Our Fabulous Destiny (#7: Amelie: #8: American Beauty)

The question we're asking ourselves with this blog isn't so much whether a movie is good but whether We Must Own It. What you want from a film, generally, is different from what you need to have at the ready at 9:37 pm on a Wednesday night when the kids are asleep and there's nothing on TV.

What do you pop in? Citizen Kane? Or The Rock? That ain't no choice at all. Citizen Kane is a far better film. But The Rock is the DVD you pop in at 9:37 pm on a Wednesday night when the kids are asleep and there's nothing on TV.

That being said, our next two films, both masterpieces in our humble opinion, present us with something of a conundrum.

#7: Amelie

In a masterful long opening sequence, heavily laden with overly explanatory voiceover (oh the horror, sez, Robert McKee), Jean-Pierre Jeunet (yes, the director of an Alien sequel!) introduces us to the world of Amelie. Played by the winning and, okay, adorable Audrey Tautou, our heroine is the only child of a widowed country doctor who makes human contact with his own daughter so rarely he thinks she has a heart defect because of the way her heart races whenever he gives her a check-up. Alone, but fascinated by the world and also the world which exists solely within her own imagination, Amelie grows up to be a waitress in a small bar and diner in Paris.

Occassioned by her shock over the death of Princess Di in 1997, Amelie happens upon a small tin box hidden behind a tile in her bathroom. Its contents: a time capsule from a little boy, probably made in the 1950's. Amelie resolves to find the owner of the time capsule. If it works out, she determines to become a regular do-gooder.

Because this is a movie, of course it works out. Without giving away any of this enchanting films' many pleasures, Amelie becomes a regular Zorro of good deeds. In the process, she runs into Nino, a similarly lost dreamer floating through a world of his own imagination. You might be able to guess what happens from there. But I'd wager you could not guess how it happens.

There're few films I can think of that make me feel as good as Amelie. It's a wonder of whismy, a charming creme brulee of a picture that never falls in love with its own quirkiness. (That being said, maybe if it wasn't in French, it would come off as cloying and saccharine. However, having to watch a subtitled film also requires total focus (no Kindle Fire facebooking!) which is refreshing). We haven't watched this movie for probably a decade, but I smiled ear to ear the whole time.

We absolutely, fully love this movie. But how often will we watch it? Do we need it at the ready at 9:37 on a Wednesday night?

#8: American Beauty

If internet comment sections (which are, next to Dianetics and Mini-Trucker Magazine, my most trusted sources of information) are any guide, this 1999 Best Picture winner has fallen out of favor of late. I seriously don't see why.

Kevin Spacey, in his best film performance this side of Verbal Kint, plays Lester Burnham, a put-upon family man and writer for an industry magazine, who, as he informs us in voice over (oh the horror! again) at the top, dies at the end. Spurred by the looming threat of downsizing and a dying marriage, Spacey's Burnham embarks on a spiritual quest of a sorts which consists mainly of working out, smoking pot, and (generally speaking) reverting to his 17 year old self. Meanwhile, his wife, Carolyn, played by the superb Annette Bening, experiments with an affair with the Real Estate King (Peter Gallagher) and toting a hand cannon. Unbeknownst to either of them, their daughter, Janie (Thora Birch) is falling in love with mental-case-videophile-pot-dealer next door, Ricky (Wes Bentley).

There appears to be this idea of American Beauty as being all about how empty American suburbia can be - and in a very cliched way. But as a resident of American suburbia (residents of Sylvania and Perrysburg, Ohio now have permission to cringe at the thought of West Toledo being classified as suburbia) allow me to combat that: at the end, the Burnham's realize the value of their lives lies in their ordinary suburban existence, specifically, it lies in each other. At the end, Lester focuses intently on a photo of his family at a carnival (how suburbs is that?) and part of his life flashing before his eyes are the leaves on the maple trees that line his street. At the end of the day, the Burnham's realize they should have looked closer at the beauty of their day to day lives in boring, ordinary suburbia. Is it kinda silly that the best screenwriter Allen Ball had to represent that was a plastic bag floating in the wind? Yes. But did you watch Season 3 of True Blood? Be glad that's what he went with.

It's also problematic that Lester's realization is brought on by finding out his daughter's dance team "friend" (Mena Suvari, where she at?), whom he is about to statutorily rape, is a virgin. It all feels just a tad slut-shamy - as if she wasn't a virgin, it would've totally been fine for Lester to manipulate his daughter's friend into sleeping with him. It's all part of his stupid, empty, high-school-id-driven quest! I'm sure that's not what was intended and it makes a certain amount of character sense for this to be the thing which snaps Lester into reality, but it feels a little off and cheap today.

That notwithstanding, American Beauty is fiercely funny, moreso than I remembered, and it still hits me at the end. Like Amelie, it's all about how life's little moments can pile up to big ones. Also like Amelie, I'm pretty sure we haven't watched this for like a decade. So, while it is an great film, do we need to keep it?

We're on the fence. Hence, the sense with both films is PITCH IT, but ambivalently so.

Constant Readers, your input is appreciated.

UPDATE: Here's what we decided. PITCH American Beauty. The DVD transfer we have is brutal anyway. If we get a hankering to watch it, we'll always be able to get our hands on a good copy in the future...which we can't say the same for Amelie, which we've decided to KEEP. We still won't likely watch it soon, but I have feeling Amelie might be harder to come by ten years from now when we want to watch it. Okay, carry on with your lives now, crisis averted.

Biehn Battlin' (#6 Aliens)

My wife loves me, sure, but I'm pretty sure if this dude showed up and said, "come with me if you want to live," she'd be down wit it.

Who is this hunky piece of early 80's beefcake? Why, it's one of the best (and most shamefully unrecognized) action stars of all time. The one and only Michael Biehn.

Don't believe me? Consider this resume: Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, Navy Seals, K2, The Rock. Lest we forget, he was also Johnny Ringo, that educated man, in Tombstone.

Why on earth is this dude not on the Harrison Ford/Clint Eastwood level of fame? Beats the hell out of me. Judging by the sheer level of "mm's" I hear when he appears on-screen at our house, the ladies sure love him.

#6: Aliens

In Aliens, Biehn gets paired with Sigourney Weaver in her signature role, that of Ellen Ripley, alien-hunter, to, yes, battle aliens. What the title lacks in subtlety, it makes up for in descriptiveness.

Sidenote: When I first started dating my Biehn-besotted better half in high school, we would often watch movies at her dad's house. Invariably, he would suggest Alien or Aliens, always mentioning that "Alien is more of a ghost story, but Aliens is more of a battle." He would then strongly aver that he would never watch Alien3 or Alien: Resurrection. (He was apparently serious about this. A few years ago, we bought him all of the Alien films on DVD in an effort to force him to watch all four. To my knowledge, that has yet to happen.) Anyway, it's a running joke in our house that Alien (which is, yes, a gaping hole in our collection) is more of a scary movie and Aliens is the Battle. But, really, that's a pretty apt way to put it, right?

Second Sidenote: Alien3 is a David Fincher film. Alien: Resurrection is directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Both great directors attempting new visions with the franchise that just don't work. So he's missing some noble, although failed, experiments by refusing to watch them.

Third Sidenote: No, I will not watch AVP or any sequels thereto. (Amelia has seen the first, thumbs down, says she).

Aliens is one of the most well-executed sequels of all time. Maybe even in league with The Godfather Part II, The Empire Strikes Back, or Superbabies: Baby Geniuses II. Like all good sequels, instead of merely recreating what made the original so popular (I'm looking at you, Hangover II), it takes the central story conceit and expands on it. It takes a claustrophobic horror film with a nigh-unkillable alien villain and expands it into an all-out battle between Ripley, with her admirably interracial/intergender escort of Marines, and a virtually army of alien bitches. (Seriously, either my father-in-law had this thing down, or he's infected my brain).

Led by Weaver's assured performance, the cast is rounded out with great supporting turns by the likes of Lance Henrikson (another unsung hero of American movies) as "artificial human" Bishop, Jenette Goldstein as the pumped-up and flamethrower-wielding Vasquez, and Bill Paxton as ultimate loudmouth Hudson. Also, Paul Reiser's Burke is such an asshat. Of course, we can't forget (mm) Mr. Biehn himself, as the take-charge, take-no-shit Corporal Hicks.

Smartly foreshadowed by the death of Ripley's 66 year old daughter while she floated through space in chryo-sleep for 57 years after the events of Alien, the heart of the movie belongs to Ripley's relationship with the lone survivor of an alien attack, a little girl named Newt (Carrie Henn, in her only film performance). Ripley's need to protect Newt, and Newt's need for someone to protect her, gives the movie some real stakes. Also, it gives Weaver the chance to say that one line you remember from this movie.

 So, yeah, KEEPER. Did you have any doubt?

As proof of how much of a KEEPER this is, Amelia fell asleep for about an hour (are we noticing a trend?), after waking, she demanded we rewind to where she fell asleep. I was cool with it.

Wolfgang + Presidents = Action! (#4 Air Force One; #5 In the Line of Fire)

Our next two films, Air Force One and In the Line of Fire, have several things in common:

1. Both are directed by Wolfgang Peterson, who you can thank for this:

2. Both plots concern convoluted efforts to attack the President of the United States. Because that's fun, lighthearted American action!

3. Both feature alpha males of American action cinema, though I'm more of an Indy guy than a Man With No Name fanboy. 

4. Both feature great villain turns by noted character actors, which is the nice way of saying "that weird guy who always looks/sounds different." That being said, John Malkovich Malkovich is definitely odder than Gary (F#@$in' Commissioner Gordon) Oldman:

(Fans of Charlie Kaufman's oeuvre may also note that this scene is actually recreated in our second film, which we kept, Adaptation).

5. We own both movies in one DVD case: hence the two days it took to get through and review and the slight sidetrack from our alphabetical order. The fact that these are together made it interesting, because it was keep or pitch both - there's no way to split the baby. So what did we decide?

#4: Air Force One

The pitch for this movie, basically Die Hard on a plane with Harrison Ford's President Jim Marshall in the John McClain role, is pretty good. It allows for some fun moments, like when Ford, having tricked Oldman's band of Kazakhstani communist terrorists (this was pre-Borat) into thinking he hopped off the plane in an escape pod, is loose in the baggage area trying desperately to use a cell phone (which he needs the manual to do) to call the White House (he has to call information). He also promises a minor character to appoint her as Postmaster General if a suggestion she has for contacting the Cabinet via fax pans out. Let us not, of course, forget this immortal line:

After Oldman dies however, the movie totally goes off the rails. The thing should end there. Instead, we move into truly ridiculous territory. Ford flies Air Force One despite having not flown any plane in 25 years. There's a Top Gun firefight with Kazakhstani fighter jets (yes, really). People zip line up somehow into a moving aircraft and miraculously don't see their heads smashed in. In short, the movie's just too long. After Oldman's out, our interest was too.

(Sidenote: This movie was also a bit ahead of the curve in its triumphant, kick-their-ass nationalism. It opens with what we call these days an extraordinary rendition. Then, Ford makes a speech telling all the bad guys to be afraid, literally. Then, of course, he kills a bunch of bad guys. Then, a bad guy gets summarily executed after being told he's free from prison and everyone celebrates, thumbs up and all. In 1997, a certain Texas governor probably enjoyed the hell out of this movie.)

#5 In the Line of Fire

Four years before he made Air Force One, our boy Wolfie approached the American presidency with a bit more ambiguity (meaning, any ambiguity at all). Clint Eastwood plays an ancient Secret Service Agent (fun fact: Eastwood was 63 in 1993) who was there the day Kennedy died and still feels regret about his failure to act. John Malkovich Malkovich plays a former CIA wet boy (no that's not a gay subculture (or is it?)) with eyes set on murdering the President. While the film occasionally pokes around what could be interesting questions about what killing for/dying for your country does to people, it never really addresses them. Mostly, it is content to plod along from plot point to plot point, with the occasional twist, like a Law and Order episode. The presence of former Senator, former Republican presidential primary contender, and Law and Order veteran Fred Thompson as the dickhead Chief of Staff only reinforces this impression.

More problematic, this movie suffers from what I call Unnecessary Love Interest Syndrome. Here, Rene Russo is saddled with the go-nowhere role of a female Secret Service Agent who has three basic functions: (1) be flattered by Eastwood's glib sexual harassment at work; (2) get to KNOW and TRULY UNDERSTAND him; and (3) love scene. Her character doesn't add anything to the story and it just drags down the far more interesting cat and mouse game between Malkovich and Eastwood.

Anyway, this is a decent movie. Not nearly as fun as Air Force One but far lower on the ridiculousness scale. Also, Malkovich hand crafts a gun out of homemade resin, which is pretty neat. However, neither of us think it is something we will feel a compulsion to watch again. (I say "we" even though my poor co-reviewer is now suffering the aftershocks of our daughter's flu herself and slept through most of this).

Ultimate verdict: PITCH BOTH.

But let's be honest, if either is on cable one day, we might not change the channel.

Ahead of the Thor Curve - #3: Adventures in Babysitting

Marvel Comics may have been at its nadir in 1987 when our third film, Adventures in Babysitting, was released.  For those of you who haven't seen this film (i.e. the mentally ill, impoverished, or neglected), the Marvel character Thor, currently starring in billion-dollar grossing blockbusters released by Disney, is the hero of one character, the little spitfire Sara. Can you imagine any studio fronting the surely onerous licensing costs to add Thor into a film as a minor character detail and deus ex machina subplot today?

To give you an idea of how low on the pop culture radar screen Marvel was around this time, check out this scene from the horrifically terrific 1990 film starring Thor's fellow Avenger, Captain America:

Yes, the Red Skull is randomly Italian in this movie. Yes, Captain America is played by J.D. Salinger's son, Matt (what?). Yes, this movie was so bad it was shelved for direct-to-video release in 1992, mainly so that I could rent it on a semi-weekly basis. But, I digress.

Adventures in Babysitting carries a lot of trademarks of 80's comedies:

1. "Teenagers" played by the likes of 25-years-old-and-dressed-like-a-real-estate-agent Elisabeth Shue (Chris) and 30-years-old-but-looks-like-he-did-on-West-Wing Bradley Whitford (!) as the hunk (!) boyfriend Mike.

2. A refreshing amount of profanity and sexual humor. I can't imagine Christopher Columbus, he of Harry Potter fame, directing a film that drops f-bombs, repeatedly references Playboy magazine, and has one harried character worry about seeing people "shoot up" in the bus station these days. Let's also not forget that "Handsome" John Pruitt, the kindly one-handed tow truck driver, attempts to murder his wife and her lover in the early goings of this family-friendly romp through the mean streets of 1987 Chicago.

3. Really awesome haircuts, such as Keith Coogan's (Brad):

 4. A random scene where all the white characters unknowingly walk into a "black" bar that drops dead silent. I swear this happens in 85% of 80's comedies, as an homage to Animal House. By the way, Albert Collins, the Master of the Telecaster (which is his nickname, I swear, I looked it up!) truly does rock and also has awesome hair:

5. A random scene where a full band plays for the frat party. I wasn't in a frat but does this really happen? If so, why did I not join a frat?

6. Anthony Rapp. OK, so this isn't really a hallmark of 80's comedies. But still. It's pretty crazy that the Broadway star is in this as a sex-crazed teenaged ne'er-do-well. Crazier still that Columbus and he would reunite for the feature film version of Rent in 2005. Nearly 10 years after Rent was cool.

Otherwise, this movie has a Murphy's Law plot, following the misfortunes of a babysitter (Shue) and her charges (Rapp, Coogan, and Maia Brewton) through the Windy City one fateful night. A bunch of crazy stuff happens, including the aforementioned attempted murder, theft of an automobile (someone needs to resurrect Calvin Levels' career!), getting chased by the mob, and poor lovelorn Brad gets a switchblade through the foot. At the end of it all, Shue does an admirable job of pulling a messy house together in the few fleeting moments before the parental units get home.

After repeat viewings, the element of surprise (on which the film heavily relies) is of course non-existent, but it's still a fun, stupid diversion, wrapped in the sweet taste of nostalgia.

I lobbied to pitch it because I really don't think we'll watch this again for a long time. The lady of the house mounted a sterling defense, however, noting: (1) it only cost $5 at Target and (2) our daughter also loves Thor so she will also love this movie some day.

Ultimate verdict, then? KEEPER!

Next on the agenda: a double disc of Air Force One and In the Line of Fire. ACTION!

Starting Absurdly: #1 Ace Ventura; #2 Adaptation

Thanks largely to a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad BCS National Championship Game (current score: ALA: 42 ND: 7), our quest began tonight with a Surprise! Double Feature. Keeping (for now) with our pledge to proceed in alphabetical order, the first two films on the agenda are Ace Ventura: Pet Detective and Adaptation.

#1: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective

First of all, I liked how I titled this, because there seems to be an excess of colons. I'm a fan...of? Punctuation!

Second of all, before we get into the mini-review, let us all bask in the glory of Tone Loc.

Ace Ventura is undoubtedly the best film of Tone Loc and Dan Marino's long and storied acting careers. But beyond that, Courtney Cox (just barely) tops her performance in this video for the Boss:

Anyway, if you were a tween in 1994, especially in the Middle West of these United States (and, probably, Canada), you were basically honor-bound to love Ace Ventura. Rewatching it tonight for the who-knows-how-many-th time, I'm not sure if I still love it because it holds up (I swear it does) or because the film is so engrained in my consciousness from quoting and re-quoting it for the last (almost!) 20 years that it is funny by default. Things that stick out today that weren't so obvious to my younger, less boring self, are:

(1) How sexually coarse the movie is: Ace goes to third base with the very grateful owner of a stolen pup in like the first scene; there is a love scene in which Ace (shamefully) can only make it happen three (3) times; and, of course, we see Jim Carrey's pasty white ass in the Crying Game scene. I swear to G-D (wait, I'm not Jewish) this all passed over my head for a long time.

(2) How convoluted Finkle's plot is: there's got to be a simpler way to get back at Dan Marino than posing as a woman for a number of years, carefully and painfully climbing the ladder at Miami PD to get into a position in which he can really stick to Marino good...speaking of which...

(3) How questionable the gender politics are: The Crying Game scene and everyone's disgust at realizing "Einhorn is Finkle! Finkle is Einhorn!" were hilarious to my 12 year old self. More than a decade later, those jokes fall more than a little flat. However, I'll let it pass on the good faith assumption that the joke isn't just that a boy kissing a boy is inherently gross but that a boy kissing a boy he thinks is a girl is disappointing and therefore gross. Safely justified, I can now enjoy the movie without reservation. Right? Right?

(4) How awesome Jim Carrey's performance is: Amelia, the acting teacher, made a great point tonight while watching this movie. She's not a big fan of Jim Carrey generally, but noted that his performance is a great example of how a character can work if you fully commit to your choices. Case in point, see this scene:

Anyway, this is an obvious KEEPER for both of us.

Full Disclosure: My fantasy team this year was named LACES OUT. Mm, shaped like little footballs. 

#2: Adaptation

After Ace, we flipped to ESPN only to see a rout in progress. I decided we must therefore press on with this project and watch Adaptation. Amelia sighed. (Remember our Rules, Constant Reader).

Twenty minutes or so into a film filled with great performances by Chris Cooper, Meryl Streep, and Nicolas Cage (remember when he made good movies?), however, I noticed a change in attitude. Our erstwhile acting teacher was interested! Laughing, even!

To be honest, I was surprised at my interest in rewatching this as well. Charlie Kaufman is a terrific writer, to be sure, but his movies (save, perhaps, Being John Malkovich), don't easily lend themselves to rewatchability, which is the crucial metric for Movies You Must Own.

However, as someone who (occasionally) fancies himself a writer and (truly) writes for a living as an attorney, there's something about Adaptation that rings so true and direct that the film can't be denied. The ingenious, though admittedly self-indulgent, set-up that Charlie Kaufman (Cage) must write a film adaptation of The Orchid Thief by Susan Orlean (Streep) allows the Real Charlie Kaufman to explore why writers write and the obstacles to translating a real, human experience for mass consumption.

Some of my favorite scenes involve Cage, playing both Charlie and his hack (nonexistent) twin brother Donald Kaufman, debating the finer points of writing. Charlie is trying to write a movie about flowers and the entire human experience and Donald is writing a serial killer movie where (TWIST!) the killer is not only also the cop chasing him but also the girl being held hostage. In an apparently spoiler-unaware state of mind, Donald unironically names his film "The 3."

Donald represents that hackneyed impulse living within every writer to go for the easy out and the sexy twist and Charlie represents the PURE ARTIST(C) that must only write what his heart tells him...if it can ever speak up. The truly clever and remarkable thing about Adaptation is how it shows (in a ridiculous, yet thrilling final third act) that you occasionally have to be a hack to tell and/or finish a story and that being a pure artist may not get you so far as you think (see Synecdoche, New York, for more on this theme, I think).

Nothing at all makes sense but everything does, just like with most Kaufman movies. I vote KEEPER. Amelia, who fell asleep at some point - I blame dealing with a sick 3 year old and a newborn all day, not the movie - asked what happened when she woke up, which I take as a KEEPER as well.

So, Day 1 done, and 2 KEEPERS.

Next in the queue: Adventures in Babysitting.

Because We Can

Managing for once to think of a fun New Year's resolution, the ol' lady and me have decided to rewatch every DVD we own to see if they are worth keeping. Mostly from misspent years as Blockbuster (hey, remember that place?) employees while in college, we probably have a larger inventory of films than most rural libraries. Now that the kiddos are making us truly delve into the Disney vault, some things have just got to go. In order to make it more interesting, we're going to blog mini-reviews with the ultimate verdict: keep it or pitch it. We may even open certain films up for a vote, provided anyone besides us reads this thing. 

Before we begin, a couple of ground rules:

1.  No TV shows. We own several series on DVD, but we'd have to quit our jobs to watch all of those too. (Unless someone wants to give us a book deal or something for doing this, then, yes, we'll totally do that too).

2. We each have to watch it. No getting out of Man in the Moon for me, no skipping Talladega Nights for her.

3. Movies we own shown on TV do not count. So Four Brothers is on AMC again and we happened upon that scene where Marky Mark busts out the immortal line "ya'll better run, these white cops is crazy"? Too bad. Gotta watch the DVD from beginning to end.

4. Kids films don't count...unless something really needs reviewin'.

5. We're going to try to proceed in alphabetical order (yes, we have so many its necessary to alphabetize them in order to find anything)...but this rule will likely be broken at some point when we just have to watch Tombstone.

And that's it! We start off with a definite keeper in Ace Venture: Pet Detective. So, here we go!