[Insert Famous Line Here] (#37: Casablanca)

There are too many famous lines in Casablanca, it was impossible to choose one for the headline. So choose your own adventure, Constant Reader:

Although whoever made that video somehow missed these gems:

UGARTE: You despise me, don't you?

RICK: If I gave you any thought I probably would.

RENAULT: What in heaven's name brought you to Casablanca?
RICK: My health. I came to Casablanca for the waters.
RENAULT: The waters? What waters? We're in the desert.
RICK: I was misinformed.

"I was misinformed" may be the best.

#37: Casablanca

After life intervened with our ReViewing Habit for the past week or so, we get to start things back up with a legitimate and enduring Hollywood classic, Casablanca. I mean, just look at the poster:

It just screams classic.

 

For me Casablanca is The Great Gatsby of Old Hollywood. No, not the Baz Luhrmann version. (You should be ashamed - but, yes, I will go see it.) I'm referring to the actual book. Gatsby isn't my favorite novel, but I think its nearly perfectly written - or as close any writer has ever come to the Platonic ideal of The Great American Novel. Casablanca is that for classic Hollywood. It's not perfect, it's not my favorite film, or even my favorite of the classics, but it does everything well that the big studios did well.

 

For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the gist. Humphrey Bogart is Rick, a cafe owner in unoccupied French-controlled Morocco during World War II. At the time, Casablanca is essentially a weigh station on the refugee trail from occupied Europe to Lisbon to, ultimately, America. One day, Ingrid Bergman's Ilsa - who broke Rick's heart back in Paris before the Nazis came to town - shows up at the cafe with her husband, Victor Laszlo (Paul Henreid). Laszlo is on the run after escaping from a concentration camp. The Nazis are tracking his movements and while they apparently can't get to him in technically free Casablanca, they want the local prefect, the fantastically corrupt Captain Reinault (Claude Rains) to make sure Laszlo doesn't get on the plane to Lisbon. Rick has to decide: help Laszlo or win back Ilsa?

 

This is the type of story Tinseltown was made to tell. Humphrey Bogart is the definition of the American movie star: the rogue with a heart of gold. Ingrid Bergman, afforded a surplus of rapturous soft focus close-ups, is not only insanely gorgeous but just anxious enough to give the film an underlying sense of urgency and tough enough to explain how she could love both Bogart's elusive Rick and the passionate Laszlo. It's set in an exotic locale, sumptiously filmed on studio sets populated by a bevy of terrific character actors in glamorous attire. Everyone has something smart or at least smart ass to say when it matters. An atmosphere of mystery and romance hangs over the whole thing, but a sense of humor abides. And when the crowd sings La Marseillaise at Rick's? C'mon. Nationalism at it's finest and most inspiring.

 

Is it melodramatic? Yes. Are the racial politics more than a little suspect? Sure. Is it believable? Not always. Wouldn't the Nazis have just killed Lazlo the moment they saw him rather than casually chatting with him over champagne cocktails? Probably. Is there fog in Morocco? Not very often, I'd wager.

 

It doesn't matter. This is Hollywood - you will love every single second of it. 

 

FINAL VERDICT: Keeper.

 

NEXT UP: Casino.     

Setting Tables (#35: Buffy; #36: Capt. America)

Big fans of the Buffy TV show probably think of the film as fans of the modern Marvel filmverse think of the original Captain America movie, i.e., like it is a redheaded stepchild:

And, yes, I posted a clip from this before. So sue me. I love the Cap.

#35: Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Confession: Neither of us watched the Buffy TV show. I know, I know, pop culture nerd card revoked. We both kinda sorta watched an episode or two at some point but never got into it. Tonally, its a whole other universe from the movie. In fact, I had no idea Joss Whedon wrote the original movie, since the vibes of the two are so different. That being said, the movie is a damn good time. To be honest, I went into it thinking it would be a pitch-er (this is from Ms. ReViewing Habit's collection). But Kristy Swanson changed my mind.

I'm actually quite serious about that. Swanson is excellent in this movie. She feels like a real person, while her character could have easily fallen into a lazy, gum-popping stereotype. And I can think of less attractive people. Why has she basically been in nothing since?

Anyway, you all know the story at this point, which is set up by an admittedly clunky prologue. Buffy (Swanson) is a Valley girl cheerleader who discovers she is the latest in a long line of vampire slayers. Buffy is trained under the, er, watchful eye of a mysterious stranger named Merrick (Donald Sutherland) and aided by bad boy (you can tell by the soul patch) motorcycle enthusiast Pike (Luke Perry). She faces off with some dudes not at all shy about hamming it up as vampires: Paul Reubens, David Arquette, and Rutger Hauer. There's some mythological thing about how Buffy and Hauer's uber-vamp, Lothos, are connected throughout time or something, which I don't really care about it or get (maybe the TV show gave a clearer explanation) but that's all you really need to know.

The pleasures of Buffy aren't in the plot, though. It's the little details littered throughout. Buffy's barely there parents. A hilariously clueless and new agey basketball coach. The way Swanson says "duh." Perry's befuddled reaction to Arquette floating outside his second story window. Paul Reubens saying: "Kill him a lot." Paul Reubens dying. Paul Reubens, generally.

Work.

 It's all total camp, but just the right side of camp.

 

Also there are some great "is that...?" moments* in this movie: Two-time Oscar winner Hillary Swank as one of Buffy's mall-frequenting girlfriends and Ben Affleck in a non-speaking role as a basketball player on the visiting team, among others.

It's a good time AND something you can pop in around Halloween when The Shining feels like too much of a slog. I have no idea how well it sets up the iconic TV show that followed, but it's good enough for our purposes.

FINAL VERDICT: KEEPER

#36: Captain America: The First Avenger

Captain America, on the other hand, was burdened with setting the table for what would become the biggest superhero movie of all time, The Avengers. Marvel even it made obvious in the title, for god's sake. Not to mention, Captain America has to start in World War II, so it's got to be a period piece and a war movie at the same time. So, yeah, tall order.

Does it succeed? Fitfully, but yes. For the first hour or so, you can feel the creaking machinery of the plot trying to work the Red Skull's efforts to unleash the power of the Tesseract (see: Thor), which will be key to The Avengers plot, into the journey of Steve Rogers from 4-F pipsqueak to supersoldier.

Weird, right?

Also making the first act of the movie a little awkward is that Evans' head is superimposed onto a much smaller body before the experiment that bulks Steve Rogers up into Captain America. It's not quite Uncanny Valley distracting, but I was so fascinated by it the first time I saw the movie it kind of took me out of things.

But when the stories intersect and the Captain (perfectly cast Chris Evans+), drops the soul-sucking propaganda work he's forced to do (in a brilliant sequence!) and finally mixes it up with the Red Skull (perfectly cast Hugo Weaving), the movie hums. A tune I quite enjoy, to boot.

It's not a giddy amusement park ride like Iron Man, nor does it have the luxury of existing on another universe to excuse any over-the-top comic elements, like Thor. It's a little too reliant on CGI. It's sometimes plodding. But, it's ultimately satisfying in the old school adventure picture tradition. And it has a terrific ending which effectively sets up the Avengers. (By the by, I think ol' Cap works much better in the context of the Avengers than as a solo character - at least on film).

And, yes, Captain America is one of my favorite characters, so I'm pretty much genetically predisposed to like this. Hell, I liked the terrible 1990 B-movie version.

FINAL VERDICT: KEEPER

NEXT UP: CASABLANCA

*That's the best I can do for a phrase capturing the strange pleasure of seeing a famous actor or actress in a movie in which you didn't know/expect them to be. 

+He played the Human Torch in the (bad) Fantastic Four movies as well. How is that fair?

I Say It Here, It Comes Out There (#34: Broadcast News)

Now, that's journalism.

#34: Broadcast News

Few films or TV shows achieve a reasonable simulacrum of a real workplace, populated with people who would actually work there and whose conversations are mainly about their jobs and not their private entanglements. (Grey's Anatomy excepted, of course). Rarer still  is a movie that also manages to layer in complicated, adult relationships on top in way that seems co-existent with, not predominant over, the characters' work lives, plays with BIG IDEAS, but does not forget to keep us entertained. In other words, all the things Aaron Sorkin's The Newsroom fails at, this film excels in.

Written and directed by James L. Brooks - or James Hell Brooks if you, like me, were introduced to the man by his producer credit on The Simpsons - Broadcast News is a prophetic (for 1987) look at the rapidly diminishing world of, um, broadcast news. The plot (such as it is) centers around a "love" triangle between Holly Hunter's producer, Jane Craig, Albert Brooks as her best friend/favorite reporter, Aaron Altman, and William Hurt as a doltish but driven anchorman, Tom Grunick. But that's really overstating it, because these people are pretty much incapable of loving anything but their jobs - which in Hunter and Brooks' case is that ephemeral thing called telling the truth and in Hurt's case is selling himself. 

The real clash is between news for news' sake and news for fame. None of them is looking for love so much as the next big lede. Or the chance to anchor the weekend news - minus the flopsweat.

Speaking of which, Albert Brooks* is great as always - he's that guy who says what you wish you would say but suffers all the consequences you know would befall you if you did. He has an absolute heartbreaker of a scene here and just nails it. William Hurt is perfectly cast as a guy who you should just hate but he gives his character enough humility and enthusiasm to win you over - no matter how stubbornly. It helps explain why Hunter falls for him, even though he is basically a walking embodiment of everything she can't stand. Hunter is really fantastic in this movie. She's stubborn and ideological - obsessive (and she takes issue with that word) to the point of specifically directing a cabbie's every turn and speed - but she has some deep and unexplained vulnerability that boils to the surface in her private moments. Not to mention an effervescence she allows herself to exude when the time is right. She really owns this film, giving it her heart and soul.

It's a rich film that goes down light. Dynamic clashes of ideas and personality set off against dashes of sweet and bemused longing. It's a rewarding viewing experience and we highly, highly recommend it for those who haven't seen it.

Also, today, I turned on CNN and saw a reporter walking through a CGI graphic of the papal conclave. So, I think Brooks might have been on to something about the sorry state of the Third Estate. "A lot of alliterations from anxious anchors placed in powerful posts!"

BUT, we haven't watched this in a long time. It's an excellent, if not great, film. But not one we foresee popping in at 9:37 PM on a Wednesday night when the kids are asleep.

(RELUCTANT) FINAL VERDICT: PITCH

NEXT UP: BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER

*It's not quite a MICHAEL F'IN KEATON level of adoration yet, but I'm becoming a bigger and bigger Albert Brooks fan.

It's Happening, It Happened (#33: Bridesmaids)

Have you heard of the Bechdel Test? In order to pass, a movie has to check three boxes: (1) it has to have at least two women in it, (2) who talk to each other, (3) about something besides a man.

Bridesmaids aces the Bechdel Test. In doing so, it strikes a mighty blow for the cause of fully realized female film characters and for women, generally. But more importantly, this happens:

#33: Bridesmaids

In all seriousness, Bridesmaids taps into a strangely ignored but rich comedic vein. At least for me, women's relationships with each other are inherently more complicated (hence: interesting) than two dudes being dudely together (which is approximately 97% of comedies these days). Focusing a comedy on the status and personality conflicts among a group of bridesmaids is therefore a pretty damn good recipe for funny.

Or maybe I just really wonder what you ladies are talking about when you go powder your noses together. Amiright, fellas? (Cracks open Bud Light, puts hand in underwear, watches a rerun of an old football game).

Anyway, you've seen this movie by now, so you don't need me to tell you its hilarious. Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne, and Melissa McCarthy FTW, etc. etc. And OMG!!11!! RHODES! (Chris O'Dowd) is THE perfect guy. You can't beat a movie that's set in Milwaukee and features a Wilson Phillips cameo.

The star of the movie, though, has got be the groom-to-be, Dougie (Tim Heidecker).

Guy literally says two words the entire movie: "I do." He is the ultimate Baxter. Thankfully, however, he isn't left at the altar. Well done, Dougie, well done.

Also: Why has nobody done a "pooped in my wedding dress" scene, before? 

FINAL VERDICT: KEEPER

NEXT UP: BROADCAST NEWS

It's Easy to Do (#32: The Break-Up)

#32: The Break-Up

The Break-Up may be the weirdest Hollywood romantic comedy of all time. It doesn't shy away from its title at all. It really is about a break up. An awkward, uncomfortable, protracted break up. For that, it deserves credit, because its a pretty brave and bold inversion of what the viewer expects. But there's a reason romantic comedies don't usually feature two people who don't seem to like each other.

 

Besides a short prologue showing the meet cute between our leads, Vince Vaughn and Jennifer Aniston, at a Cubs game, there's almost nothing to establish these people as an actual couple. Sure, there's a dinner party with their respective families (including very funny supporting turns by John Michael Higgins and Vincent D'Onofrio (yes, him!) that almost feel like they're from a different, broader movie). But immediately after that dinner, we have a historic and realistic row between the two - an argument that is viscerally acted and plays out unrelentingly in real time. The upshot of the fight is (you guessed it), a break up. Problem is: these two co-own a pretty killer Chicago condo and neither wants to give it up. Also: maybe, okay, yeah, they still have feelings for each other a little bit. So they break up but keep living together while kinda sorta dating other people, which works out about as well you expect. A series of misunderstandings and things left unsaid eventually drives them further and further apart and they really, truly break up.

 

There's an ambiguous run in between the two at the end that suggests maybe the spark could be rekindled. But (admirably) the film leaves it at that.

 

A few weeks ago, there was a story on This American Life about a couple that had been together since they were in college. Turning 30 and thinking about marriage, they decide to put it off for 30 days so that can sleep with some other people for the first time. They called it their "rumspringa." 30 days turns into 60, then 90, and then they go their separate ways. Towards the end of the interview, the guy being interviewed suggests that if he ever gets married, he would want to have the marriage either renew and void every seven years to make sure both are still in. Ira Glass recoils at that and makes a great point:

I don't know what I think of that. Because I think, actually, one of the things that's a comfort in marriage is that there isn't a door at seven years. And so if something is messed up in the short-term, there's a comfort of knowing, well, we made this commitment. And so we're just going to work this out. And even if tonight we're not getting along or there's something between us that doesn't feel right, you have the comfort of knowing, we've got time. We're going to figure this out. And that makes it so much easier. Because you do go through times when you hate each other's guts. You know what I mean?



Watching The Break-Up again, this statement feels very, very true. The fights in this movie feel like fights we've all had with each other over the years (notice the use of the royal "we" here: I, of course, never fight with my beloved and adored better half). The reason Vaughn and Aniston don't make it work here is because they have an out. They don't say the things they would say to patch things over or smooth things out if they felt compelled to make it work. So they end up passing each other (CLICHE ALERT) like ships at night, over and over.

 

It's an interesting movie. Occassionally funny. Honest in its intra-couple vitriol. Tonally, a little all over the place. Worth watching once or twice. But not worth owning. In fact, I have no idea why or when we bought it.

 

FINAL VERDICT: PITCH

 

NEXT UP: BRIDESMAIDS

I Loves Ma Gun (#31: Bowling for Columbine)

Michael Moore made himself famous with his first documentary, Roger & Me, a devastating look at how GM singlehandedly destroyed his hometown of Flint, MI. (SPOILER ALERT: Don't watch if you love rabbits). Since then, Moore has brought his schlubby blue collar persona and wry sense of despair and moral outrage to address some of the biggest issues of our time, to greater or lesser effect (your mileage may vary). Whether you love Michael Moore or hate him tends to accord with your personal ideology, but his skill as a filmmaker can't really be questioned. He basically invented the modern political documentary

Also, he made the video for Rage Against the Machine's best song (IMHO), so he's got that going for him:

#31: Bowling for Columbine

In our thirty-first film, Moore takes on America's obsession with guns. Ostensibly inspired by the worst act of school violence in our history (well, at least, prior to the recent tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary), Bowling for Columbine asks over and over again: what is it about America and Americans that makes us kill each other with guns at such incredibly high rates?

I say "ostensibly" because while the movie is framed as if it's about Columbine and what caused it, Moore spends precious little time considering that particular tragedy. There is a haunting and powerful segment featuring surveillance footage of the attack - with 911 calls from frantic parents and students as the only soundtrack. And a sequence featuring two Columbine survivors "returning" the bullets embedded in their bodies to K-Mart headquarters in Troy, MI. But Moore quickly moves outside the narrow scope of Littleton, CO to consider gun violence in America generally.

Note to self: Do not cross this dog.

Moore's exploration of that subject is intriguing, frequently hilarious, but at the same time maddeningly diffuse. There's a lot here that feels true about the violence in our culture: (a) our increasingly violence-on-demand foreign policy (represented by bombings and installing dictators by Moore, but one can't help but think drone attacks today); (b) our long fraught history of white supremacy and racial tension; (c) a commercial culture based on fear (articulated succinctly and persuasively by Marilyn Manson, of all people); (d) anti-government militia movements; (e) a high school culture that lets lost souls get lost; (f) welfare to work programs that are taking parents from their kids; and (g) an out of control and insanely well-funded NRA. But the whole is less than the sum of its parts. In the moment, whatever Moore is exploring at the time seems a convincing explanation, but then we're whiplashed into some other explanation that doesn't really cohere or seem relevant to the specific example of Columbine. 

The best example of this is probably Moore's comparison of the US and Canada. Both countries are similar culturally and have a huge ratio of guns to population. But there's almost no gun violence in Canada. In an amusing sequence, Moore illustrates how much safer Canadians feel by walking into the unlocked homes of unsuspecting Torontoans.* When someone suggests that greater racial homogeneity in Canada might explain the difference, Moore immediately swats that down with hardly a comment. BUT he's just spent a big chunk of Bowling for Columbine's running time (including a South Park-esque cartoon history lesson) talking about how racial tension in the US might lie at the root of our gun culture! That quick refutation of his own argument just confuses me to this day - especially when his film closes on a befuddled NRA President Charlton Heston essentially admitting (and instantly wishing he didn't) that we white people need our guns to keep the less desirables at bay.# I don't think that's a terribly persuasive explanation for why we kill each other like crazy, but its an interesting enough argument that you either need to really make it or tear it apart. (Side note: Does anyone know if the NRA being founded the same year the KKK was outlawed is anything other than mere coincidence? It's an interesting tidbit Moore drops without (maddeningly!) really following up on).

That lack of focus and the episodic nature of the film ultimately leaves the viewer a little lost on the point of it all. It doesn't sap the effectiveness of some of the individual moments, especially a disturbing and transfixing interview with James Nicholls - brother of Oklahoma City co-conspirator Terry Nicholls (I'd like to see that interview extended into a feature of its own). But, at the end, I was left a little cold. (And, while I'm sympathetic generally to Moore's point of view, the self-mythologizing man of the people in oversized fishing cap schtick feels a little hackneyed after all these years.)

All the same, Amelia has used individual clips from this teaching, so we plan on keeping it for educational purposes only.

FINAL (MIXED) VERDICT: PITCH for Home but KEEP for School.

NEXT UP: THE BREAK UP.

*Also hilarious: The Canadian woman who boasts about not locking her doors, despite having her home broken into twice. Dear Canadian Lady, Take the hint and buy a deadbolt. Sincerely, Cynical American. 

#Heston ironically says this in front of a Touch of Evil poster, wherein he is famously (mis)cast as a Mexican cop.