing us his talent in front of camera instead of behind it. (This is actually his third directorial effort.) Ok, that might have come off a little harsh. We’ll make a deal - I’ll watch another movie he directs if he agrees to get his head out of his ass.

Deal?

Romance & Cigarettes...D-

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Blind Mountain

There aren’t a lot of movies that I’ve never heard of.

I promise you that I say this with no ego.

I simply love pop culture - and movies, in particular. I love them to the extent that I spend hours on various entertainment websites reading about them, I feel perfectly comfortable just hanging out with my DVDs (they don’t judge me the way you just did), and I’ve decided to dedicate a summer series to the wonderfully random flicks my girlfriend brings home from the library.

One of those movies was "Mang Shan" (or "Blind Mountain" if don’t mind me getting all English on you). I’ll admit Chinese cinema isn’t my forte (is it ANYONE’S forte?), but I hear about most of the stuff that comes out, especially recently. (This movie came out in 2007.)

"Blind Mountain" is a drama set in the early 1990’s about Bai Xuemei (played by Lu Huang), a young, college-educated girl who is unwittingly sold as a bride to a vicious villager in Northern China. The rest of the movie traces her various escape attempts from the village, where this sort of arrangement has become reprehensibly acceptable.

That’s actually all there is to the story - and it’s a pretty great movie.

Director Yang Li tells the story in a non-flashy, pseudo-realistic style that could’ve been boring but ends up being totally compelling and engrossing. A big chunk of the credit has to go to Lu Huang, who makes the transformation from excited college student to a terrified young prisoner fighting for her life so believable that I audibly groaned whenever one of her escape attempts were foiled.

In the previous paragraph, I described the movie as "pseudo-realistic." That means that I have no idea whether the movie’s depiction of sex slavery in a Chinese village like the one in the movie came anywhere close to resembling real life. Though I suspect some aspects are exaggerated, what matters is that it feels real. The fact that this sort thing went on (and still goes on) in certain parts of the world serves as a scary and exhilarating puncture in our American culture bubble.

When the movie starts, it almost feels like you missed the first three minutes as we join Bai on what she thinks is a school-related trip. That disorientation ends up fitting in perfectly with the moment where Bai is drugged, abandoned by her companions and wakes up with a brutal new husband and extended family. As horrible as the husband was, I actually felt myself getting angrier at the hubby’s mother, who calmly and cruelly tells Bai to accept her fate. (What happened to looking out for a sister?) There are no time cards to tell us exactly how long Bai was in captivity, which also helps us get inside of her minset a bit.

It all leads to a provocative climax that might lead some (Erica) to say, "Huh?" but that others (me) find surprisingly satisfying.

I’d also probably file an obscure Chinese movie I’d never heard of until recently under "surprisingly satisfying." (Even if it shockingly didn’t feature any British Senior Citizen nudity.)

Blind Mountain...A

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: Calendar Girls

This is only the second movie I’ve reviewed in the popular (in my own mind) "Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library series.

How are we already 2 for 2 in movies that feature British senior citizen nudity?!

So many questions here: Why did Erica decide these would be the first two movies she’d bring home for us to watch? Is "British Senior Citizen Nudity" now as popular a classification as "Comedy" or "Drama"? (If it’s not, would you like it to be?) How long until the U.S. decides to launch its own inevitably inferior remake, "American Senior Citizen Nudity"? (We love to steal, I mean adapt, British programming.) Finally, the most important question of all - why, Erica, why?

Fortunately, we’re also 2 for 2 in good movies.

"Calendar Girls" is a fact-based dramedy about a group from the Rylstone Women’s Institute in North Yorkshire, England, who decide to do something a little more unconventional for their annual (and often-boring) calendar - they decide to pose nude.

Their motives - like this movie - are surprisingly modest: the women wanted to raise the money to help one of its members (Annie Clarke, played by Julie Walters) buy a couch for the family waiting room in the hospital where her husband John died of leukemia. John always said that "the flowers of Yorkshire were like the women of Yorkshire - the last phase was always the most glorious", and the women set out to prove that point.

Oscar winner Helen Mirren stars as Chris Harper, the free spirit who ends up being the driving force that puts the calendar together. Mirren gives a very good, light performance, but there’s one problem: Helen Mirren is hot! I thought part of the point was that these women were supposed to be people we don’t necessarily want to see naked in a calendar. Do we think that a Helen Mirren calendar wouldn’t become a best-seller?

Other than that, I appreciated the relatively understated way the movie handled the rest of the group. There’s a natural, initial hesitation from some of the ladies, but the movie doesn’t waste too much time on the "will they or won’t they" question. Even the recreations of the calendar shots (I’m assuming they’re recreations since I haven’t seen the actual calendar) are handled in a tasteful, entertaining way. The best thing the movie has going for it is that it’s a funny movie without ever making fun of these women.

In fact, I’d say the movie is almost understated to a fault. On one hand, I appreciate the movie for mostly avoiding the predictable clichés a movie like this could easily bring (Chris’ husband, for example, is actually supportive and proud of his wife, when he could’ve just as easily been jealous and tried to stop her). On the other hand, that doesn’t make for a terribly dramatic or exciting story. The worse thing that happens is Chris’ head gets too big when the Calendar Girls threaten to go Hollywood. I’ll usually take a realistic, understated plotline over manufactured drama. (Though the movie DOES manufacture a bit of drama in portraying the Women’s Institute as not being supportive initially, when in real life they were sympathetic from the beginning.)

Actually, most of the dramatic heft is placed on Penelope Wilton, who plays Ruth - the one Women’s Institute member who DOES have a jerky unsupportive husband. Other than that, we don’t get to know too much about the ladies beyond the fact that one of them has a tattoo, suggesting a surprisingly wild past. In my opinion, this is what really places "Calendar Girls" a peg below "The Full Monty", in which almost every main character had significant development.

I generally try not to compare one movie to another when I do my reviews, but "Calendar Girls" does kind of have the reputation of being the female "Full Monty." I’d say "Monty" was even more of an ensemble piece than "Calendar Girls", which really focuses on Mirren and Walters’ characters.

More importantly, both are good movies, despite the fact that the characters in "Monty" are mostly too young and too male to make the cut in the WEW series.

Calendar Girls...B+

"Why, Erica, Why?" Summer Movie Library Series: The Mother

With most of my favorite TV shows on summer vacation, I have to find SOMETHING to write about, no?

Sure, I’ll throw in the occasional summer blockbuster review here and there, but I can’t see everything in theatres (insert obligatory "especially in THIS economy" statement). Besides, that would only lead to two or three posts a month. I enjoyed taking last week off from writing in my blog (you didn’t even notice, did you?!) but I don’t want to get too used to not writing.

Thankfully (as is usually the case) my girlfriend Erica came home with the solution.

She recently started work at our local library and (or some reason) she’s become obsessed with checking out an ungodly amount of books and movies. She CANNOT stop. The only thing weirder than checking out eight books that she can’t possibly read in two weeks is the delightfully random nature of her movie picks.

That’s why I’ve decided to introduce the clumsily titled "Why Erica? Why?" Summer Movie Library Series. It’s named in honor of my reaction every single time she brings a bundle of movies home. It’s not that they’re necessarily good or bad - it’s just, well, "why?"

(Of course, we could’ve been checking movies out with our library cards all this time, but this inexplicably only became a thing once Erica started working there. Ah summer.)

The first movie on the list was "The Mother", a 2003 drama that was also the first feature film funded entirely by the BBC.

Anne Reid (in a bold, expert performance) stars as May who, along with her husband Toots (Peter Vaughan), is visiting her grown children (Cathryn Bradshaw and Steven Mackintosh) and small grandchildren in busy London when tragedy strikes. May ends up forging a connection with Darren (Daniel Craig), a handyman who is also in a relationship with May’s daughter Paula.

To me, the movie is at its most effective when it’s depicting the isolation and grief May experiences. The movie touches on (without harping on) the cruel way grown children discard and disregard their parents when they get to an advanced age. There’s an interesting movie to be made about the fascinating shift in the parent-child dynamic when the child actually becomes more capable of protecting and providing for the parent, but this isn’t really that movie. (Working title of that movie: "It Sucks To Get Old.")

Nope, this is a movie about James Bond having sex with a woman who’s almost 70 years old.

Ok, it’s not exactly about that. May DOES experience a reawakening after she bonds (see what I did there) with Craig’s character and becomes her own woman instead of just being somebody’s wife or her kids’ "mother". Thankfully, the movie avoids any obvious clichés that usually come when a character "busts loose." (May doesn’t get a new car and there’s no shopping montage.)

The two actors completely sold the relationship for me because each person’s motivation was clearly drawn out. Craig, in particular, does an excellent job of showing us what a magnetic, attractive total disaster of a man Darren is.

Obviously, this leads to friction between May and her daughter Paula. To me, this was the least interesting part of the movie (particularly since it culminates in the movie’s most ridiculous moment). I was much more interested in earlier, tenser scenes in which Paula (who is kind of a wreck herself) and May talked about the reasons Paula resented her mother.

Overall, this was a mostly realistic (the odd moments tended to stick out like a sore thumb) and honest movie about a downer of a subject featuring mostly unlikable characters. Fortunately, the story is handled with skill (director Roger Michell throw in some welcome stylistic flourishes) and a dash of humor. I still sort of wish the movie had spent more time on either May’s grief and isolation or the idea of lust (for life AND hunky handymen) at an advanced age instead of somewhat splitting the difference.

If that doesn’t do it for you, then I suppose you can check it out if you want to see James Bond have sex with a senior citizen.

The Mother...B

To Buy or Not To Buy: Season 6 of "24"

The following internal debate took place between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m.

***SPOILER ALERT*** for those who haven't seen Season 6 of "24".

To buy: So you know Season 6 of "24" is coming out on Tuesday. You're picking it up, right?
Not to buy: Eh, I'm not so sure.
To buy: Really?! This from the guy who once put Jack Bauer at the top of his list of TV crushes.
Not to buy: What can I say? Last season was an off year.
To buy: Every show has off years.
Not to buy: Ok, I was trying to be nice. Last season sucked. Everyone knows it. You think it's a coincidence they're finally changing the setting of the show and bringing back a beloved character from the dead for the upcoming season? They're desperate to get fans back.
To buy: Sounds like you're giving up on the show.
Not to buy: No, not at all. I'll be there. I'm still a big fan of the show, and the trailer totally got me pumped up. Their strategy worked on me.
To buy: So you still love the show, and you're going to keep watching it. Plus, you already own the previous five seasons on DVD. How could you not get Season 6?
Not to buy: Did you miss the part where I mentioned that it sucked?
To buy: It wasn't all bad. I mean, it got off to a decent start. I particularly remember you being shocked when that bomb went off in LA.
Not to buy: I also remember feeling like I was the one that got shot when Jack took out Curtis. Ok, so the first four hours were good, but the rest was garbage.
To buy: That's not entirely true. Kiefer Sutherland did some of the best acting this year he's ever done on the show.
Not to buy: That's true. Peter MacNicol was great as Tom Lennox, and Powers Boothe was good as the VP temporarily turned P. Also, James Morrison and Jayne Atkinson were solid as Bill Buchanan and Karen Hayes. I even liked Rick Schroeder running around like a little mini-Jack for a while.
To buy: See, it wasn't all bad.
Not to buy: You're right — except for all the ludicrous stuff with Jack's family being behind everything, the neutering of the Chloe character and the abandonment of a bunch of key storylines.
To buy: Oh yeah.
Not to buy: Hey, maybe the DVD has a special feature that tells you whether Logan survived his stab wound or not.
To buy. Good point. Wait, you're sarcastically taking a shot at the show, aren't you?
Not to buy: Yes.
To buy: Well, what about the DVD cover? Have you seen it? It's glorious. It's basically saying that Jack Bauer is America. Are you anti-America?
Not to buy: Whoa, how did we get to me hating America? Besides, according to Chris Berman, Brett Favre is America.
To buy: Oh yeah. Well what about the fact that you're a completist. I KNOW it would bug you to have every season of "24" except one.
Not to buy: Damnit!
To buy: What?
Not to buy: Nothing, just felt like letting one of those out, since we're talking "24". Seriously though, you're right about me being a completist. Although, I DO only have Rush Hour 2, and I've stubbornly refused to have Die Hard 2 join the other three Die Hard movies in my collection.
To buy: Good point — but you know this would still bug you. Plus, it's "24"!
Not to buy: Yeah, you're right. Well what about the fact that I'm a bit low on cash because of Christmas shopping I've done and Christmas shopping I still have to do.
To buy: You've already bought the gifts for the women (your girlfriend and mom). The guys'll be easy and a lot less expensive.
Not to buy: True. But what about the fact that I've gotta dish out money for The Wire: Season 4, Lost: Season 3, The Bourne Ultimatum, Harry Potter 5 and other DVDs this month.
To buy: John, you own more than 700 DVDs. I don't think one more season of one of your favorites is going to kill you. Plus, you've already made space for it in your collection (pictured, right).
Not to buy: So what? That's not big deal. I did that in one minute so I could have a picture to go along with this article.
To buy: That's actually really dorky.
Not to buy: Yeah, I know.
To buy: Also, Kiefer Sutherland might come to your house these holidays and tackle you like you're a Christmas tree.
Not to buy: I wouldn't want that.
To buy: So what's it going to be?
Not to buy: I don't know. Why don't we wrap up this internal debate and solicit suggestions from one of your (two) readers?

So, what do you think? Ever bought anything that you didn't really care for that much? If so, why? More importantly, what about me? Any thoughts on what I should do?