29 December 2012

Special #1: Wings


Well, Oscar season is upon us. This year (cinematically speaking, at least) was pretty good, and there are all kinds of "Best of 2012" lists out there to show for it. Don't worry, I don't want to further pollute the internet with another, but I am going to start an Oscar-themed feature that will pop up periodically. I'm going to take us on a journey through the years and feature the winners in the Best Picture category, starting with the first winner, the 1927 war epic Wings.

Wings is the story of two WWI flying aces and the girl they both love. The story itself is really quite simple, but it has enough of that classic old-movie charm to make it really pretty delightful to watch. The action scenes are outstanding considering the time period. This was one of the last great silent movies before the sound revolution a few months later, and it provides a rare glimpse into the pre-Depression entertainment world.

Let's talk about the movie first. What struck me most were the action scenes, the mid-air dog fights. You can tell these are really pioneering scenes. They don't always have the cohesiveness or sense of story that we have come to expect, but the shots are really thrilling and sometimes astonishing considering when the film was made. Remember those in-cockpit shots of the pilots from Star Wars? Wings had them first.

There is also great chemistry between Charles Rogers (who plays one of the aces) and Clara Bow. Bow is especially great to watch. She has a natural energy that cuts through some of the melodrama the rest of the cast creates. She plays more than the classic "damsel in distress" or the weak female in search of a strong man. She is laying the groundwork on which the great actresses of the 30s and 40s would build.

As great as the photography is, the story is pretty melodramatic. Of course now it doesn't matter; we know the movie is 85 years old. But it does tell a little about the world in which it was made, and a little of film history. For that reason it is pretty interesting. We get a glimpse of the pre-Depression beauty queen in Clara Bow. She never appears in a glamourous gown as she might have in the escapist movies of the 30s. She seems a little more down-to-earth. There are traces of the "old" ideal: men still wear morning suits and there is nobility in war. There are efforts to make the movie story-focused as well as star-focused. Audiences maybe want a little more to chew on. Once you get through the melodrama you can see into past through a unique piece of history.

So is Wings the most entertaining war movie ever, or the best picture of all time? No. But I definitely consider it well worth seeing, especially if you dig film history or just like old movies.

21 December 2012

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey


Here we are, back in Middle-Earth again with the first installment of The Hobbit trilogy, An Unexpected Journey, out last week. We get the same old Lord of the Rings feel as before, with a little breath of fresh air to liven it up a little, and it comes off pretty well.

An Unexpected Journey covers the story of Bilbo Baggins, uncle to the now-famous Frodo. For less-than-evident reasons, he is chosen by Gandalf to accompany a group of dwarves on a mission to reclaim their homeland from the clutches of the dragon Smaug. It sounds like a strait-forward enough yarn. And, thankfully, not too much is done to make it more than it is.

This was one apprehension I had going in. The Hobbit was originally a book for children. It is an adventure story, with themes not running so deep as its older (and much longer) brother's. I wondered how the merry company of dwarves in the book would translate onto a screen now used to totally grounded and realistic (in their own world, at least) characters. Enter Guillermo del Toro. His input in the otherwise-Jacksonian script is evident and needed. Thankfully, we never quite reach the seriousness and emotional depth we had in Lord of the Rings. That made that trilogy work; here it would have been off-mark.

That notwithstanding, there is a little more than in the children's book. The action is pretty actiony when it happens, and there is talk of more sinister connections to later events than was ever hinted at by Tolkien. Overall, I think the balance is maintained pretty nicely, which makes it all the easier to sit back and be enveloped in this world. Which, again thanks to del Toro, is even more visually compelling than Jackson could have come up with on his own. Throughout there are some brilliant del Torian fingerprints (think the goblin king) that spice up the screen. It adds the extra element of fantasy the story needs to stay afloat.

Now, as brilliant as the film is visually (the CG characters in particular,) and especially considering how long it runs, I felt that the character development could have used a little more tinkering in some spots. We are spared the constant buffoonery of some of the less-important dwarves, but what were the important ones' names, again? And Martin Freeman is wonderful as Bilbo, but I wish that at some points he had a little more depth to what he was given, especially in some of his key turning points. Now, these are only minor detractions and most of you won't be bothered by them anyway, so I'll move on.

My favorite scene by far was the game of riddles between Bilbo and Gollum. It was just cinematic joy for those ten-or-so minutes, and we learn even more about one of the great characters of fiction. Haters will call this movie too long, that it could have stood further trimming. I agree, potentially, if there were to be only two films. But, since there will be three movies, I say go in deep so the other ones aren't only action scenes. As it is it paces nicely and doesn't seem tedious. And I will remain quiet on the 48-fps discussion. I saw it in good old-fashioned 24-fps 2D and it was just fine. I honestly don't see what it would have gained in 3D or with a higher film speed. It looked beautiful as it was.

So, I do recommend An Unexpected Journey as some great end-of-year fare, especially to those who have been depressed ever since Return of the King came out and there has been no more Aragorn. It works great on its own terms, and is a lot of fun. So I guess we'll be fine, Tolkien-wise. For the next couple of years, anyway.

08 December 2012

Lincoln


I'm going to go right out there and say that Lincoln is one of Steven Spielberg's best films. He has kind of a hallowed place in our hearts, but most people couldn't name anything he's done that doesn't involve Indiana Jones or space (or unfortunately both) in some way. He has resounding hits to his credit, but some hollow misses also populate his canon. With Lincoln, all of the elements come together to form an incredible and timely piece of work.

Let's start off with Daniel Day-Lewis. This is the image of Abraham Lincoln that is going to inform our perception of him for decades to come. Everything he does takes what little we might know about Lincoln's personal characteristics, marries it perfectly with the legend he has become, and makes him a tangible, real person. There is an immense depth just beneath the his quiet surface that one does not see in the Lincoln Memorial. Day-Lewis has managed to create from myth a man, and one as real as any of the rest of us.

I do not put the rest of the cast far behind Daniel Day-Lewis. This is one of the most delightfully cast movies to be released this year, second only to Moonrise Kingdom. Everyone transmits the vivacity of the historian's characterizations to the screen. Who else but Sally Field could play Lincoln's wife, Molly? Who else but Tommy Lee Jones could summon the fire-and-brimstone piety of Thaddeus Stevens? Who else but David Strathairn for Secretary of State Seward? These history book names are herein given splendid life.

Besides the players, the whole picture is just beautiful. Spielberg has espoused more and more blue screen in the past few years, to limited success. If he has is here, I couldn't tell. There is a level of realism throughout the whole thing that only adds to the effect of the movie. There should be a cinematography nomination here.

There are those who would make meager comparisons between the frantic scramble to pass the 13th Amendment and our own predicament with the Fiscal Cliff. Others see it as a plea for bipartisanship and inspiring Lincoln-esque leadership in our increasingly polarized political system. I don't see it as a valid commentary on either. As he did in Schindler's List Spielberg is giving a much more important message than simply "slavery is bad" or "political parties slow progress". He is suggesting that maybe there ought to be a little morality infused into the system again. Today it would be heretical to question Lincoln's strong morals. One might ask, did he go too far, but the overwhelming response would be "of course not". Every campaign for equal rights has its roots in the 13th Amendment, and whether we like it or not, it is a largely moral piece of legislation. And there is nothing wrong with that. Think of where we would be today had it not passed. Lincoln understood that, and was willing to risk an incredible amount to maintain his conviction. Perhaps a solution to the problems of any time is sensitivity to a moral compass coupled with the savvy to use it effectively. 

Lincoln is one of the best biographical sketches I've seen on screen in a long while. It captures the drama and feeling of the time and makes real what had previously been only names in history books. Whether it is the best movie this year is debatable, though I'm inclined to think it is not. It certainly rests in the top five, though, and Daniel Day-Lewis is something special.

Next week what else are you all going to see but The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey? I'll hopefully get to it before it's old news. I'll also be starting a series of classic Christmas-type movies that I hope you'll enjoy.


25 November 2012

"I'm Gonna Wreck It!"


Disney's latest effort, Wreck-It Ralph (out a while ago, sorry) is a pretty fun movie all-around. I feel like Disney is on the rebound from a slew of pretty weak offerings, but it isn't quite back yet. There is lots of potential that isn't quite reached with this one, even though there are lots of good parts as well.

Wreck-It Ralph is the story of, well, Ralph, an oversized bad guy in an arcade game. But he's tired of being the "bad guy" and wants the respect and friendship of the other characters in his game, so he decides to win a medal, something only good guys can do. You see the story already.

Now before I tear this children's movie to pieces I do want to acknowledge some of its strengths. One thing Disney learned from Pixar is how to make dynamite sideline characters and give them distinct animated cues (like the little people in Fix-It Felix Jr's game). But there is still something significant lacking in the main characters. This is common in all the studios, but is something that Disney learned how to fix decades ago. They are all pretty flat and most of their problems simply arise from miscommunication. I know, it's a kid's movie and doesn't need to be that complex. But think of any pre-Cars 2 Pixar movie or The Lion King and you'll see the difference. Not that the movie is bad. Like I said, I think Disney is on it's way back to greater glory. I mean, look at the short Paperman, which screened before the feature. They obviously have some brilliant people working for them who I hope get a shot at a full-length feature soon. But this wasn't that feature.


One thing I did like was the quality of voice acting here. Most animated features rely on a long list of famous actors to draw in viewers, regardless of voice talent. Of course Wreck-It Ralph features its share of headliners but the supporting cast is filled out by some talented actors instead of quaint cameos. Also the overall design of the film is pretty good. I was worried the Sugar Rush sequences would leave me in a color coma but that didn't happen.

So I guess other than some character qualms there is a lot to like about Wreck-It Ralph, especially in the otherwise-weak year for animation. But I'll continue to look ahead to see what Disney turns out next.

Next up I'm pretty sure will be Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. Hooray for history!







24 November 2012

Skyfall


My apologies to all seven of my loyal readers for my absence. Hopefully I'll be able to do a little better now that things are really starting to heat up, cinematically speaking.

Today I'll be talking about Eon Production's 23rd James Bond installment, Skyfall. This really is the most impressive Bond I've seen in quite a while. Director Sam Mendes brings him back to top classic form, and also gives him a deeper personal side that had been absent since, well, Dr. No. As all good Bond movies, it is a perfect distillation of the mood of the day, and an observation of the flavor we like our heroes to have.

In the hands of nearly any director, this movie could have very easily slipped into nostalgic ramblings and sentimental mire. Instead with Mendes we get a crucial look into the Bond enigma. So much of what has made him so appealing is that we really didn't know all that much about him. But I think 50 years is long enough to not know about your protagonist. Here we see the kind of depth that Casino Royale started to create before Quantum of Solace interrupted. Mind you, this movie is not simply a meditation on character. I consider it the most complete Bond movie since Goldfinger or Thunderball, and you don't have to be a Bond nerd to enjoy it. There is definitely enough to keep you on the edge of your seat to the end.

The story itself is simple, even typical enough: a cyberterrorist named Silva is releasing names of undercover MI6 operatives on the internet in an effort to get at M. The great thing is everything that happens around that. Javier Bardem plays Silva, and is the best he's been since No Country for Old Men. He can take his place as one of the mere handful of great Bond villains to date. Of course we get Dame Judy Dench reprising her role as M, and Ralph Fiennes appears as a bureaucrat responsible for her retirement. All the players are splendid, and in their hands this becomes more than just an action flick.

I said earlier that this is one of the most complete Bond movies ever. That is because it so successfully plays off of the classic Bond archetypes. It just feels "Bondy", which, oddly, is kind of uncommon. There are all of these great moments when one is reminded that this is why you like James Bond. His wit hasn't been this sharp in fifteen years. Overall it is just a great movie, and I'm glad of the direction the franchise is taking. Haters will call it just another Dark Knight because of its melancholy overtones and the acknowledgment of characters' weakness, but I don't really agree with that. I think that more discerning and even skeptical audiences are requiring their heroes to be a little more vulnerable and accessible than they once were, and this Bond gives them just that. He is nowhere near where Connery or Moore or even Brosnan ever were. But then, neither are we. The Bond for the new century has fully arrived.

This week I have Wreck-it Ralph, Flight, Argo and Lincoln to catch up with, and Hitchcock, Silver Linings Playbook, Rise of the Guardians and Life of Pi are all out as of now, so we'll see what wins the fight to be seen next, and pretend that Twilight never happened. Let me know if there is anything you'd like to me see, that might make it a little easier.

03 November 2012

Everything is connected...sort of

Alright, sorry for the wait (I know you were all at the edge of your seats for this one) but here we go with the Wachowski/Tykwer joint effort, Cloud Atlas. The one thing everybody is calling Cloud Atlas is ambitious, and I certainly agree. However, "ambition", when it does not achieve magnificence, carries the stigma of being "almost", or worse. I feel that Cloud Atlas, alas to all you Wachowski fanboys out there, is an almost. For all the impressive things it has, there are a few too many details that make it less than it purported to be.

The film is not a narrative, really, but more a lengthy philosophical dissertation about how people carry on beyond themselves throughout time and how things like love and hate are eternal. Or something like that. Part of what makes Cloud Atlas an almost is its ultimate lack of something really definable running through it, which in a movie like this is essential. There are moments when thematic messages are clearly stated, in monologue, to the audience almost, but these don't have much of a common presence in other story lines. They almost add up to something grand upon consideration, but not quite. The trailer does a better job at this than the movie itself does. So everything is kind of connected. The best any characters come to realizing this is in vague moments of deja vu or outright hallucination. I feel that there was effort taken, in weaving the various story lines together, to come to some ultimate moment of clarity, but I don't feel like it ever quite got there.

All this being said I do not think Cloud Atlas was a bad movie. For every flawed bit there are long moments of beauty. For the most part, it is pretty enjoyable, if only just to see all the different makeup designs. Not all of these work, I'll be very frank. But again, ambition. At any rate, one has to take his hat off to the actors in taking on such varied roles. But I fear that perhaps too much attention was drawn to this fact and it sometimes proved a bit of a distraction. While I'm here, I'll mention that another distraction was the dialogue in the "post-Fall" sequence. It reminded me only of the dialectish banter used by the desert-dwellers in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome. Not necessarily a bad movie in itself, but it should be contained to its own world.

Overall, I do think this is a movie worth seeing. Despite its clunky bits and its ultimate lack of resonance, it is one of the most original pieces of filmmaking in the last few years. But it won't change your life.

We're going to be pretty busy for the next little bit. Wreck-it Ralph is already out, and next week we get Skyfall, which I've been looking forward to for quite some time. I'll try to stay on top of it all for you.


25 October 2012

The Orphanage


Here we are at the end of my little Halloween run, and to finish things off, I saved the least-viewed movie for last. I hope it will give you all something a little different to watch this season. The Orphanage (produced by Guillermo del Toro), is Spanish director JA Bayona's 2007 feature-length premiere. Not only is it a first-rate ghost story with plenty of chills, but it is a surprisingly heartfelt and moving picture as well.

The Orphanage is based on a traditional Spanish ghost story. It is about Laura (played excellently by Belén Rueda), a woman who grew up in a seaside orphanage and returns with her family to run a special school for disabled children. Her son, Simón, soon makes some imaginary friends who love to play, and their games unearth a long-forgotten mystery that endangers Laura and her family.

I've noticed that I'm pretty good at reducing these types of movies into awful synopses, but this really is a good movie. I guess I just don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen it yet. Be warned that I won't be so considerate from here on, so continue reading at your own risk. What first gets me about this movie is the beautifully sombre visuals that create such a palpable feeling of foreboding. There is an uneasiness right from the get go that continues throughout. Aesthetically speaking, it pulls off being a traditional ghost story very well. But what I really like about it is how it differs from that formula later on.

From the moment Simón disappears Laura's journey is one of confrontation with the unresolved past. What I love is how hard it works to make you think it is really about forces supernatural. But really, the only ghosts here are memories, and guilt the only restless spirit. In that sense, we all live in our own private ghost stories. This is what separates The Orphanage from all the Insidious's and Sinister's out there: it resonates with something everybody has experienced. It reaches us on a personal level, bringing back those private demons we usually try to keep buried.

Given that, The Orphanage is then free to become a much more emotionally valid movie than just the petty ghost flick it could have been. It is truly heartbreaking at times, and quite moving. Laura's relentless search for Simón becomes more and more tragic as the movie goes on. Often there is no thought of the supernatural as we see Laura in her grief. Then there are moments of real terror. Of course the two (raw emotion and gripping suspense) are married splendidly as the film climaxes, making it truly unique in its class. It goes beyond being just a spooky yarn or a devastating tale of loss. It poignantly blends the two, turning the feeling of foreboding into longing and, at last, to a powerful catharsis. It blends grief with hope and finds peace.

Okay, maybe you don't want to spend your Halloween on something so meaty, but I think it is definitely worth it. It is the truly satisfying kind of story, made all the more enjoyable for how it really haunts you.

That will do it for my Halloween extravaganza. Let me know what you thought, maybe what I should have included. I think next time I'll go over the new one due out tomorrow from the Wachowski's, Cloud Atlas.


22 October 2012

The Master


The Master, the latest film from Paul Thomas Anderson, has been one of my most anticipated movies this year. It has been out for a month now, but I only just got to see it today. I feel like the guy who missed the series finale of Seinfeld, but found somebody who taped it to finally be able to see it. Such are the benefits of living in Cedar City. And, luckily, I wasn't disappointed. The Master offers a depth one doesn't often find in movies, and is absolutely perfect in execution. It is a modern classic.

It is the story of Freddie Quell (Joaquin Phoenix), a disturbed Navy veteran, and his encounter with Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the charismatic leader of "the Cause". Quell is searching for something, and Dodd seems the one to have the answer. I don't want to go too much into plot, because it really is worth seeing everything play out on the screen. But I'll tell you now, this is probably the best film of the year so far.

This movie is worth seeing just for the performances. I haven't seen an actor wear his character quite so much as Phoenix does here. This will be an eye-opener to those of you who have only seen him as that guy who plays the emperor in Gladiator. Hoffman does just as well, and seeing them both together is a joy. Amy Adams rounds out the cast as Dodd's wife, and this is quite a different turn for her. She's not at all like the innocence her face projects.

This is a movie I don't think I'd recommend to everybody. It is a little hard to experience and to digest. Not that it is controversial. But Anderson asks quite a bit of his audience, and is no apologist. There has been lots of hype about it being "the Scientology movie" or whatever. Of course, it's not. It goes in deeper and asks some pretty serious questions about some pretty institutional things we all identify with, be it religion or love or money or government or however you want to read it. Basically, can these institutions provide what they claim to provide? Are they as interested in you as they are in themselves? How is it that it is often the very thing that draws you to something that ultimately pushes you away? The Master is a movie that makes you think, but not in the figuring out plot holes or how one can be a necessary but undeserved hero sense of the term.

Another remarkable thing (and a tribute to Anderson's writing) is that this all plays out as much in the plot as in the characters themselves. Of course things happen in the movie, but these events would not have the import they do were it not for the vibrancy of the characters he creates. Anderson's characters are not simple caricatures drawn in broad strokes and symbolic merely of motive or emotion. They are complicated and contradictory. Sometimes their motives are not quite clear. In this case they have a healthy dose of reality, and are not your typical movie characters. It is in their mixing together that the thematic elements come to light.

Like I said this movie is not for everyone. It's not one to take your girlfriend to after dinner at the Olive Garden, and not one you can rent and watch while you do homework. But it is one of the great movies of the year, make no mistake, and expect to hear about it and wonder why you didn't before come Oscars.

Here's a taste of one I'm not going to discuss for Halloween, but one of my favorites nonetheless: Stanley Kubrick's 1980 The Shining. Enjoy it on your own, I guess.


18 October 2012

"My name is... FRANKENSTEIN!"


Mel Brooks' 1974 classic Young Frankenstein is deservedly one of the greatest comedies of all time. But it must be said that it is Gene Wilder's brainchild as much as Brooks', and their collaboration is golden. They set a careful balance of wordplay and sight gags and artfully exploit every horror-movie stereotype in the book. I also thing it is more consistently hilarious than lots of Brooks' other work, and is a great change of pace for any Halloween movie list.

The story centers around Frederic Frankenstein (Wilder), an accomplished neurosurgeon trying to distance himself from his grandfather Victor's controversial work. Upon Victor's death, Frederic travels to Transylvania to settle his affairs. There he meets hunchback Igor (Marty Feldman) and "lab assistant" Inga (Teri Garr) and is soon on a quest to pick up where his grandfather left off, eventually bringing the Creature (Peter Boyle) to life.

The whole movie is carried by the performances it features, with Wilder's increasing mania as a centerpiece. Feldman often echos Buster Keaton. Madeline Kahn, playing Frankenstein's fiance Elizabeth, steals every scene she is in. And of course there are lots of delightful side characters, including a wonderful cameo by Gene Hackman as a blind monk. They are the kind of performances that are instantly quotable ("taffeta, darling...") and yet yield fresh humor on repeat viewings.

But what takes this film beyond being simply a great Saturday Night Live sketch is the detail Brooks puts into the film's atmosphere. Everything from matte paintings to music to set design all reflect the Frankenstein movies of the 1930s. They even used lots of the original laboratory props. And yet there are subtle tweaks throughout, turning what once was horrifying into comedy genius. I appreciate that fineness of attention even more than the brilliant jokes Brooks and Wilder cram into every scene.

Okay, maybe it is a little irreverent, and some people might not think better of you for inviting them to watch it with you, but it will still make you laugh 'til you hurt. I'd much rather watch this at a Halloween party than Paranormal Activity. Whose newest installment I plead with you all not to see.

If you do have a hankering for a good ghost story, I suggest The Orphanage, which I will be discussing after I go over Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master, which I will finally be seeing this weekend.

 

13 October 2012

"We all go a little mad sometimes"


Psycho, Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 masterpiece, remains one of the great horror movies of all time. Indeed, I think it is the first great horror movie of the modern era. It turned what had been predominantly a B-movie genre into art, marking a transition in our cultural discussion and depiction of fear as it showed people, not things that go "bump" in the night, as the monsters. It also shows Hitchcock at his very best, showcasing the perfection of his craft as well as his wicked sense of humor.

Psycho is the story of Marion Crane (Janet Leigh), an attractive Phoenix woman who absconds with 40,000 dollars in cash in order to start a new life with her lover, Sam Loomis (John Gavin). On the road, she meets Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins), a lonely motel keeper. Soon her sister Lila (Vera Miles), a private detective and local law enforcement are on her tail as she seeks to escape from her "private trap" and set her life in order.

This premise sounds like an okay movie. But in fact this detailed setup is what makes it such a great one. Hitchcock really invests in Marion. We get to know her pretty well before anything serious starts to happen. We want her to succeed. She is motivated primarily by love, and that gets her into trouble we want her to be out of. We worry about Marion and how she will deal with her hasty crime, but we are also sympathetic. But then, that's not really what this movie is about, is it?

WARNING: Spoilers and stuff ahead.

One of my favorite things about Psycho is this great false setup. From the point of the murder on, it feels like an entirely different movie. The paranoia made obvious by the frantic music present all through Marion's flight from the law gives way to suspicion and confusion. Suddenly everything that was important (the money, Marion's plans, her moral dilemma, etc) doesn't matter at all. They go with her to the bottom of the swamp. It now becomes Norman's movie. He is, in a way, our new protagonist. He generates some serious sympathy in the discussion he has with Marion, even if he is a little (okay, a lot) creepy. He is also motivated primarily by love, and we want him out of his jam as well.

Of course, that all turns out to be our own deception, and I think that is what makes Psycho so great. We are impressed by the irony in the story, in what we know that the characters don't, but we don't see it coming for ourselves. We end up almost having to be more sympathetic to Norman than to Lila and Sam. Sure, what happens to Marion not even halfway through the movie is jolting, unexpected and terrifying, but what Norman has become (indeed was from the beginning) is, I think, even more so. Hitchcock gives full room for his genius to flourish. He lets us see into all the characters, and even lets in an awful joke or two (a favorite scene is the woman expressing that "all death should be painless", just moments after we have witnessed Marion's brutal murder), waiting until the closing moments to define "psycho", when we thought we already knew what it was.

I know, the graphics and effects date this movie quite a bit, and it is harder to be as shocked now as it was in 1960 given the amount of cultural exposure the movie has had, but that doesn't take anything away from it for me. We are left with an unforgettable movie experience nonetheless, which I hope you enjoy as much as I do.

NEXT TIME: We'll continue the October festivities with a look at Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein.




11 October 2012

Well, Hello!

Thanks for showing up! Next time we'll talk about actual movies, I promise. But I first wanted to get a little introduction out there for what I plan on doing. This is an idea that I have been mulling over for a while, and now I have finally decided to do it. This blog won't feature any (mis)adventures from my day-to-day; instead, it will discuss the movies that I watch, and what I thought of them. I'm not any kind of a critic, and I don't expect my reviews to be taken all that seriously. I just love film, and this is a great way to get my opinions out there where millions of people won't ever read them.

Of course my first consideration will be worthy new releases of note, whenever those occur. But I will also be talking about any older movies I watch. My idea is not to watch the terrible junk so you don't have to, but instead to let everybody know what great stuff there is out there, and hopefully broaden some horizons. And if you've got one you think I ought to see, let me know.

Now, it's October, so I thought we ought to start things off with a little seasonal fare. I haven't decided the full list yet, but I think the best way to get things going is with Alfred Hitchcock's 1960 masterpiece Psycho. I've included a taste of what is to come. Until next time.