fishinwithguns (Level 10)

Dennis Hopper is one of the few movie villains who can employ the word "fuck" like a gorgeous architectural detail. His insistence on Pabst Blue Ribbon is a great source of humor. Despite being one of David Lynch's more conventional stories, there are some really messed up things going on here. You have implied Oedipus complexes left and right, sado-masochistic sexual behavior, Dennis Hopper huffing amyl nitrite through a frighteningly insect-like face mask, severed ears, etc. One thing's for sure, love him or hate him, Lynch will ALWAYS get you talking.

This could go for nearly any Coen brothers movie, but my friends will always enjoy the story leading up to the ending, and that's where they're at a loss for words. "What kind of ending was that?" Or "I just wasted two whole hours..." The Coens are known for stopping short, withholding information, and generally avoiding conventional movie cliches, and this fills some people with disappointment, and occasionally hatred. Sometimes I try and explain the ending further, all I get is "but what happens to him? Does he die?" That's ambiguity, I say, learn to love it. A Serious Man actually makes several comments about the nature of film and the Coens' story structure itself. "What happened to the goy?" Larry asks, "The goy? Who cares?"

One of my first "dark" comedies. People hated this movie when it came out because they wanted to see Jim Carrey bending over and making his butt-cheeks talk instead of giving Matthew Broderick free cable and acting significantly sinister and creepy for the duration of the movie. Carrey plays a tragic character whose only real friend is the media he consumes. He takes the opportunity to make Matthew Broderick his obligatory friend and is hurt when Broderick isn't particularly appreciative of the favors he's done for him. An underrated movie that was hurt critically and financially by Carrey taking a role that many thought was too dark for such a likable guy to play.

This is probably only on this list for nostalgia value, but Mortal Kombat couldn't have come to theaters at a better time. At that time, Mortal Kombat was my whole world. I wondered why it didn't have a R-rating, because I was hoping for endless decapitations, but it delivered in many other interesting ways. It had all of our favorite characters doing what they did best. Johnny Cage was a smart-ass, if not slightly annoying at times. The techno/industrial soundtrack was exciting and got you pumped for the surprisingly well-choreographed fight scenes. The gravelly-voiced Christopher Lambert as Japanese thunder god Raiden was a strange choice, but strangely effective. I believe the film-makers knew the cheesiness of the source material and had fun with it. This was a good example of how to make a fighting game into a movie, a stark contrast with the original live-action Street Fighter movie. Let's not get started on this movie's sequel though.

I honestly think this was one of the best movies of 2010. Kick-Ass was a huge bomb at the box-office, due in part to a bad marketing campaign, and several vitriolic reviews, most notably by Roger Ebert who absolutely hated its depiction of ultra-violence carried about by a 12-year-old girl. Others didn't have a problem with the violence, but criticized its slow build and occasionally cheesy lines. Some people came in thinking it was supposed to be straight-up comedy and said "it wasn't that funny." "Funny?" I said, "did you totally forgot those insane action sequences?" This is as much a dark parody of comic-book movies as it is a loving tribute. Luckily, DVD and Blu-ray sales of Kick-Ass have been pretty good, so a sequel is a possibility. This movie has balls the size of watermelons.

This movie was funny. Plain and simple. One of the most infamous bombs in history, but funny as hell. I haven't seen it in a while, but it is basically a parody of action movies, Schwarzenegger life IS a movie, but he doesn't know it. A smart-ass kid enters this movie world via a golden ticket or something and constantly tries to point out to Arnold all the action movie cliches he faces day to day. A severely misunderstood movie, a classic case of people not understanding irony, tongue-in-cheek, camp, etc. That is what made this movie into a joke. Unbeknownst to the audience however, it was intended to be one all along. It could have been better, but doesn't deserve all the shit it gets. It's like criticizing an ice-cream cone because it doesn't taste like a popsicle. (By the way, I think there actually is death-by-ice-cream-cone in this movie).

I think most of the Screened community will actually agree with me here, but you'll be surprised how many people hate this movie. It's full on Tarantino action until it does a complete 180 into Rodriguez land. It's one of those moments where you can literally feel people getting up and leaving the theater, thinking "well, they totally lost me...I'm done with this." It promises one thing, and instead gives you another. At first you have violence that's made to seem more disturbing because of Tarantino's way of leaving out the exact details of said violence. Then you have Rodriguez's insistence on showing every single gruesome detail...also, vampires. This left turn was bound to piss people off, but it's a genius movie. An incredibly inventive experiment in the guise of a schlocky B-picture. Could be seen as a precursor to Grindhouse. Tarantino and Rodriguez are great at what they do.

Okay, now you might be thinking "what? who hates the Fifth Element?" Again, you'd be surprised. I got home from the theater one night and explained this movie to my mom the best I could and she said "So I guess that probably wasn't the best choice then?" And I was like "What? No! It was awesome!" A fucking silly-as-hell sci-fi movie, but surprisingly intelligent. It's like Blade Runner if it were dropped into a Terry Gilliam plot generator machine. Another movie that bewilders people who like their films to take themselves seriously.

I actually surprised myself by liking this movie. I used to make jokes about how bad it was, but then I realized it was really very clever. It's a love letter to the art of no-budget filmmaking. Eddie Murphy plays two characters, the world's biggest action star Kit Ramsey, and an ultra-nerdy look-alike. Steve Martin, as the director, decides to make a movie featuring Kit, but without him actually knowing he's in the movie. His doppelganger will do the close-up shots, and if everything goes well, they'll have a big money-making movie on their hands. The best humor of course comes from the crew's guerrilla style film-making and the complications that arise, as well as Kit being driven crazy and increasingly paranoid by being stalked by the film crew. Murphy is surprisingly convincing as the Kit look-alike, but undeniably annoying as the real Kit. I also thought the ending was a little unrealistic with their Ed Wood quality finished product being universally embraced as if it were a genuinely good work and not a laughably bad yet entertaining one. I like movies about making movies, and Bowfinger is solid in that regard.

People hated this movie. Why? Because it was Judd Apatow and his regulars, had "funny" in the title and wasn't just a straight up comedy. Instead it was a very human story with a strong moral center and was emotionally challenging. Dynamic is the word. I was a little disappointed because I'm a comedy nerd and thought that it would delve deeper into the professional lives of stand-up comedians and not just their personal lives, but again...not that kind of movie. Great cast all around. There is some typical Apatow rehashing here, but it's his most personal movie and clearly a labor of love. Some of the characters come off as despicable, but ultimately they all have their distinct charms and no-one is demonized and made to be "the villain." Another movie that defies cliches, so no wonder people were pissed.

It says something that, while I've been a huge fan of David Fincher since Seven, I didn't even know about this movie when it came out in theaters. It's actually very similar to Seven, but in some ways plays out on the other end of the spectrum. In Seven, John Doe was the very intelligent, nearly unstoppable killer with TOO much method to his madness. The Zodiac killer is not nearly as articulate, and while he leaves clues like John Doe, they are often nonsensical. Zodiac takes place between 1969 and 1985, accounting for a very long (by some accounts, tedious) movie. It doesn't so much comment on the nature of the criminal mind the way Seven did, as much as it does the ineffectiveness of our justice system. There are scenes where the audience and the police could very well be staring the killer right in the eyes, but they don't have enough evidence to convict him. It becomes a cold case, hope is all but lost when a cartoonist working for the local newspaper becomes obsessed with sniffing out the trail of the killer, and he comes closer than anyone. An engaging and again, unconventional movie. I was expecting a thriller or even a horror, what I got was infinitely better. Not a "popcorn flick" or "crowd pleaser." An intellectual movie that knows that sometimes the questions are far more important than the answers.

Oh those Coens...making the list again. This is my favorite movie. This may change some day, but I've seen it countless times and it gets better and better each time. Now you may be saying "what? Oscar nominated/winning picture No Country For Old Men? Why is this on the list?" In a word, the ending. People hate this ending. I will say this is how the book ended, and it would defeat the purpose to end it any other way. There's no huge action climax, it just sort of...fades away. Other criticism came from the long stretches without dialogue, the very very minimal soundtrack, overly serious tone (for the Coens), and lack of back story or motivation for Javier Bardem's character. If they explained Anton Chigurh in great detail, it would have made him less frightening. Like I said, ambiguity, it does wonders (for me at least). When something that is meant to be ambiguous is made clear, it gets you nowhere. I consider this a perfect movie, or at least as perfect a movie can get. I wouldn't change a single thing about it. I can talk about this to no end, so I may just do a write-up or review of it soon. Also note that if I make a list of top movie villains, Javier Bardem is right up there at number 1, number 1 all the way.

Screenwriter Christopher McQuarrie was down on his luck after his success with The Usual Suspects. He couldn't get work for a significantly long time. Then he decided to write and direct The Way of the Gun, a movie so odd it's hard to dismiss. The Way of the Gun is McQuarrie's Sam Peckinpah-esque Western type big shootout movie, with Ryan Phillipe and Benicio del Toro as the two incredibly unlikable, despicable petty criminals. These characters alone may be the reason this movie didn't do too well. Not many people can get on board with two guys who not only objectify women so thoroughly, but also punch them in the face repeatedly (in the OPENING SCENE mind you). Look, I get it, main characters have to be likable to some extent for you to stay with them and care what happens to them, but I love how this movie just throws that out the window. It's devastatingly violent, offensive, and sometimes hard to watch. But holy shit is it entertaining! Guilty pleasure? Nah, I don't feel guilty. Also has some of the best shootout scenes I've ever seen. Peppered with sadistic dark humor, and some wonderful dialogue. You may want to take a shower after watching this one. Gritty, gritty, gritty.

This is one dumb-ass movie, but that's why I love it. I can't get the image of Jake Busey playing some pseudo-futuristic neon green violin out of my head. Another flop that people hated. "Too stupid" they said. "Just stupid enough" I say. There are plenty of fake propaganda ads that are often the funniest parts of the movie. It's basically a WW2 movie but in space and with giant bugs. These giant bug battles are epic and display some really great effects for the time. Oddly enough, to me it doesn't even seem that dated. Take it for what it is: a big budget B-movie. A lot of the violence is used to humorous effect, something people weren't really used to in mainstream movies at the time. My only complaints are that Casper Van Dien comes off a little too whiny at the beginning, kind of like Luke Skywalker at the beginning of the Star Wars series. Also, it takes too long to get into the second act, the movie is over two hours and a lot of the set-up could have definitely been trimmed down. We get it, he's a reluctant hero, but a tragic event encourages him to go on the classic hero's journey. Establish that and be done with it. Overall, one of the more entertaining movies of the past 20 years, funny and violent as hell.

I actually don't know many people who've seen this movie, but I can just feel the potential disgust. Written by Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and also his directorial debut. It's hard to put into words what this movie is about, because it's basically about...well, everything. It gets incredibly convoluted real quick in typical Kaufman fashion, and stays that way for the entire movie, becoming increasingly confusing, increasingly depressing, and increasingly hilarious all at the same time. Philip Seymour Hoffman is a playwright who is basically writing a play about his life. The scale of the production grows impossibly large as his life gets more complex, then actors are brought in to play himself and the people in his life, then those actors become part of his life, so more actors come in to play those actors, and on and on. There are a great number of typical Kaufman themes here: the struggle that comes with creating art, the desire to become someone you're not and can not be, fear of succumbing to mediocrity, desiring the unattainable, gender-bending, sexual frustration, etc. There's life, death, sickness, health, love, hate, yin, yang, the black, the white, the grey, and possibly colors we don't even know about. Incredibly long movie, Kaufman's opus. This is oversimplifying it, but Synecdoche, New York is the Inception of arthouse fare.

There were several choice words from critics when this movie came out: "too depressing," "too serious," too this, too that...basically it wasn't the movie they wanted it to be, but fuck 'em. It's their review, it's the director's movie, get used to it. The director, by the way is none other than Gore Verbinski (love that name) who's responsible for the Pirates of the Caribbean series. The Weatherman couldn't be further from what those movies are. The titular weather man is Nicholas Cage, a man plagued by mediocrity and always doing the most inappropriate things at the worst times. His award winning author father (Michael Caine) is ultimately disappointed that his son turned out to be a guy who points to pictures of clouds on TV. This movie is constantly described as a "downer." I say no good movie could be a downer, and The Weatherman is certainly a good movie. It has sort of an American Beauty vibe to it, but ultimately more uplifting. Cage is driven to the brink of madness several times, but we stay with him because he's just too likable a guy. He's charming enough that we can forgive him for his countless missteps, time and time again. There's a lesson to be learned, if you walk the streets carrying a bow and arrow, you won't be fucked with. Also, smashing a child pornographer in the face with his own bulky camera is incredibly cathartic to watch...I imagine even more so to do in real life.

Well, another movie I feel is pretty well liked, but I've introduced it to several people who couldn't stand it. You rarely see such unabashedly showy film-making done with little to no budget. Everything about it is done with self-important flair, but rightfully so. A neo-noir movie featuring high school kids who talk like detectives, femme fatales, and all the classic noir characters. A strange gimmick, but ultimately leads to some of the most clever dialogue you'd hear anywhere. There's also a certain indescribable joy I get from seeing a smart-ass nerdy amateur sleuth (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) kicking the shit out of derelicts and drug dealers in inventive ways, but also getting fucked up pretty bad himself. Implausible story, implausible characters, but undeniably fun. It's pretty dark at times, but writer/director Rian Johnson (The Brothers Bloom) achieves a healthy balance of comedy and tragedy. There isn't an ounce of fat in this movie. The editing is choppy sometimes, but used to great effect. Johnson lets you fill in the gaps yourself. He's definitely a show-off film-maker, but one clever, clever bastard.

I say this movie is polarizing because there are people who won't even give it a chance. The Triplets of Belleville is a terminally weird animated PG-13 French film that didn't get the exposure it deserved. It shouldn't have made a difference, really. It came out here in the states, and could have done well because with virtually no dialogue, we Americans didn't need to bother with those pesky, invasive subtitles. After all, film is a visual medium, so I believe if you can do so much without dialogue, you should...and that's certainly what's done here. I can't really describe the plot of this movie, you just have to watch it. It pokes fun at the French and Americans alike. Particularly, the French's obsession with the Tour de France, and basically how fat we Americans are (come on, it's true). This movie is almost like a French version of a Miyazaki film, although probably even less serious. There's dark humor, and some just utterly bizarre humor, but there are also some fantastic musical numbers. Someday I will buy the soundtrack to this movie, if it is available. I don't usually enjoy animated films (especially not CG animated ones) but this is one you just have to see. Less is more, and excess is priceless. If you thought the French didn't have a sense of humor, just give this a whirl.

If this movie were made by anyone besides Robert Rodriguez, it would be a complete and utter failure, and not to mention just flat out racist. Rodriguez himself is a very polarizing film-maker, because you usually have to appreciate explicitly disgusting, bloody, detailed special effects to enjoy movies like Planet Terror and From Dusk Til Dawn. Being a big Cronenberg and Carpenter fan, I enjoy these things a lot. I also enjoy Danny Trejo and always wondered why he'd never had a starring role. What could possibly have been a better vehicle for him than Machete? I was baffled as I was walking out of the theater and heard a woman say something to the effect of "that's two hours I'll never get back." People should know whether they'd enjoy this movie or not probably from the poster alone, but if that's not enough, the first five minutes should establish the tone and serve as a good indicator for whether this is something you'd want to continue watching. Because during the opening scene, Danny Trejo (as MACHETE) picks up a naked woman and carries her out of a burning building into safety where she proceeds to turn on him buy pulling a cell phone out of her vagina to call some of her goons to rough him up. Rodriguez must have been thinking there were too many Blaxploitation movies and not enough Mexploitation ones. The star power in this movie is overwhelming: Robert de Niro, Steven Seagal, Don Johnson, Tom Savini, Jessica Alba, Lindsay Lohan, Michelle Rodriguez, and I'm sure I'm missing one or two. This came out near the same time as The Expendables, and I was very glad I decided to go with this ridiculous overblown action movie instead. Seagal doing a ridiculous but passable Latino accent and de Niro as a corrupt politician doing a fake southern accent are just two of the wonderful things about this movie. Machete is a love letter to excess and all things gratuitous. I think a lot of conservatives were turned off by this movie's obvious albeit playful political overtones. But I don't understand why so many people didn't give this movie a chance. Trejo saying "Machete don't text" deserves to be quoted as much as Bruce Willis saying "Yippie-ki-yay, motherfucker!" I think of it as Rodriguez's Kill Bill, vol. 1, but possibly even more excessive. One thing bothered me after watching Machete, and that was simply the thought of "why hadn't this movie been made sooner?" I certainly needed it.

Look, I could go ahead and add nearly every Coen brothers movie to this list, but I'm just gonna add The Big Lebowski and stop it right there. This may be the Coens' most universally praised (certainly most quoted) movie, but I know that there's nearly one person who loathes The Big Lebowski for every person who can quote every line. I've seen this movie almost as much as No Country (a whole hell of a lot), and I enjoy all the trademark quirks as much as the next "Dudeist," but I think I probably enjoy them for different reasons. I don't see this as a movie that comments one way or another on pot use, and I think many people believe it glorifies hippie/stoner culture, but the Dude's pot use and laconic attitude only flesh out his character as a guy who is probably the least equipped to deal with all the shit that comes his way. My father used to watch Fargo literally every night. He was looking forward to this movie but he hated it and bluntly admitted he just didn't "get it." Tons of people are bound to "not get it," and I can certainly understand avoiding a movie simply because your friends quote it incessantly. It's another neo-noir, and nearly a screwball comedy as pretty much everyone in the movie is burdened by the unforgivable sin of stupidity (but varying shades and degrees of it). It has a strange structure as it sort of plays out more like a Raymond Chandler mistaken identity/detective novel than it does a movie. Has an amazing classic rock soundtrack, featuring a lot of Creedence Clearwater Revival. Also, hallucination/dream sequences don't get much more dreamy than these, the most notable being the big dance number involving Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore in a fantastically spacey bowling alley where apparently Saddam Hussein himself works. Whether you love it or hate it, chances are you won't see many movies like this in your lifetime, and after watching you certainly won't forget it. It's a great example of a movie where it's incredibly obvious that the cast and crew had a blast making it. This could be the Coens' most playful movie, they obviously had a lot of fun, so it's impossible for me not to do so as well.

3 Ninjas is inseparable from my childhood. It clearly was a response to the success of silly martial-arts action comedies from the early 90's, but I think it's good in its own right. This is kind of a cross between Ninja Turtles and Home Alone. I'm certain that simple nostalgia is winning against my better judgment in this case, but hey it's a guilty pleasure. I know it's bad, but bad doesn't always mean "not entertaining." It also helped that I'm one of three brothers and each of us identified with one of the three ninja brothers...and we also all thought we were ninjas after watching this movie. This movie arrived at a time in my childhood where simply seeing characters playing a videogame in a movie was enjoyable to me. Needless to say, I wasn't very picky, which also explains why I initially loved Surf Ninjas as well. Yeah, it didn't take much to satisfy me as a kid as long as I could walk out of a movie theater believing that by simply watching the screen I could kick anyone's ass. Definitely a stupid movie, but I'm still looking for the VHS of it around my house. No point in buying it on DVD, this is one of those movies that you feel should just exist on VHS forever because it is just so overwhelmingly early 90's.

Thinking of 3 Ninjas inevitably lead my mind to this little gem featuring a young Johnathan Brandis and the eternally bearded Chuck Norris. Sidekicks is still by no means a great movie, and definitely not an original one, but it holds a special place in my heart. Brandis is a nerdy asthmatic kid who constantly daydreams about kicking serious ass with his favorite martial artist Chuck Norris, and eventually gets to do so in real life. These dream sequences often look like they'd make for a cooler movie than what Sidekicks actually is, but they add a lot of flavor to the movie and it's at least one aspect that sets itself apart from The Karate Kid. There's a buff Joe Piscopo at his most tolerable as a loud-mouthed, pissed off karate instructor, so that's something. Eh...what else, oh I just want to mention I'm not adding this simply because of Chuck Norris and all those stupid jokes that STILL can't seem to go away. There's not much else to say other than if I hadn't enjoyed this movie as a kid I'd have no business enjoying it today. In that regard, I can't really recommend it if you haven't seen it unless you're really that curious.

Oh Lord...yeah, I'm really adding this. I enjoy a good black comedy, although this one's not necessarily good. Robin Williams is actually tolerable, funny, yet simultaneously creepy as Rainbow Randolph, an insane kids' show host. Troubles arise when Ed Norton is brought into play Smoochy on another kids' show very similar to Barney the Purple Dinosaur. Williams' popularity starts to fade as Smoochy's show gets increasingly popular, stealing much of his limelight. Then Williams makes several attempts to sabotage Smoochy's career, and ultimately have him killed. Death to Smoochy became the butt of many jokes in its year of release because it didn't perform well at the box office and many thought the premise and title alone were too stupid to give it a chance. However, it eventually just faded into obscurity once people got tired of beating a dead Smoochy. Something about the title and the striking poster intrigued and called to me. I don't absolutely love it, but I feel it's worth a mention, if only for people to go "holy shit! I forgot that movie even existed!" Chances are most of you have, and chances are most of you could have been completely happy not remembering it.

Fans of David Cronenberg may enjoy The Fly or Videodrome more than Scanners, and I don't blame them, but there's just too much oddly compelling things about Scanners. I'll admit, the movie's star Stephen Lack is not a good actor, and that's putting it lightly. However, there's something in his voice, and his eyes especially that make him seem perfect for the part. For those unfamiliar, a "scanner" is a unique individual who has the power to read other people's minds, control things like their heartbeat, and if they're particularly good scanners, they can even set people on fire or make one's head explode (a priceless early scene that contributed to the movie's notoriety). If Michael Ironside weren't so damn effective as the ultra-powerful "evil" scanner Darryl Revok, this movie could have been really bad. Like I said, the main actor isn't too great, so there needed to be some real talent to pick up the slack. I can't help but think that Cameron Vale, the movie's hero, was at least a partial influence for the character of Neo in the Matrix series. The scanners in the movie are given their powers through mutations in their genes, which leads me to make comparisons to the mutant superheroes of the X-Men series. Their abilities are both a blessing and a curse. Without the proper treatment, Vale can't keep the voices out of his head. He asks a more disturbed scanner how he keeps the voices out of his head "my art" he replies. Beyond all the plot silliness, I think this is definitely indicative of how Cronenberg's art (film) keeps him sane. Vale responds "but I don't have anything like this." Cronenberg's message is that you should have some sort of outlet, creative or otherwise, or the voices and thoughts in your head will ultimately drive you to madness. This movie's detractors often claim it's too cheesy, but I disagree, even though I definitely think there's room for some cheese in a movie like this. Other than that, they usually say it would have been better if it were more of a horror movie than a sci-fi supernatural thriller. I can understand most complaints about the movies I love, but I can never understand when someone actually has in their head that they want to change the whole damn genre of the movie. Overall, it's an interesting idea, seeing it on paper doesn't do it justice though, and it's definitely a much more intelligent movie than it gets credit for. (Darryl Revok would also make my potential list of greatest movie villains).

Like the Coens, Wes Anderson has a lot of little quirks that definitely rub some people the wrong way. Rushmore is a very deadpan comedy, and I can imagine people who love the American "The Office" but say "I just don't 'get' the British 'Office'" are akin to the people who hate this movie, and Wes Anderson movies in general. This is Anderson's most solid work, in my opinion. It doesn't go out of its way to be gimmicky like The Royal Tenenbaums or The Life Aquatic (keep in mind I love those movies too). But in short, this is my favorite comedy, period. It has been since I first saw it, when it had just come out. I even have two copies of it on DVD because I couldn't remember if I had bought the first copy and I just wanted to be on "the safe side," the implication being that I didn't feel safe or comfortable without owning this movie. This is the performance of Jason Schwartzman's life, and a killer standout performance for Bill Murray as well. Like all Anderson movies, Rushmore has an awesome soundtrack, just full on British Invasion music like the Kinks, the Who, and some delicate instrumental scores by Devo's Mark Mothersbaugh. "I like your nurse's uniform, guy." "Oh, these are O.R. scrubs" "O. R. They?" That's the test, if you don't think those lines are genius, you don't/won't like this movie.