Borat (2006)

This is one, that has been on my to see list, as well as my to avoid list.  A while back, I took a job that involved working with some kids from different countries (actually, 3 different countries).  There was a group of four kids whom I didn't realize were all from the same country, Kazakhstan.  I ended up spending a lot of time with those kids, a lot of it playing durak, a card game which they taught me that is very popular in the region.  They had GREAT disdain for this movie, which is understandable, but I was also curious if the film deserved it's nefarious reputation.

The film seem to have been entirely created by having Borat present himself as a legitimate Kazakh, and speaking in poor English with wild points of view to various people he encounters.  It seems that no one he encountered was in on the joke, making their reaction both natural and quite shocking at times.

This reminded me of the portion of the film Bad Grandpa that I saw.  That character was presented to unaware people, taking outrageous actions which caused them to have odd reactions.

Borat (the film) was quite hard to watch at some points, as you could feel the uncomfortable positions the people were being put into.  This is something I couldn't do.  I wouldn't be able to mislead those people so, and stay in character.  Too much sympathy would well up and I would have to break the truth to them.

It was also interesting, as it brought out the good in some people and the bad in others.  Some tired to be kind and understanding of his odd points of view and lack of understanding of American culture.  Others relished in agreeing with Borat's suggestion to wipe certain countries off the map.  More than a few walked away (one even running away) in disgust and one group even called the police on him.

After reading about the film, it turns out the film was a great tourism boost for Kazakhstan, which is pretty ironic, considering that none of it was filmed in Kazakhstan.

While I am certainly no expert on Kazakhstan, this film did a very poor job of accurately portraying the country.  The people in the country looked much European (which they were) where was Kazakhstan as a majority of it's citizens have an Asian ethnic background.

Sacha Baron Cohen just wanted to portray a backwards country.  It is unfortunate he choose the name of an actual country to do so.  He could have used the name of a fictional country and avoided upsetting an entire country.  Surely the people he filmed wouldn't have known the difference. None of them could have found Kazakhstan on a map to start with.

To Be Takei (2014)

I had only just heard of this film, and of course involving George Takei is what instrested me.  I was surprised to find that it was playing at the museum down the street from me, so I took my first trip to the movies in over six months and went to see this film.

I ended up being about half an hour late for the film, which strangely worked to its advantage.  When I arrived they had just begun reviewing George Takei's work on Star Trek.  That segment was quite funny and the rest of the film continuted to be interesting and informative.

When I got a chance to go back and see the first half hour that I missed, it was certainly very informative, not only about George Takei's life and career, but also the coverage of the topic of the American Interment camp for Japanese Americans during WWII.  It gave you the understanding that those people had everything taken away from them as well as the prejudice they faced after being released .  This film can lets us begin to understand the depth of the troubles those people were put through.  Being that the first 30 minutes of the film were much more serious, it may have led to a darker attitude when watching the rest of the picture and detracted from out enjoyment, which is odd to say, as the whole audience was laughing out loud as I arrived in the theater at that 30 minute mark.

Space Station 76

I had never even heard of this film before stumbling upon it, and the retro theme is what interested me.  It was a fairly interesting concept, having dated technology and attitudes placed in a high tech (low tech?) space station.

The first half of the film was rather slow and actually had really lost my attention to the point where was going to turn off the film, something I NEVER do.  But it was just a build up for a soap opera type situation, which built up to an fairly interesting conclusion.

Ted's robotic arm (being a Nintendo Power glove) seemed rather ridiculous, especially when it malfunctioned.

One other short coming of the film was the conclusion.  It would be nice to have some kind of resolution between Jessica (Liv Tyler) and Sunshine.

Going Cardboard (2012)

Knowing next to nothing about the "board" games that have been coming out recently, I thought this documentary would enlighten me.

The film started out well, as a history of the new board games, which apparently were a big hit in Germany to start with, and rather hard to come by in the US.  It also was interesting to hear about the problems faced by some individuals as they attempted to get their games published.

Unfortunately, once the film passed the middle point, it seemed to break down into people merely stating how great they felt various board games were, without giving any reason for the enjoyability of those games.  Also, the game play of any game was never explained, leaving reason for the popularity of these games still a mystery.

Dam Busters (1995)

I recently watched some kind of criticism of Star Wars, in which the narrator mentioned that the Death Star trench sequence in Star Wars was taken from the movie Dam Busters, about a British plan to destroy dams in Germany during WWII with a new technique.

George Lucas certainly did not do a shot of shot rip off, and the paralells wouldn't occur to a casual viewer.  Still, the there are similaries with the concept and several lines of dialogue are nearly taken word for word, including having one of the pilots named Hutch.

While the film is quite good, it did seem a bit long, especially getting to the action.  It was fascinating to see the development of the idea, as well as all the red tape Barnes Wallis had to go through to get his idea funded and allow for testing.  It was also amazing at how British everyone was, which seems like an odd statement to make.  But, all the characters seemed to be apologetic as well as Barnes being slightly self deprecating at times.  They all avoided criticism of each other, in a way that only British will do.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

I ended up watching The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) in the theater before I had watched the first of the Hobbit films, so I only now went back to watch it.  While I enjoyed Lord of the Rings (the books and even the animation, but a bit less so with the films), I haven't been all the motivated to see the Hobbit films, even though I prefer that story to that of Lord of the Rings.

This film played out well, as it had enough action (not necessarily fighting) taking place to keep the film moving.

It does seem that wizards primary function is to fight with a staff.  Weren't they supposed to cast spells?

It seems that Gollum's part in the film was smaller than expected.  With so much time to work with (three films worth) I thought they would have spent more time on Gollum.  It seems like the spend about the same amount of time that was spent on it as in the animated version.

I cannot recall if the film match the book more closely, of if there has been a great deal of embellishment.  I did not recall the scene in Bilbo's house or the battles with the goblin's from the books at all.

The Amazing Spider-man 2 (2014)

This film played better than the previous film, though it did have Peter Parker crying as he seemed to constantly be doing in the first three films.  Did I miss something?  I don't recall Peter Parker crying in the comic books or animated series.

Once again, they chose one of the more obscure villains for this film, Electro.  Also, they changed his powers to the point where he was much more like Static Shock than Electro, making his abilities defy the laws of physics.  Still, the did give Electro a pretty good build up, and made him more of a real character, rather than a one dimensional villain bent on reasonless destruction.  Honestly, my only familiarity with Electro is from the Spider-man Ride at Universal Studios in Japan.

Also, the overkill with the forshadowing of Gwen Stacy's saftey was too much.  If Peter is constantly bombarded by it, and he didn't heed it, does it have any meaning?  Obviously it was a lesson for Peter Parker in the comics, but in the film it is a warning he didn't heed.

Finially, Gwen Stacy did get the same ending as in the comics, it's too bad that her story was canibalized and eviscerate for the first film.  Fortunately they didn't feel the need to go over the top with her ending.

It's also too bad, as both Andrew Garfield (Peter Parker/ Spiderman) and Emma Stone (Gwen Stacy) fit the characters better than and did Tobey Maguire (Spiderman/Peter Parker) and Kirsten Dunst (Mary Jane) in the first three Spiderman movies.  Odd that they threw Harry Osborne in at the end of the film, pretty much a throw away villain like they did with Venom at the end of Spiderman 3.  Its a horrible waste of two of the greatest villains Spiderman ever had (well actually it should have been the Norman Osborne, instead of Harry)

Fetish (1996)

I was both amazed and impressed that this film exists, as well as Pandora's Box.  Any place that gives people an chance to do something that they enjoy, that doesn't is positive in my mind.  It's kind of like that news reporter quitting her job because of her support of marijuana.  It seems that marijuana should be legal as marijuana users are much less destructive than alcohol users and it's a huge waste of judicial resources to attempt to prosecute those people, but at the same time no one should be dumb enough to actually use the stuff.

While the concept is good, this film does little to dispell the ideas that these fetishes and the people who have them are weird.  When the clients are asked to explain the reasons for their fetishes, most of them come up empty.  It's not really necessary for them to justify having these fetishes, but it would help us to understand them.  Only the people toward the end of the film clearly explain their reasoning for going to this club.  One man explains how her gets immense statifaction out fufilling his fantasy and clans to have an inner peace.  The other man appears to attend the club.  One other odd point is the interview is a bit too gungho to get on to his next question, often beginning to ask before the interviewee has completed their answer for the previous question.

All in all, it would seem that this club lacks in a way as all of their fantasies appear to be sexual in nature, but of course law restricts them from getting any sexual satisfaction from living out their fantasies.  It's a win-win situation for the women who work their as they are able to command high fees for their action, but do not have to get their hands (or more specifically other parts of their bodies) dirty.

The other oddity about these fetishes is it's hard to see the appeal in them.  After watching what they do, you don't get the sense that it is something fun or something you would like to try.

The King and I (1956)

I have resisted watching this film for a long time, and I feel that it is at the end of my 50s-60s unwatched musicals list.  The reason I resisted it was, I dislike watching films that are supposed to set in an area I know something about, and ends up feeling stereotypical and wrong.   Also, I while I know how noteworthy Yul Brynner is, obviously it is an odd choice having a Russian play the role of the Thai king.  But as it turns out, there were not a lot of cultural mistakes that stood out enough to detract from the overall film.  Yul Brynner's performance was amazing, as he gave an exotic feel to the character, as well as regal air.  Every time Yul Brynner appeared, he was always entertaining and his songs enjoyable.

Before watching this film, I had read that Rita Moreno was in the film, but had not only completely forgotten that while watching the film, but I completely didn't recognize her while watching the film.  I was keen to find out who the actress was who played the Burmese girl Tuptim and quite surprised to find she was Rita Moreno.

Oddly enough, I don't believe a single Thai person was cast in this film (or any other production or version of the King and I) nor was one word of Thai spoken.  Also, I thought some of the sets were slightly off, as well as I was uncertain if the costumes (especially those of Yul Brynner) were culturally accurate.  Also, there were a number of times when Thai people were touched on the head, which is a cultural faux pas.

The oddity which is the "Thai" production of  "Uncle Tom's Cabin" was also quite entertaining and certainly a unique twist on the story.  I have never read Uncle Tom's Cabin, so I don't know how faithful it was to the original, but the English narration gave some insight to the actions often performed in Thai dance.

A number of concepts were brought up, including the Thai's not knowing the world was round or the size of their country.  Also, they showed some antagonism towards Burma, which I never knew existed.  And it was proposed that England make Thai a protectorate.  I don't know how many of these ideas were historically accurate, but I would like to look into them further.

I was only aware of one song before watching this film, "Getting to Know You", though I was unaware that it was from this musical.

Dark Future (1994)

Not the most inspired of posters

I, for some strange reason love a dystopian story and have lately been watching a few of Greydon Clark's films, so I thought I would check this one out.  It is supposed to be a science fiction film, but also was listed as horror, and since I don't generally care for horror films I was a bit wary of watching this one.

It turns out is is not much of a horror film, though I read a review that some one wrote saying the film was really scary to them as a kid.  It's not much of a science fiction film either, though.  It does has a dystopian, oppressive society setting, but other than that and laser guns that look like toys, the film has little to suggest it was set in anything other than the 80s.

Also, the cast is rather unremarkable, being that I did not recognize a single actor in the film.

The film was modestly enjoyable but extremely simple in both plot and dialogue.  It is as if some one came up with two or three lines of a concept, and then decided to just start filming from there.  The dialogue seems completely uninspired.  While this seems like a harsh criticism, I understand that this film was made on an extremely low budget, and it's any film has the potential for entertainment and a spark a creativity.

I am curious where the beginning scene with the exceptionally long escalator was filmed (still don't know why Logan's Run or any other film thought it was a good idea to include escalators in a science fiction film, they are technology from the late 1800s).

After doing a bit of research, the closest matching escalator is the one in the St. Petersburg Metro, but I find it hard to believe the budget of this film covered a trip to Russia.  The second possibility is the Washington Metro Wheaton Escalator.

They All Laughed (1981)

My original motivation for watching this film was the appearance of John Ritter, but it turns out this film has a number of other noteworthy cast members as well.

John Ritter was not as we usually expect him.  While for most of the film he is pretty straight forward, you do see occasional silly moments, reminiscent of his days on "Three's Company"

Also, there was a number of noteworthy cast members, none of whom I recalled until after watching the film and rereading the Wikipedia entry.  Most note worthy was Audrey Hepburn.  I have never seen a film with her before (and am waiting for just the right moment to watch Breakfast at Tiffanys or Roman Holiday), and she wasn't particularly noteworthy in this film.  She appeared as an older woman (which she was) and didn't give off any special charm to allude to her great popularity.

A side note, many years ago I was in conatct with a group of Japanese students and they had written me a letter telling me how sad they were that Audrey Hepburn had just passed away.   I was suprirsed that they had interest in the actress and kind of shocked that no one around me had even known or taken note of her passing.

Dorthy Stratten appears in this film, and she really was hard to ignore.  What was really impressive about her was that her face was so stunning, I never once looked at her body.  It's a terrible shame what happened to her, and I feel she could have had a great career as an actress, as she gives off such appeal and likability.

This film is neither a comedy, nor does it appear as to be a romance.  It centers around 3 men who work for a private investigator, charged with following two different women but they to do a poor job of it, and are more focused on getting laid than their job, especially with the women they are charged with observing.

Of particular note here is Ben Gazzara's character, who seems to have women coming out his ears, but never gives us the impression that he is overwhelmingly handsome or charming.  While it's easy to show him getting so many girls in a film, it's impossible to believe he would have any kind of success in real life.

This, like many other films is puzzling in why it was made.  There doesn't seem to be anything the director is trying to tell us.  It's more a series of random and not particularly noteworthy events, with no clincher of an ending.

Joysticks (1983)

I thought I had seen every nerdy video game film from the 80s, and was pretty sure I had seen this one already, but as I watched it, I was amazed to find that I had never seen it before. I wonder if there is a similar film I am confusing it with.

The film is confusing as the plot doesn't make sense at times and some of the video game interactions are questionable (why does McDorfus open up the back of the Pac-Man game after losing?)  It's like the plot of other films, adults against the kids, was pasted on the film but didn't quite fit right, but no one bothered tinkering with it to work out the kinks.

I felt that Scott McGinnis had a much more prominent career than he may actually have had, from watching "Making the Grade" repeatedly on cable.  I thought he was one of the 3 young men who played bullies in 80s movies, the other two being Ted McGinley (Revenge of the Nerds) and William Zabka (The Karate Kid and Just One of the Guy).  It turns out, one of the roles McGinnis is most know for is "Mr Adventure" in Star Trek III.  I remember watching that film and wondering why McGinnis had taken such a small role.

I immediately recognized John Gries from his role in Real Genius but only found out after looking up his Wikipedia entry that he is the same actor who portrayed Uncle Rico in Napoleon Dynamite.  I found that he has played a wide variety of roles in a huge number of films and TV shows.

I also immediately recognized John Voldstad, the other brother Darryl from Newhart.  I thought I had never seen him in anything else, but after googling him, it turns out he appeared in Stripes, a film I have seen a few times.

The director's comentary is somewhat interesting to listen to has he only has positive things to say about all the actors and the making of the film.  I think he may be a little deluded about how sucessful the film was, but according to him it was number one in the box office during it's first week of release.

It turns out this director's previous film also stared Scott McGinnis, Wacko.  While I watched that film, it's not really my kind of film, being a horror parody.  That film did feature Elizabeth Daily, who played a  number of character in a large number of 80s films, as well as having a singing career.

The Perils of Gwendoline in the Land of the Yik-Yak (1984)

I think I read something about this film involving bondage and there is a poster that gives you the idea the film contains such scenes, but it actually does not.  There are a few scenes with women partially bounds (most often just a single wrist) and wearing black provocative costumes.  This is often the case with what is purported to be bondage, as in porno.  Often if such a film has some one wearing a black or leather costume, it is considered bondage.  It just irks me how this kind of thing is often exaggerated.

Misleading Poster

This film instead is a kind of Indiana Jones meets Barbarella (taken from the poster).  It's a silly romp that doesn't make a lot of sense at times.  Stranger still, a hidden society of entirely women shows the women often walking around in topless costumes.  Does that mean if all men disappeared from Earth, women would no longer cover their breasts?


It turns out that Tawny Kitaen is the same actress who played Tom Hank's fiance in Bachelor Party.  I have never gotten over how spectacularly beautiful she is in the film, nor how powerful she seems as a woman.  It's a pity she didn't make more films or have a more prominent career.

Sushi Girl (2012)

This seemed like it had all the elements for a film I would like, though I knew nothing of the plot before watching it.  I first got interested in the film after seeing pictures of Cortney Palm in her amazing outfit for the premier of this film.  Later I learned that Mark Hamill was in this film, making it a must see.

I saw a film a while back called "Ramen Girl" and though this might be a similar thing.  It was NOT.  The whole purpose of the "Sushi Girl" is to lay still and do nothing, serving as a naked sushi platter.

Now a female friend of mine mentioned years ago about eating sushi off a naked woman.  She seemed to think it would be sexy and some how possible to find such a situation in Japan.  Strangely, I was much to practical watching this film as in 1) No one in the film was much interested in the sushi, nor did they like sushi.  2) Very little sushi was eaten 3) The sushi would heat up after a while on the girls body, and in this film it says on her body most of the picture.  4) What would happen if she sneezed???

Mark Hamill's character is quite well played, but also very despicable.  I don't enjoy seeing Mark Hamill in such a role, but this is the first film I have heard of him making since "Comic Book the Movie" , back a decade ago in 2004.

After doing a little research, it turns out that Noah Hathaway is the same actor who played Boxy in the original Battlestar Galactica TV series.

I thought this film may have some connection or be set in Japan, but with the exception of Sonny Chiba, there is no connection with Japan at all.

The film feels like a derivative Quentin Tarantino film, with lots of blood and violence.  Not my cup of tea at all.  While it does have a twist, that is not enough to make this a film of my liking.

Ladies and Gentlemen, The Fabulous Stains (1982)

I stumble upon this film, and the idea that it appeared to be nearly lost and forgotten meant I had to see it.

The film is quite odd, as it seems to lack direction, but that almost appears to be intentional.  The film is about a girl and her two friends who form a band.  They actually just sort of stumble into it, as the leader seems to just spout whatever comes to mind in order to contradict whatever she is facing.  The girls seem to have no plan whatsoever and are completely unable to play their instruments when they perform their first concert.  While they do appear to learn to play there instruments, their songs have only rudementary lyrics, which appear to me made up on the spot, and the songs are not particularly enjoyable.  While Corinne (Diane Lane) refuses to wear the costume provided for her by their manager, she wears a much more provocative costume, while spouting the message "We Don't Put Out", which I would say sends mixed messages.  Even more so, as every converstation she has with the leader of the band is antagoistic, she spontaiously sleeps with him.

Strangely,  The Fabulous Stains (in the film) become a huge phenomenon and a sort of feminist movement.   While there appears to be no foundation for this, it is often how bands are catapulted to popularity.

The one revealing point of the film is that bands that are often worshiped may really lack direction and their random spontaneous actions are often perceived as brilliance.

It seems each subsequent film Diane Lane make, I find her to be less interesting.

Americathon (1979)

There was really only one motivation for me to see this movie.  In my childhood, my friend described the plot of this film and the ending, but never told me the name of the film.  I stumbled upon it recently and knew immediately it was the film he described, from the name alone.

It is always interesting to see a film set in the future and see what predictions have (but in most cases have not) come true.  This film depicts a complete decline of the middle class, as well as wide spread popularity of reality shows accurately, but of course misses the ball on a number of other points.

I am always glad to see John Ritter, though it seems like he only made 3 film, 2 of which I have seen including this one.  The other film I have seen is "Hero at Large"  I am planning on watching the third film "They All Laughed" at some point.

It also has notable soundtrack from fairly well know artists, playing songs I had never heard of before, like Eddie Money's "Get A Move On"

The Cobbler and the Thief: Recobbled Cut Mark IV (2013)

I had seen a few things posted on line about this film, but really knew nothing about it.  Apparently this film had been in production for nearly 3 decades.  While at least 3 versions of the film have been released, some with additional dialogue and even songs, this is supposed to be as close to the original vision of the director Richard Williams.

The film, epecially the animation style is very odd.  Each character has such a unique look, as if they were each done by an independant studio.  It' hard to understand if the Cobber's black and white coloring (though color is used sometimes) is intentional or just unfinished.  Some of the character are so "stylized"  that they seem unreal, while it seems only the princess looks like an actual human.  The Vizier looks like a combination of Jafar and Genie from Disney's Aladdin, so much so that you would think the producer could sue.

The film is mostly without dialogue, and strangely the villian has the majority of the dialogue and is voiced by Vincent Price.

There are also a lot of scenes that are somewhat long with character's running around in stylized rooms or being flung around and nearly and oblivisously avoiding death while chaos rains around them.

While this film is a great accomplishment, especially for Garrett Gilchrist, it lacks appeal for modern audiences. While a lot of great animation has been made in the last few years, it has been lacking variations in style a bit.  Though that does not detract from the appeal of modern animation (which really has been pretty much entirely CGI), it does show that there are a lot of other possible styles, like those used in this film.

I would like to see the two other versions of this film and compare them to Richard William's original vision.

Millennium Actress (2001)

After watching The Wind Rises, I read some material about the film, and someone made a reference to this film, Millennium Actress, which was supposed to be a great Japanese animated film.  I had never heard of it before, so I decided to check it out.

The film has a bit of an odd feel to it.  The animation was less soft or appealing that is usual with most Japanese animated films.  Still the story, and the constant changing of setting made making this film animated the only way to keep the budget low.  Except for that, there is really no reason this film needed to be an animated film.

The film had really left you lacking as the ending .  It's one of those cases where the so called "McGuffin", the item (or person) people are searching for is supposedly irrelevant.  It's the chase that makes the story.  But we are lead to beleive their is some great significant purpose for that McGuffin.  The real answer comes from the fact that both the character and the director is capable of stating that something is important, when they don't have anything to justify why give it such status.

A friend of mine felt the same way about the ark in Raider's of the Lost Ark, but I only partially recognized her point.  After all, it was one of the greatest chases ever made and you did get to see what the power of the ark was capable of, but if the ark was supposedly left to be used by the America's it would either have changed history or resulted in everyone having to keep their eyes closed for 10 minutes each time it was opened (even the enemy could do that).

風立ちぬ The Wind Rises (2013)

I had watched nearly all of Miyazaki's movies, with the exception of the latest, Howl's Moving Castle and a hand full his older films, mostly those predating Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind.

A co-worker had told me of this film, which was what inspired me to watch it, and her explanation about the "theme" song of the film Hikokigumo by Yuming.  Honestly, I only know Yuming from her song "Koibito ga Santa Kurozu", which a friend of mine sent to me on a mix tape, many years ago.  I do have a bit of a bone to pick with this being called a "theme" song.   The song is merely tacked on to the end credits, a place where any song will do.   This is the same problem with Batman Forever's inclusion of A Kiss from a Rose and even Time Bandits' Dream Away (a song that REALLY didn't fit the theme of the movie) 

Since Hikoigumo was written 4 decades before the film was created,  I realize that it wouldn't match the action in the film,  it's expected that the theme song would be at the beginning of the film or at lease during the film, where it captures the feel of some of the action taking place on the screen.

Anyhow, this was a pretty good film, but it lacked the feel of a Miyazaki film.  There weren't any strange creatures and a minimum of odd machines.  Those odd machines that did appear were only in dream sequences, but even then they bothered me a bit, as they often showed odd working of engines that seemed to demonstrate a lack of knowledge of how engines operate on the part of the director.

The story of the main character is certainly a worthy one, based on the real life and real accomplishments of Jiro Horikoshi.  Learning of this man was a great history lesson.

One big problem I had with the film was that tacked on love story. First, the love the characters supposedly felt never seemed authentic.  They instantaneously met and married, with out any indication of their love.  Then as their story continued, they but still have no actions that revealed they felt any love for each other.  And finally, not only was the story but it is not an actual event that took place in Jiro's life.  His actual wife never suffered tubculosis nor stayed in a santarium.  This was just a story that Miyazaki had read and decided to tack on to this film in an attempt to give the film a love story and perhaps depth (a cheap attempt to get an academy award?), but it felt like a failed attempt to pull at our heart strings.

One other odd thing was that the machine sounds all appeared to be made by people's mouths.  Perhaps this was an attempt at a unique style, but it sounded like elementary school kids making engine noises.

Son of the Morning Star (1991)

This film covers two perspectives on the Battle of Little Bighorn, or Custer's Last stand, the native American view and the American view.  The film can pretty much be considered an epic, with the huge battles, vast vistas and comprehensive native American cast.  It's hard to imagine how they created the scene showing the vast native American camp shown just before the Battle of Little Bighorn.

The way the film is broken up into segments makes it seem like it could be divided into two seperate films, which could stand on their own, each showing a different perspective.

The film gives great insight into Custer, as most films show him as either incompetent or a monster.  Here we see him as a multifaceted person, showing his wife and family life, as well as delving into his history prior to his last stand.   It also shows a bit of his "flamboyant" nature, as he spent a great deal of effort on his hair, as well as wearing uniforms completely different from his regiment.

From this film, we are told that Custer was known by many names to the native Americans.  Some of those names included "Long Hair" and "Son of the Morning Star", hence the name of this film.

This is the kind of film that should be required viewing for high school history students. It gives insight into the actions of the US against the native Americans, as well the the motivations for the reactions on both sides.

Dean Stockwell appears in this film, who appeared in Quantum Leap as well as reoccurring characters in Star Trek: Enterprise.

Unfortunately, this film has not been release on DVD or any digital format, as the only release of this film is on VHS.

While watching this film, it's hard to look at Custer and not recall Ben Stiller's character from Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, as they both had the same mustache and type of face.

Saving Otter 501 (2013)

Strangely this movie was a bit disappointing.  While I LOVE otters, and just recently learned that they were considered extinct for about 50 years, due to hunting by humans, this film was less informative and engaging than other videos I have seen on sea otters.

I stumbled upon this movie, after reading an article about CED disks that said they often had extra material recorded on their reverse sides on, which was included without making the buyer aware it was included.  One of the people said they had an episode of "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau: The Unsinkable Sea Otter".  I of course know of Jacques Cousteau's reputation as filmmaker of marine life films and due to my love of otters, I tracked down a copy of that episode.  The episode opened my eyes to the so called "Great Hunt" of sea otters, which decimated the population, appearing to have rendered them extinct for 50 years.

While, it wasn't as informative about sea otters as the Jacques Cousteau's film and other sources, and also the story wasn't as compelling, it was great to see the baby sea otter and watch her recovery, "education" and release, as well as wonderful to find out about the conservation work the Monterey Bay Aquarium is doing.  Observant watchers will notice that the Monterey Bay Aquarium was featured in the the film Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home as the Cetacean Institute.

The Amazing Dr Clitterhouse (1938)

As I had just recently discovered Edward Robinson, and was not only amazed at his performance but also surprised to find that he had worked in an number of films with Humphrey Bogart.  This film seemed especially odd, as I had never even heard of it's existance and it's rather odd title.  Is Clitterhouse an actual family name??

This film was amazing to watch as it was a completely different character for Edward Robinson, and to see him and Humphrey Bogart essentially switch roles from the film Key Largo.  Edward Robinson plays such a refined and well spoken doctor, it's hard to believe that he is the same actor who practically created the persona of 30's gangsters.

Big Star: Nothing Can Hurt Me (2012)

This one I got to in a round about way.  It all started with Charles Laquidara, the DJ from Boston, who was on WBCN for a decades.  He played the song "Alex Chilton" by the Replacements  many years back as one of his featured and recommend songs.  I thought the song was fantastic, bought the CD "Pleased to Meet Me" for that song alone, and it has ranked as one of my favorite songs ever since.

I was under the impression that Alex Chilton was a music producer (which he was) but knew nothing of his work as a musician.

MANY, MANY years later, after hearing that the theme song for "That's 70's Show" was written by Alex Chilton for his band Big Star, was I made aware of the band Big Star.  After getting hold of their albums and listening to them, they didn't really make a big impression on me and I didn't see the magic in them or know that they had a cult following.

Once I found out about this film, I watched it at the first chance I got.  It was through watching it that Big Star finally made a big impression on me and I came to understand the relevance of Alex Chilton.

The movie is a bit hard to follow at times, and it may lack appeal for those who have no knowledge or interest in Big Star.  The reason the film is hard to follow is that at times the it was hard to understand the relevance of some of the people who spoke or were spoken about by their relatives, as their names and relevance may not sink in with their names only being shown in their initial introduction.  It took a while to realize (after reviewing the film and checking on line) that the person whom they kept coming back to throughout the film was the drummer (and last surviving member of Big Star) Jody Stephens.

I have found the songs "September Gurls" and "I Am the Cosmos" to be especially outstanding.

I was quite depressed to learn of the passing of Alex Chilton in 2010 (as well as Andy Hummel the bassist for Big Star) and also that Chris Bell had died tragically in 1978.

While a number of great event took place for me in 2010, there were also a large number of tragic events (as the passing of two member of Big Star, as listed above), including the passing of both Robert Culp and Stephen J Cannell (of the Greatest American Hero and a large number of other projects) in that same year.

Key Largo (1948)

After watching Little Caesar and finding that Edward Robinson was a big actor in the 30s and 40s with a lot of films to his credit, I decided to check out more of his films.  I was quite surprised to find he was in a film with Humphrey Bogart (as it turns out, several films).

I thought I had watched a lot of Humphrey Bogart films, and even thought I had seen this one before, but after the first few seconds I realized I had never seen a second of this film.

This film is another excellent example of film noir.  I expected to see more of the Florida Keys, but little was shown. While the stars and their acting was good, the ending was a bit of a case of deus ex machina, but was saved by the fact that Humphrey Bogart's character is one of the few characters (in any movie) who acted extremely intelligently in his confrontation with this villain of the picture.

Little Caesar (1931)

After watching Scarface (1931) I read a little about the Hays Code, and pre-code films as well as pre-code gangster movies.  There was a list of three films that were considered a seminal part of the gangster film genre, as well as the first gangster film "Underworld".

While a very good film in its own right, the performance of Edward Robinson as gangster was outstanding, setting the style for 30's gangsters in film.  Even those who have never seen a gangster film will recognize Edward Robinson's likeness as Rocky in the Bugs Bunny cartoon Racketeer Rabbit.

The Year of Living Dangerously (1982)

After watching, The Act of Killing (2012), I thought I should go back and watching this film, which covers historical events in Indonesia.  This film has a certainly noteworthy cast, featuring Mel Gibson and Sigourney Weaver.

It is a decent film but lacks a great deal of depth of the historical events which unfold around the characters, at the same time without giving any real feeling for the character's or their feeling for each other.  This film has been labeled a love story, but there if very little love nor emotions in the main characters on again, off again, relationship.

One other point is there is a lack of films about Indonesia, so this film should be lauded for giving exposure to a country and historical events that are often overlooked.  Made by an Australian film company, it is a subject that no Hollywood has shown no interest in.

This film seemed to barely make back the cost it took to produces the film.  I thought the film had an impressive reputation, but I feel that it may be almost unknown.

One reviewer back in 1983 said "If this film doesn't make an international star of Mr. Gibson, then nothing will.", but I don't know how widely known this film is, and it doesn't seem a lot of Mel Gibson fans even acknowledge this film.

The Killing Fields (1984)

I had heard of this film, and had a general idea what it was about, but began watching it after mistaking it for "The Year of Living Dangerously".  This was a spectacular film, especially with it's review of the slaughter/genocide/holocaust that took place in Cambodia.

First, as a film, it was a great story, that kept you glued to the screen.  The film can stand on it's own as a oveview of the horrific events that took place during as well.

The only question that arises is if most viewers would feel confused if they lacked the basic background of the Khmer Rouge, perhaps making it difficult to understand underlying circustances that lead to these events.

Accolades must be given to Haing S. Ngor, who not only stared in this film (for which he received academy award) but himself was a Cambodian genocide survivor.  While he was slain decades later, while living in the US after becoming a US citizen, he indicated that this film was a important enough achievement that he felt fulfilled the most important role in his life.  This film should not be forgotten, nor overlooked.

The Act of Killing (2102)

I am not quite sure what brought me to watch this film, but most likely it was the fact that it is about Indonesia, whose history that I knew much less about than I thought.  The film opened my eyes to what the tragic slaughter/ holocaust that took place in Indonesia (and how the killers are revered there) and explained to me the level seriousness regarding of why you don't call yourself an atheist in Indonesian (as being as communists are atheists).

The film covers several men who lead the slaughter and follows them with there efforts to represent their acts on film, it is surreal at times, but in the end give better understanding of the Indonesian view of the slaughter of suspected communists and even the butcher's point of view.  Basically, what this film wants to say can be said in a sentence or two, but requires being watched to have more than a superficial understanding of the historical events.

This movie is going on my list of required watching for "social studies" classes in high school, to fill in the gaps in knowledge.

The Outlaw (1943)

After watching The Aviator, I became more aware of Howard Hughes career as a producer and director of films and wished to watch more of his films.  The Outlaw is one of his more notable films, and at the time was a source of great controversy, due to the "prominence" of Jane Russell's breasts, which now a days is not enough to even cause anyone to raise an eyebrow.

The film is good, and apparently is very well regarded, especially for a western, and while it was a decent film to watch is not overwhelmingly noteworthy to me.

One thing that did is perplexing is that the two main characters are Doc Holiday and Billie the Kid.  It's odd that these two historical characters were used in a completely fictional story.  Why not use new characters?  The use of established characters in a unrelated story seems uncommon for the era this film was made in, but now is too common.  Too many films take establish characters, stories and even TV shows and makes a completely unrelated film.  This has worked well in rare instances, most commonly in  Disney's  animated films such as The Little Mermaid, and strangely enough Brian De Plama's remake of Howard Hughes own Scarface film.

The Aviator (2004)

I have been torn about watching this film for years. This internal conflict was due to my great interest in Howard Hughes and my distaste for Leonardo Dicaprio, so it took me until now to watch the film.

As I said, I have a great interest in Howard Hughes, but too many times films focus on the insanity at the end of his life, which is irrelevant in comparison to all his accomplishments.  I have the same problem with films about Kennedy that feel his assassination is the only note worthy moments of his life, when it is the least irrelevant.  There is NOTHING for us to learn from either of these events.

When the film starts out, Dicaprio seems to be none other than himself, which is one of the problems I have with him, but as the film progresses you get more of a feel for who Howard Hughes was.  Having read Howard Hughes biography, I was rather surprised by some of the extremely notable events that took place in his life that I didn't recall.


Overall, this is an excellent overview of Howard Hughes life and accomplishments.  It does give glimpses of the insanity that eventually consumed Howard Hughes, without making it the focus of the film or neglecting his numerous accomplishments.

P.S.  Is there any DiCaprio film in which he doesn't show his ass?   It was in this film.  I also caught a few minutes of The Wolf of Wall Street ( which seems like a pretty good film, but I have avoided due to lack of interest on my part and Dicaprio's involvement), which also prominently shows his ass.

Dinner for Schmucks (2010)

I reviewed Jeff Dunham's filmography, and it listed that he made a movie, Dinner with Schmucks.  It also listed that he had a dummy called Diane, which I had never seen, but that dummy was said to appear in this film.  As I began to watch the film, I recall seeing Jeff Dunham's name in the opening credits, leading me to believe he played a significant role in this film.  I was mislead.

Jeff (himself) doesn't even speak in this film, and his dummy Dianne only has about 2 lines.  Not only that, but Jeff and much more prominently his dummy only have a few seconds of screen time, mostly as background characters, making their appearance in this film completely insignificant.

The role Steve Carell plays is vastly different than anything else I have ever seen him do, though I am not a big fan of Steve Carell (though I have nothing against him either).

I usually enjoy seeing Paul Rudd (whose name I didn't know until I looked it up just now, but whose face I am very familar with, since he appeared in several episodes of Friends), as he often appears as an every man, so I see myself in his place.  I used to feel this way about John Cusack, though his films in the 80's were much more outlandish.  I orginally planned to watch every film John Cusak made, ran out of steam with his 90's film.  I haven't seen many John Cusack films in over a decade, and while he has diversified characters, I feel less motivation to see his films.

This film is okay, but I feel like it's like an episode of Three Company, where something goes wrong, and is handled poorly and a small action on the part of one of the characters would clear up the situation, but no one does so (at least 'til the end).  It's the similar kind of situation, with various situations occurring based on that concept.  It gives you an embarrassed feeling though out the film, a feeling that I wish I could do something about, but the character's don't do so (to keep the plot alive).

I don't feel particularly sympathetic for Steve Carell's character and only feel like Paul Rudd should get away from him.  Even at the end of the film those feeling don't change.  It's like Steve Carell's character is just source of comedy, and it seem like a person such as him couldn't really exist, though they surely do, to some degree.

Rushmore (1998)

I thought I had put this movie on my list because of the death of Harold Ramis.  I recall reading an article and finding out that Bill Murry didn't talk to Harold for nearly a decade.  Some how the name of the film Rushmore was mentioned, and I thought that Harold Ramis had some involvement in it.  It appears I was wrong.

I was surprised to see that the film was co-written by Owen Wilson.  I am not a huge fan of Owen Wilson, though I have nothing against him.  I have seen a few of his films, but they don't really stand out to me.  I have gained some respect for him, now knowing that he has writing to his carrer.

Luke Wilson appears in this film, and while he has very little screen time, I am glad to see him in a film.  I have seen so little that he has done.  Only Idocracy comes to mind.

As always, Bill Murray gave a good, though some what unremarkable performance.  It was more unremarkable because the character didn't call for it and it didn't appear to have any ad-libing that I noticed.

It was a decent distraction for two hours, but I didn't bring anything away from this film.

The Descendents

I had never heard of this movie, but when talking about the South Park episode Going Native, a co-work told me that that episode was a parody of the movie The Descendents.  While the connection between Going Native and The Descendents to be tenuous at best, it is certainly a wortwhile movie (has George Clooney ever made anything else?).    While this is a great film, the over lying theme is not a happy one, but there are a great number of entertaining moments and well as an engaging story.

Also, the soundtrack is and incredible tour deforce of Hawaii music, which can easily serve as a great introduction to Hawaiian music, but does just as well as a great collection of music for those more familiar with Hawaiian music.  The soundtrack easily stands on it's own even without the film.

This is also a great overview of real Hawaii.  Not the Waikiki (which does not appear in this film) tourist trap, tacky grass skirt (not Hawaiian at all) coconut bra (which no Polynesians ever wore) and Mai Tai version of Hawaii that tourists often envision, but shows what every day life looks like in Hawaii as well as what the population of Hawaii really looks like.

On a side note, I really love the South Park episode Going Native, and often feel like Butters does in that episode, and even more, feel that the ridiculousness of the "Native" haoles is funny and something that needs to be pointed out (though not relevant to people who haven't spent a significant amount of time in Hawaii).  Every day I am told by haoles "I am from Hawaii", when clearly they don't know the first thing about Hawaii.

Escape from Tomorrow

I had heard that this film was filmed in Disney World, but that they had not been sued by Disney (so far, as they have said), which is what peaked my interest (the Disney World part, not the suing part).

The film doesn't really go anywhere.  For the half of the film, it seems more like a family vacation (with both the good and the bad) and almost a travelog of Disney World.

What kind of movie this is cannot even be defined.  It could possibly be called horror, but the horror elements are extremely infrequent, and more odd than scary, though somewhat creepy at times.  It's extremely difficult to sort out what is supposed to be real and what is imagined, which is often an engaging challenge in films, but once the film is over, it seems that most of those odd sequences really have no bearing on the plot and could have been done without.

There is a bit of a side plot which kind of goes somewhere, but it's not particular rewarding.

It's also impossible to say why it was filmed in black and white.  Perhaps to give the film more of a home movie feel, but that is a bit of a stretch.  On the other hand, it may have been an attempt to avoid conflict with Disney (as in emphasising that it is not trying to profit off of showing off the park) and hence avoid legal action.

Removing the Disney element of the film, would make this film only run about 20 minutes long and pretty much make it an unremarkable film.

Gatchaman (2013)

I have been waiting for the new Gatchaman live action film for a long time.  I believed it was never going to be produced, and then next thing I know, it's appearing in the movie theater's in Japan.

While I read that reviews had panned the film, I still was curious to see what they had done with the film.

I found the teams costumes to be somewhat confusing.  There was a bit too much "detail" in them, a lot of padding and plates, even on the helmets.

I am confused as to the choice of the actors in these roles.  None of them had a "cool" look.  It almost appeared like the just took the first 5 people they found off the street. 

Also, none of them looked like the original characters, nor did they act like their counter parts.  Ryu is one of the worse examples, as he was a heavy set guy in the original, but he was completely normal in this film.  Also, I am wondering why they chose an actress with short hair to play Jun.  I am not completely against short hair on women (only in a VERY few cases), but it took away from the feel of the original series.

That being said, I would LOVE to see more pictures (or even a poster) of Jun in her Gatchaman costume.  That was VERY hot and I am surprised there aren't more pictures of her out there.

Jo (George) didn't feel like his orginal character at all.  Instead of the tough guy rouge, he looked like a truant school boy.

The only person who looked like their original character was Dr Nambu.

None of the Gatchaman team looked like they were a force to be reckoned with.  Not to say that the original team was made up of  muscular guys, but still they looked very weak in this film.

Also, the look of the soldiers of Galactor's army was completely different.  They looked more like the alien army force in Half Life 2, with an odd light scheme on their helmets.  One interesting aspects of the original animation was the army of Galactor made up of ordinary guys in identical uniforms, some times caught doing ordinary things.  In the movie it was impossible to tell if the soldiers of Galactor were humans or not.  And they were all extremely powerful, able to withstand a barrage of bullets from the (human) army.

Berg Katse was also rather odd.  Instead of being the person in charge shouting out orders and then running away once they began to lose, Berg Katse confronted Gatchaman and was able to easily defeat him (with balls of energy, what is this Dragon Ball Z?)  Though I surely missed some of the exposition, I don't see why Berg Katse was revealed as a transmophing woman in the middle of the film (the big secret that clues alluded to through out the run of the animated series, only revealed at the very end), then remained female, fighting as such, and apparently stronger than Gatchaman.

And once the fighting commenced, Gatchaman got beaten up pretty fast, and all their equipment and masks got damaged right away.  If they are going to have all that equipment, I would think it would be able to stand up to more of a beating than that.

Also, the mechs were pretty much missing.  While I can understand some awkwardness with having each memeber of the team having their own vehicle, the vehicle that Berg Katse is operating looks too organic, not like his typical mechanized monster of the week.

It felt more like a Power Ranger's episode, fighting monster like bad guys inside their spaceships with cave like interiors.

One of the most off setting things is the interior of the God Phoenix.  It is merely a bubble screen that surrounds the whole team, showing the clouds passing by.  While that would be the ultimate cockpit from a pilots point of view, it looks like a blue screen set to the audience.  Even worse, it makes it look like the whole team is just sitting in chairs, lacking of any type of consoles to operate, completely looking the whole "high tech" aspect of the team.

One other thing that was lacking was the "transforming" that took place in the original series when the characters instantaneously changed into their "bird style" costumes.  While there is no scientific explanation of how this could happen, it was one of those great superhero moments (This looks like a job for Superman!) signifying they were jumping into action.

Also, there was a lot of talking that took place and not enough action.  It seemed like the team spent more time with some kind of drama then actually engaging the bad guys. It felt like filler.

All in all, this film felt like a combination of Power Rangers, Kamen Rider and Dragon Ball Z, with a glossing over of Gatchaman.

I saw a trailer for the canceled Gatchaman CGI movie, and that was extremely faithful to the original, and would have made a better movie.

Phantom of the Paradise

This years (2013) Simpson's Treehouse of Horror episode's opening secquence is made up of a multitude of scenes from horror movies, a huge percentage of which I had never even heard of.  There was one scene with 4 or 5 "phantoms" from the various versions of Phantom of the Opera, inculding one who looked kind of scifi.  After doing a little research, I found it was from the movie "The Phantom of Paradise" a 1974 film directed by Brain De Palma and featuring Paul Williams (song writer).  This I had to see.

The film is extremely quirky.  The phantom costume is made up of a bird-like mask and a voice synthesizer.  There are a few instances where events happen that have have explanation, like how the phantom is able to break through brick wall.

This film has a kind of Rock Horror feel to it, but the music and the atmosphere are not quite on the same level as that film.