The Dresser (1983)

Clay

If you're not aware of it, I have a biased love for British culture, specifically Shakespearean-influenced art.

That said, The Dresser is an excellent movie. But don't take my word for it: it was nominated for 5 Oscars in 1984 and won a pile of others (Golden Globes, etc). But yet again, if you're the sort of person who is offended by cinematic portrayals of queers, or perhaps have a total distaste for stage drama, I would say that you might not be the sort of reader who enjoys my reviews, and therefore, should stop reading now.

The Dresser is a fictional story of a famous Shakespearean stage actor and his fussy personal attendant. The events of the film take place in WWII England, and are primarily concerned with the troupe's troubled performance of King Lear. One does not need to be familiar with Lear or Shakespeare in order to enjoy this movie, but clearly, one will derive more enjoyment if you are familiar with both.

The acting is superb, the plot is surprising and mostly unpredictable. I recommend it highly (7/8 slices) with the understanding that the movie regards itself as high drama, and therefore, is not for everyone.

Fun Fact, Per IMDB:

Ronald Harwood based his play and subsequent screenplay on his experiences as the dresser for the noted Shakespearean actor Donald Wolfit.

Gwoemul (2006) ["The Host"]

TARA

Hold this one for the video rental. No need to race to the theater. Perfect for a Friday evening, perhaps with a group of friends, for some light entertainment.

Most memorable aspect of this film might be it's ability to make one feel uncomfortable in terms of the expected response: Should I be laughing? Empathizing with the character? Crying? Scared?

In my opinion, the monster was rendered in a very unique style. It wasn't a rip-off or a borrowed creature from other films. . . a very original appearance and presentation. It wasn't a puffed up Godzilla, or a redo of the Blob. I appreciated the fact that the directors seemed to have made a conscious effort to create a non-derivitave, horrific creature.

There were occasions during the film when I found myself wondering about the accuracy of the Korean-English translation. Yet on the other hand, some of the best comedy in the film comes from what may be the lack of a true Korean cultural understanding for American viewers.

The trend of absentee monther-figures, displayed in several places throughout the film, was intriguing to me. I would be open to commentary regarding this aspect, because I'm not sure what, if anything, it might mean. The absence of strong mother-figures, or women in general.

Final view: Its a fun film for a group of friends to laugh at (and occasionally be horrified by). 7.5 out of 10. A strong "C".

CLAY

A lot of folks missed this one in the theaters. "The Host" is a South Korean film that didn't receive a great deal of promotion in USA markets. Nevertheless, its worth checking out if you're a fan of the underrepresented sci-fi/action/comedy/drama/monster genre.

Think "Shawn of the Dead" with a pervasive east-asian flavor. I'm not saying that this movie is necessarily a must-see, but it isn't a waste of time, either. The film's strongest point, IMHO, is a tendency to challenge comedic conventions. One often wonders if one is expected to laugh at the characters or sympathize with their plight. At it's core, Gwoemul is an action/monster movie, but the film's essential 'foreignness' makes it far more interesting than the standard american hollywood fare.

Overall, I give it a 6 out of 8 slices, with the warning that it's a movie 'just for fun'--i.e. not epic storytelling.

Fun facts:
I got a kick out of one of the film's unusual cameos: Paul Lazar, who played the role of the crosseyed scientist in Silence of the Lambs, reprises a similar role.

From IMDB:
The event described in the beginning of Gwoemul is based on an actual event. In February 2000 in a US military facility located in the center of Seoul, US military civilian employee Mr. McFarland ordered to dispose formaldehyde into the sewer system leading to Han River despite the objection of a Korean subordinate. Korean government attempted to prosecute Mr. McFarland in Korean court but US military refused to hand over the custody of Mr. McFarland to the Korean legal system. Later, a Korean judge convicted Mr. McFarland in absentia. Public enraged at the Korean government's inability to enforce its law on its own soil. In 2005, nearly five years after the original incident, Mr. McFarland was finally found guilty in Korean court in his presence. He never served the actual prison sentence, however. No sighting of mutant creature has been reported in Han River, yet.

16 Blocks (2006)

CLAY

Bruce Willis always suckers me into watching his movies. Thanks to genuine classics such as 12 Monkeys, Pulp Fiction and the perennial favorite DIE HARD, I continue expect greatness from the Blue Collar American Action Hero.

I imagine the pitch for 16 blocks going something like this: "Its Die Hard. . . with a twist! The terrorist-infested building is now SIXTEEN BLOCKS of corrupt policemen who are trying to kill him. He's still a crusty cop-type--we'll give him a drinking problem this time--but he'll still have the lovable african-american sidekick, who will of course provide comic contrast to Willis' patented deadpan, cigarette-infused hardcore attitude. We can't miss!"

If that kind of pitch turns your crank, then you'll probably like 16 Blocks. This could be a "fun flick" if you're not interested in seeing some departures from action-genre conventions. However, if you tire of hackneyed plot development and unabashedly sentimental/simplistic character types, then i'd give it a miss.

Aside from the transparently formulaic script, the whole movie is pretty predictable in terms of action film cliches. The dialog is unimaginative and Mos Def's nasal voice is often abrasive and overdone. The characters feel hollow and simplistically developed, and a critical viewer will REALLY have to stop and consider whether an entire police department would smash up numerous city blocks in a quest to kill one of their own. In my eyes, the whole plot comes off as farfetched.

At best, I'd give it a 3.5 out of 8 slices. It did have its moments, but in the final analysis, I just didn't care what happened to the characters.

The Cooler (2003)

CLAY

William H. Macy stars in this dog of a film. He's a unique actor who tends to heavily color the texture of any movie. Unfortunately, even his unique personalization of the 'permanent loser' role can't save the problems of this plot.

Don't get me wrong; the movie starts out on an interesting note...but quickly decends into trite, problematic territory. Like many a short story or novella, the basic situation is interesting, compelling even. As a 'cooler' Macy's character (Bernie Lootz) wields a unique talent for ruining the luck of anyone with whom he comes in contact. Accordingly, he is employed by a casino, and is rather good at his job. The drawback is that his life sucks. Sucks, that is, until a beautiful woman (Surprise! Love Interest ruining the film!) enters his life and turns his personal luck around. Viola, the script practically writes itself. . . meaning that you don't really need to watch the rest.

But the flaws of this movie go far beyond the predictability of the romance plot. Two of the most sickening are the formulaic, laughable performances of Alec Baldwin as a nefarious casino owner, set in contrast to Ron Livingston's trite role as the 'newschool' casino developer. Memo to Hollywood: I once saw this movie about Vegas about how it used to be cool back in the days of true hustlers and high society, and how its descended into a plastic self-parody with no space for the hardcore oldsters. It was called Casino, it was directed by Martin Scorsese, and it was super-excellent. It didn't rely on pathetic character development and flimsy motivation. Maybe you should rent it and then bury this piece of dogsh*t in the desert.

Really, I'm just picking out some of the most obvious aspects to complain about. There's a whole lot more. For starters, take the 'loser son from New Jersey and his pregnant wife' subplot. Now there's an instance of "things I just don't want to watch or care about". Speaking of which, the movie has waaaaaay too many scenes/acts. The whole thing needed to be shortened/made more coherent. I feel like a lot of the plot--especially the ending movements--is just dragging on, before reaching (what seemed to me) it's inevitable conclusion.

Since i could barely bring myself to watch the 2nd half of the film (I finished it, but the last swallows were difficult to get down), I'm giving it a 2.9 slices / 8. It could have been a successful piece, but a volume of flaws just sunk this ship.

Strangers on a Train (1951)

CLAY

Alfred Hitchcock. I can go either way on some of his films; in this case, its two thumbs up. SoaT is a compelling, interesting film that doesn't bore the viewer with predictable plotlines or dated psychological horror. Rather, this movie is a mix of dark comedy, film noir and drama, revolving around the wonderfully deranged Bruno's (Robert Walker) plot to swap murders. The catch: the man with whom Bruno intends to swap murders isn't exactly enthusiastic about the plan.

Its a fun film to watch. I expected a stock psychological thriller; instead, this one really lets Hitchcock's demented sense of humor out of the box. Tara and I have an enormous fondness for the cult classic film "Lord Love a Duck" (Roddy McDowall, 1966); SoaT appeals on a similar level. I also think that the special effects in the final scene are worth mentioning...a great example of Hitchcock's directorial acumen in an early era.

I'd give it a 6.5 out of 8 slices. Its a good classic Hitchcock film, so if you like this sort of thing, rent it.

A Man for All Seasons (1966)

CLAY

Wow. I don't know what I could say that would add to the greatness of this movie. See it.

Disclaimer: I spent seven years acquiring degrees in English Lit. As this film focuses on a major figure from English history--Sir Thomas More--the movie is saturated with the flavor and style of the era. I love this kind of thing. If you enjoyed the style and/or subject matter of films like Shakespeare in Love et all, you'd probably be a candidate for this movie. Also, the film won 6 Oscars and tons of other award, so maybe other people liked it too.

The important thing to understand is that the movie combines historical accuracy with impossibly great acting. T. More's life has been idealized many times, this is a top-notch example. The film isn't one of those standard 1960 moralizing, predictable films. I mean, you probably know how it ends, but the narrative remains exciting. Its a must-see for any respectable movie-buff.

Favorite aspects: The actor who plays King Henry VIII is excellent, lends a lot of drama and character to the roll. Excellent cinematography and perfectly paced. 7.5 slices out of 8.

The Odd Couple (1968)

CLAY

One cant go wrong with these old-timey comedy classics. If you didn't already know it--FYI--tOC first lived as a popular stage play that was converted into this full-length feature, and eventually into the inevitable television series. The movie stars the unforgettable Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau (who later reprise VERY similar roles in 1993's Grumpy Old Men) as two men discovering an age old truth: friends don't always make good roommates.

I hardly feel the need to say much about this movie, other than that it is an essential element of Americana film. The film is, at its core, a black comedy of angst and annoyance. Lemon's neuroses are so bitingly real and frustrating that the audience empathizes with Matthau's fury, while Matthau's own hostility and selfishness are simultaneously understandable and reprehensible.

Its a fun film, great for a laugh, a solid classic. I give it 6/8 pizza slices; "Average Great".