Seeing Spots (101 Dalmations)

I'm going to begin by stating my three favorite things about 101 Dalmations in no particular order: 1. The story is told from the perspective of a dog 2. Cruella DeVil is one of the best villains ever. 3. This is probably the first heist movie I'd seen.
I love dogs and I love dog stories. I am especially fond of this one as it is told from the perspective of a dog. This dog is Pongo. Pongo, true to a dog's nature, is highly loyal and incredibly smart. As the first scene opens the movie, Pongo watches out the window of a London flat where his owner, Roger, sits on a piano bench penning a new song. The scene, from the perspective of a dog lover and a songwriter, is one of charm and beauty.

As Roger states when he writes the Cruella DeVil song, the melody comes first and the words arrive later. He pounds the infectious tune on the piano and the lyrics appear due to the inspiration of a rotten woman named Cruella DeVil. She bursts into the flat wearing a black and white fur coat matching the black and white colors on both sides of her hair. Her face is skeletal and the green smoke from her cigarette pollutes the paths where she walks. The song perfectly encapsulates the greedy, filthy, scary character of Cruella DeVil.

A puppy heist! I saw this movie as a young kid, way before watching it again as an adult. I can't say I remember another animated heist movie. There is a sense of tension as the puppies are stolen and the chase is on. Thus enters bumbling henchmen and plot-thickening capers ensue.

Alicia and I watched this with our son, Keaton. It was wonderful to watch it with the eyes of a four year old present. Keaton cackled with glee at the bumbling attempts to contain the dogs during the escape scenes, and through his eyes, I remembered what I loved about Disney movies. The art has the magic that all Disney movies prior to 1970 and after 1985 have - but it has more - this is a Disney movie that has aged well - for many of the reasons that Alicia mentioned above. You know that I had to go here - but I actually thought this movie played better than the 1996 live action Glenn Close version. And the difference is the appeal to children - I just felt that the 1961 version had a slapstick bang-em-up feel - and it was fun to watch.

I find it interesting the horrid conflict which our faces heroes. Cruella wants the dogs to kill, skin and make coats out of the puppies. When you think about it's scary - and I wondered if Keaton even realized the consequences of Cruella successfully completing her plan. Upon further reflection, I realized that it really didn't matter. The magic of Disney is that regardless of the conflict, they instill in us a confidence in their heroes. We know they will overcome. Perhaps it's the bumbling nature of the villains. Perhaps it's the strength of the heroes.

More of the Disney magic could be the heroes, in this case, are dogs. Pongo and Purdy protecting their puppies and the puppies they find. The brood of other breeds of dogs heeding the call for help. I agree with Jason, in that, we know everything is going to be okay. We know this from the beginning and we are more interested in the journey. How will the puppies get back home not questioning if the puppies will make it back home.

I don't know if this is a favorite Disney movie of mine, but it is a classic that I still adore. I enjoy the vivid setting, the iconic villain, the songwriter, and strong sense of family. I was happy to watch it again, after many years, with Keaton. I'm sure we will watch it again.

That's the thing isn't it. We'll watch it again and again. Keaton will still laugh at it, and we won't mind watching this one time and again like one might Barney or what's the flavor of the year for toddlers. As a parent, I'd say buy this while you can - as we all know it's going back in The Disney Vault for ten years - if not more. So, he says, It's a Buyer. Even if you don't have children, it's fun and that fun lies in the presence of the villain. There's no doubt that we love to hate her!

If I Were Lucy, I'd Forget This Movie Tomorrow (50 First Dates)

I feel that whenever I watch an Adam Sandler movie, I know what to expect. There will be the over-the-top jokes that go too far and had potential to be funny but fell flat because the joke took the route of gross out or annoyingly shocking. There will be the obligatory appearance by Rob Schneider. There will be a main character, played by Adam Sandler, who is the ladies man for reasons I can never figure out. There will be several quirky characters who don't have much screen time but who are lovable additions to the story...I could go on. 50 First Dates doesn't stray from this formula. The movie wasn't painful to watch. There were parts of the movie I found cute and rather interesting, however, I couldn't seem to find anything redeeming about the movie in order to give it a second watching.

Do you see the look on Drew Barrymore's face in the photo? I think it was the same look on my face upon second viewing of this film. Why did I buy this? I didn't buy it blind. I bought it because I liked it. However, after watching a walrus vomit on a character - in an exaggerated fashion, Sandler try to figure out the gender of a gender-ambiguous person and Rob Schneider talking with a Pacific Island, Hawaiian-native accent, I definitely was wondering what I originally saw in the movie. Well, enter Drew Barrymore's Lucy - the memories came back. That's not saying I am the biggest Barrymore fan in the world, but I do know that I liked the chemistry between Sandler and Barrymore - just as I did in The Wedding Singer - and it worked here. The two of them have something going - and it's believable. The script is often forgetable, but the two of them are not. That's not to say that I am ripping on Sander. I was there opening weekend for Billy Madison and Happy Gilmore. But I was also a beer drinking, tailgating College Student at the time. I suppose my tastes have matured - and I know Sandlers has too - so I cringe a little bit at that Happy Madison humor, because it just doesn't fit in this. If you want to make another goof-ball comedy, continue making the over-the-top silly, but let's see what a script looks like that focuses on the crazy romance that is forgotten every 24 hours by one of the star-crossed lovers.

So, the audience learns that Lucy was in a car accident with her father and suffered brain damage as a result. Lucy is not able to remember anything after a 24-hour day. Her father and brother continue to re-enact the day the accident happened everyday to prevent causing Lucy any grief. The comedy ensues when Henry makes attempts, on a daily basis, to win over Lucy over waffles at a local restaurant. This continues as Henry gets to know Lucy better and begins to understand what works with her and what does not. I also liked Barrymore as Lucy. She is funny when she has to be funny and she easily obtains empathy when she needs empathy. I enjoyed watching her as Lucy as believe that she made the totally ridiculous concept make as much sense as it could. I didn't care for watching Henry, however...as Adam Sandler played the same character he plays about 90% of the time. I wasn't concerned with his success with Lucy or her family.

So - why is it that we don't connect with Sandler in this movie? It's not his talent as we've seen him in some really great roles - Punch Drunk Love or The Wedding Singer. I think it's that when he does choose to play this type of character - we've seen it a dozen times. However, that said, it's the relationship that works. As I watched the ending, I felt a bit touched by their marriage, her daughter and the support of Lucy's family as they took his research trip around Alaska. I'd say this is well worth renting. I still question why I bought this and realized that it was a sale item - probably $4.99.

You Want To Know How I Know You're Into This Movie? (The 40 Year Old Virgin)

40-Year-Old Virgin has a way of appealing to, what might seem to be, a rather vast audience. The cast includes the broken-hearted and forlorn, Paul Rudd, the scheming Seth Rogan, the guy who talks a big game, Romany Malco...and then there is the seemingly awkward wallflower, played by Steve Carrell. The jokes also seem to range from the rather raunchy to quick and witty. The buddy comedy focused on sex isn't a buddy comedy focused on sex. It is, perhaps, the opposite.

I remember hearing about this movie and being very excited. For years, I'd watched Carrell and Stephen Colbert verbally spar on The Daily Show. To top that, Alicia and I were huge fans of Judd Apatow's Freaks and Geeks and Undeclared - and being that he was co writer and director of this, it seemed like something we'd really be into. The script by Apatow and Carrell was no disappointment. Though there was a healthy dose of crude and sexual jokes, the script is surprisingly full of heart. I think that I can honestly say that I have never have watched a movie rooting for the hero to have sex, but this movie pulls it off...

I could, potentially, watch Paul Rudd in anything...and, lucky for me, he is in everything. This movie was one of the first of many comedies he would star in. I enjoyed watching the cast just interact...what appeared to be improvisation or just random verbal sparring, the cast clicked.


Alicia hit on something very special about this movie and other Apatow projects. Though the dialogue feels loose, the script feels tight. Apatow knows what he wants and directs from the school of Larry David. In any given scene, the script feels as though the actors know what they're supposed to do as they go into any given take - but their improvisational skills turn each scene into gold. So Andy (Steve Carrell) has turned into a hermit that goes from his neat breakfast to his safe job and back to his action figures, models and G.I. Joe dolls. It's obvious that Andy isn't as afraid of having a sexual relationship as he is about getting close to anyone that could hurt him or embarrass him. Yet the desire to be accepted and respected gives him enough courage to join the guys for a night of poker - in which he's pressured into confessing that he's still a virgin - and 40 years old.

Throughout most of the movie, Andy is ashamed about his virgin status. He feels embarrassed when talking with his friends over a poker game. He doesn't want to reveal the truth to his girlfriend, Trish, played by Catherine Keener. The movie is also about Andy coming to terms with his reality and, in turn, being okay with it. The story includes a message, of some sort, about differing from the norm and embracing that. This theme takes the audience through Andy's metamorphosis into being happy with who he is despite what others may say.

I think that's what makes this movie so fun. It's a teen-aged sex comedy with heart - but a group of middle-aged adolescents. This is a movie that I've watched multiple times and would recommend owning. Not only is it fun multiple times, but the jokes just don't get old. A few times they go overboard, but it's never too far. For those that are middle-aged, it takes you back to a time when you struggled with all the things Andy did, and for those of you that are young - well you surely must chuckle because you can relate.

Run Before You See the Red of Their Eyes (28 Weeks Later)

28 Weeks Later should have had quite a bit going for it. Everyone knew that it couldn't end with Jim and Selena surviving and everything being okay. I mean zombie movies just don't have happy endings - unless it's Shawn of the Dead. So here it is - we knew that people had to be hiding out. We knew that there had to be a few intelligent humans that would lock their doors and keep quiet and just hide out. Eventually the zombies would starve and civilization revived - or so they thought. Apparently, the survivors hiding out have never seen a zombie movie before. Enter Don (Robert Carlyle) and a his wife - hiding out with a group of survivors. When faced with his own mortality - and his wife's nurturing nature for a young boy - he turns tail and runs - I'm reminded of the old joke about the two men being chased by a bear in the woods - as one says to the other, "All I have to do is out run you." That's just what Don does - he leaves wife and random boy to raging zombies.

I suppose I wasn't watching this and considering the zombie movie rules. I liked the happy ending of 28 Days Later and, quite frankly, I wasn't concerned with what happened 28 Weeks Later (or 28 minutes later.) I didn't think there was a need to follow up this story with a clearly mediocre sequel. This could have been a completely different movie that was not tied to 28 Days Later and I would've been happier with the result. 28 Weeks Later did not have the visual appeal or retain my interest as its predecessor.

What can I say that Alicia didn't in her previous paragraph? I think the movie is a fine continuation for those of you that wanted to see the fate of mankind. However, 28 Days Later is really a story about Jim and Selena - we don't care what happened to the rest of mankind unless it has something to do with Jim and Selena. 28 Weeks Later are for all you zombie fans that want to see just how widespread this rage thing really was. I've believed - for quite some time that a good horror movie is about what is not shown. Suspense is the key to good horror. This movie is excessive in gore and violence - which is what appeals to those that have a different opinion than mine of what good horror is. That said, I can't help but argue there's something interesting about the second installment of this franchise. I think that in the sub-genre zombie movies - this does what others have done. First there's the character and social study of mankind (28 Days Later). Then there's the study of the arrogance of man - which is this - the belief that man can control the unnatural. From Night of the Living Dead to Dawn of the Dead - we see a significant change in the focus of what we care about as an audience, and the transition from Days to Weeks follows the same formula. I would say this is worth a watch if you're into zombie movies or believe that the 28 Days/Weeks world is one worth looking in on to see what's next. I'd even say that if you're Jonesing for a 28 Months Later that you should probably have it's two predicessors on your movie shelf. I, myself bought the movie blind - but would not recommend doing so to anyone but the most die-hard 28 Minutes/Days/Weeks/Years/Decades fans.

The New Bohemians Minus Edie (RENT)

I asked to have RENT jump ahead in our sequence due to an upcoming appearance by the actor, Anthony Rapp, who portrays Mark Cohen in this film adaptation of the musical. I have plans to see Anthony Rapp and I thought it would be beneficial to the experience to have a fresh look at the movie.

My first introduction to RENT was a stage production taking place at Assembly Hall on the University of Illinois campus. The stadium was cut in half, for seating, a stage was placed in the center facing the audience. I remember being somewhat distracted by a tall guy sitting in front of us and the sound, from what I recall, wasn't of the best quality. For a story like this one, basically told completely in song, sound is crucial. So, overall the experience for this musical wasn't the best. I still thought the story was a good one and I appreciated the well-crafted vocal melodies and modern themes.

I didn't see the film adaptation of RENT in the theatre. Jason gave it to me as a present. This was my second viewing as I remember watching it, by myself, about two to three years ago. Still, for the first time viewing, I chose Anthony Rapp's character, Mark Cohen, as a standout. As the archivist of the group, Mark captures the love, pain, and loss he and his friends experience. I was also pleased to be able to recognize Idena Menzel who portrays, the precarious, Maureen. After RENT, Idena Menzel would go on to play Elfaba in Broadway's Wicked. She would also star as Nancy in Disney's Enchanted. Here, Idena Menzel plays a feisty performance artist who is feisty and rather self-assured. As Maureen she taunts Mark's emotions and brings constant worry to her new girlfriend, Joanne. I thought the casting, for this, was fantastic. Voices as well as charismatic individuals blend together well to complete all roles.

I recall going to this at Assembly Hall with Alicia, and it was pure frickin' torture. I was not a musical fan at the time. I had yet to enjoy pieces such Singin' in the Rain, Moulin Rouge and Chicago - not to mention I had not really considered The Blues Brothers and The Wizard of Oz musicals. I suppose what I am trying to say is that I was very anti-musical at the time that I saw it - oh the things you do for love! Since then, I have opened my mind to musicals more. I've watched West Side Story and The Sound of Music, and they're okay. As I think back at the Assembly Hall experience, I go back to bad seats and being place firmly behind a very tall man - making the experience that I already wasn't looking forward to firmly placed on the side of bad.

I am glad to say that RENT was not that bad. The story was one worth watching. I still feel that I need a break though between songs. I am not a fan of musicals that begin with singing, end with singing and have nothing but singing throughout. Though the stage production that was saw had no dialogue, this did. That helped. I really liked Jesse L. Martin's Tom Collins and Anthony Rapp as well. Upon it's opening I recognized that this was written to showcase the voice talents of nearly every main character in this movie. They all had their opportunities to belt it out - and did. Though the story of love lost is one that we've seen a million times - in movies like Moulin Rouge and various other love tragedies - it was still engaging and the lyrics of the song were fitting to the story and delivered beautifully by the cast.

I am a huge fan of musicals. I became a fan, as a young child, as I was taken to see my brother act in such high school version classics of Oliver, West Side Story, Bye Bye Birdie, and Gypsy. I have been happy to see the musical, make a comeback and become more beloved and accepted by a wider audience. RENT isn't one of my favorite musicals. I have some problems with the flow of the story and some of the songs do not seem, to me, to be on par with the rest of the songs. I still believe, however, content-wise, the songs eloquently tell a story and elaborate on characters.

I think that the introduction of a group of people faced with living in destitute and faced with loved ones who have AIDS is a vehicle behind the tragedies each of these characters are faced with. The key word is living. These people are alive to the fullest and looking to share their art with the world - if only the world would listen. There is where I think the problem lies with this movie. It's not a bad movie, but I feel the suffering artist that these people are supposed to be portraying just isn't real. I felt more admiration for the lyrics, music, singing and acting than I felt sorrow for the loss that these characters experienced. The affection that I felt for Satine and Christian in Moulin Rouge just wasn't there in this. The disease that most of these people were living with felt absent at best. I also kept watching this waiting for Roger to tell Mimi that he was either HIV positive or had contracted AIDS. Perhaps this was done in the middle of one of the songs, or maybe she already knew. However, the fact that I missed this - while actively looking for it felt negligent at best. I did feel for Tom and Angel significantly, but I think it's because they addressed their disease in the time that we spend with these characters. I know that part of the point was to address that these people were alive - regardless of the fact that most think of those with AIDS as the walking dead. I applaud Jonathan Larson for approaching the material in this way - but I think that the movie suffered what happens all too often in musicals - sometimes key points just move too fast in the lyrics of a song. He says, "It's a Renter." I really don't see watching this again unless I were to see it on stage.

I don't think I would disagree with statements made in the above paragraph. I think I was so entranced by La Vie Boheme and enthralled with the passion the characters display for their craft. I may have put aside the importance of some key plot points. Where this musical is different from others, I believe, is the inclusion of AIDS and drug addiction. I also think the subject is one that brought much criticism for it. I do think the topics are dealt with, in a way, that is accessible to the public and it becomes an education and an enlightenment, perhaps, for some. To clarify, the story should bring about discussion from the audience who sees this and allows for questions and reviews to be written.

Where the Streets Have No People (28 Days Later)

Near the start of this movie, we see a lone man walking the streets of London. They are barren of people. There is no one to be seen in from Piccadilly Circus to Big Ben, and it's a miraculous shot. 28 Days Later is the first horror film reviewed by Jason and Alicia, and it's one of my favorites. A Danny Boyle film - it's clear through the viewing of this film why he went on to win the Oscar for 2008's Slumdog Millionaire. The premise is this - a virus is accidentally released on the population of London. Around the same time, Jim is admitted into a hospital with a head injury. 28 days later, he wakes up to find the city in ruin and no people to be found.

Cillian Murphy is at the top of my list for celeb-crushes so, watching Cillian Murphy as lead throughout 28 Days Later, was no difficult task. The good news is, there is more to Cillian Murphy than a pretty face. He certainly carries his own in 28 Days Later acting solo for a good portion of the movie and being forced into one situation to the next. The story unfolds in a way that speaks volumes with zero dialogue. The abandoned hospital and the empty London streets set the tone of ultra-creepiness. at this point, I am already asking, "Can the last man on earth save the world?" Another question might be, "Can the last man on earth save himself?" Boyle paints the desolate scene with artful panache to leave an audience gobsmacked and possibly, rather frightened before anything very obviously scary even occurs.

More to Cillian Murphy than a pretty face - hrm - I wonder what you're referring to Alicia. Cillian certainly lets it all hang out in this movie. Look for a transformation from the victim to leader of surviving mankind, but that's one of the keys of a good Zombie Movie - the everyman steps up that previously wouldn't have in a lesser situation. Quickly the film transforms from a horror movie into a social study of groups faced with their very survival. Some of the characters see the infection as an opportunity to shed their humanity in order to continue the human race while others realize that it's humanity that makes us stronger than the virus. It's the fact that we're willing to risk our own lives help someone else who needs it that makes us human. It's that we make connections from doing this, and allows us to make necessary connections. There lies the dilemma of this movie. Ultimate survival depends on these pockets of survivors repopulating the planet. However, early on Selena (Namoie Harris) tells Jim that she can't afford to have others slow her down because that means she'll be dead too. Though it goes unsaid that if one takes survival to such a selfish level, there will be no one left to allow for the human race to survive. Therefore, it is contingent that the social unit operate with order and common sense - but most of all humanity.

Something I found to be very frightening was the lack of trust to be found. Happening upon a non-infected person or group of people doesn't mean automatic bonding and safety. It seems as if the danger became more intense due to the militant behavior of the leader.

Watching this, I do think about the Human Vs. Zombies game I played at work. Similar, in that, I remember how anxiety was so high walking around the cafeteria as a "human" looking around and dodging getting tagged by a "zombie." I also noticed after I was tagged by a "zombie" and turned how I quickly bonded with the other zombies. I walked into the courtyard area at work and other zombies waved to me. The zombies were so much friendlier than the humans. Why is this so? Well, zombies have nothing to lose. The humans in the game, however, didn't trust one another. You rarely noticed another human because you were too busy looking over your shoulder for zombies. The humans didn't help one another out the way zombies did. I suppose the game reminds me a lot of the way of human behavior in 28 Days Later.

It was interesting to see the transformation of Jim throughout the film as well. He begins as someone feeling very lost and alone calling out in the empty streets to find any human response. He learns the new rules and learns to adapt in the fastest way possible in order to survive. These elements, combined with the direction of Danny Boyle, makes for a ride of artistic and horrific storytelling.

When I watched this for the first time, I bought it blind. I stand by that. I bought it due to it being released on Halloween and knowing that it was directed by 'the guy that directed Trainspotting,' but after watching it Danny Boyle's name stuck and I found myself consciously interested in what his next project would be. His movies have always been a study of how the social unit breaks down when faced with conflict - so a Zombie Movie is something that had to be done by Danny Boyle. Some have been better horror movies, and some have satisfied the sadists better with gratuitous gore, but short of Romero's Night of the Living Dead - none have better delivered a social study of humanity better.

Doyle's Law (25th Hour)

I was prepared to begin 28 Days, as I thought this was the movie on our shelf to follow 13 Conversations About One Thing, and in its place, I found 25th Hour. Although this was the first time I watched 25th Hour, I was glad to see it was written/directed by Spike Lee and starred Edward Norton. Expectations are set as it will likely be a story worth watching.

The story seems to be about a beaten man who was consumed by the city in which he lives. The scenery around him, the people, his father, his friends and his past. The 25th Hour allows for reflection, regret, and examination of the life he led.

The movie is more than a reflection on the way one leads his life though. It's a reflection on whether incarceration rehabilitates or destroys. 25th Hour questions whether the punishment fits the crime. Sure, we realize that Edward Norton's Monty would still be a practicing drug dealing businessman if he'd not been caught. However, Monty points out that by the time he is released from prison, he'll be 38 with a record, no college education and a completely ruined life, and that's the best case scenario assuming that nothing horrible happens to him while in prison. It seems to be no coincidence that Monty's best friend is Frank (Barry Pepper) who takes advantage of the misfortune of others by short selling stocks on a hunch about unemployment numbers going up. Though this was only partially pertinent in 2002 - shortly after 9/11, it seems as though Spike Lee recognized that fast individual profit comes at the expense of others. Enron seems like a distant memory in light of the recent events of financial institutions and Wall Street. I also believe it to be completely intentional that this movie takes place in New York City/Manhattan.

I don't believe we see regret for the lives ruined by the drugs he sold - other than his own. However, we do know that in the case of drug abuse, it takes more than one to commit the crime. The question is - which crime are we referring to? Is it the crime of selling drugs - doing drugs - or does it go deeper than that? Would Monty have stopped if his father or girlfriend or two best friends had thrown an intervention for him? It's safe to say that he wouldn't have stopped, but - as Frank points out to Naturelle (Rosario Dawson) - she had to know where the money was coming from but certainly didn't turn down the gifts, trips and lifestyle that Monty's profession afforded them. Perhaps Naturelle, his father and friends are supposed to be the symbolic voices of a nation that has ignored our addiction to a quick buck and 401K accounts that earn 30%.

I agree, in that, there is so much going on here that it would be difficult to choose one theme. This may be especially evident in one of the most powerful scenes, which I will call the 'bathroom mirror scene' where Monty is spoken to by his reflection in the mirror on a rant of blame using the people, events, and city surrounding him as scapegoats to explain his current situation playing the victim. Motivated by a profain statement written on the mirror, the audience is taken on a tour of the diversity of New York ripped apart by anger, guilt, and disgust. It is almost like an option or path to take to explain his past. The resolve is his own response to this rant taking accountability for his actions and rejecting placing blame on others.

The symbolism of Doyle, the dog practically left for dead, taken in by Monty that opens the film, is an exceptional addition. It seems that those beaten down by society or for whatever reason may be pushed aside for someone else to deal with...or left to fend for themselves. One watching the film may wonder if Monty takes in Doyle in a way that he would appreciate the nurturing and safety.

He Said, "It's a Blind Buyer!" Given the current state of our country, and the price you would pay for this move (probably no more than $7.50), this movie has quite a bit going for it on multiple viewings. Starting with this being one of Spike Lee's better movies on par with Do the Right Thing and Malcolm X, this movie is a character study that also forces us to consider social issues in a Dostoevsky-like manner. Right and wrong are relative to who's in control society (it's no irony the law that seal's Monty's future is called the Rockefeller Law). The cast is simply amazing as well - Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Pepper, Rosario Dawson, Anna Paquin and Brian Cox all give their all in the scenes and they show that they understand the material.

A very well done character study that is engaging from start to finish. I recommend 25th Hour to those looking for a thought-provoking, socially conscious film.