p e n g u i n d e v i l

For another stop in the (rather limited view) Russ Meyer tour of the sordid side of America, we take a look into the go-go (topless) dancing scene of mid-60’s San Francisco with Mondo Topless. And though the title is fairly accurate, it’s not as exciting a composition as one might think. Starting out in standard Russ Meyer fashion with a few minutes of film montage (this time of San Francisco) and a rather dramatic and titillating narration about the glories and magnitude of the great metropolis that is San Francisco. Once we become aware of the worldly cultural and economic importance of this city, the narrator then whisks us off to North Beach to see the other side of the coin (or is it?). Be prepared as we are entering nearly an hour of “go go girls in and out of their environment”. And while somewhat enjoyable, it is generally a rather boring hour. While go-go dancing itself seems an exciting endeavor, how long can you really come up with the interest in watching little snippets of go-go dancers frolicking around? It seems like a one or two minute scene from and old movie played over and over again. Especially since he seems to follow the rule of “the less interesting that they are to watch the more screen time they get”. In terms of their environment, the focus is really on “outside of their environments” as the lion’s share of the scenes are outdoors (this is Russ Meyer after all) but still, they are seen in all sorts of hokey settings: from the stages of go-go clubs…





to writhing around in the mud…





While a dancer is being shown, we get to hear her expressing “sensitive comments and opinions” (generally regarding dancing) over a background of crazy rock n roll music. The movie focuses on about a dozen dancers, mainly good-old American dancers but there are a few foreign theme dancers who are the most boring segments (seemingly all of that footage is taken from Europe in the Raw) .

Mondo Topless, while certainly a “watch once, if you can manage to sit through the whole thing” film, does have some high points. First off, there is a lengthy segment with Lorna Maitland which, while it mainly consists of footage from her namesake film, does have an interesting and enjoyable commentary from her about getting the role of Lorna and the making of that film and, secondly… There are many, many scenes with the shocking British bombshell Darlene Grey…





Still, it’s not much worth watching the whole thing. Unless you are attempting to watch all of the Russ Meyer films in the Arrow Films collection.

We finally watched There Will Be Blood. I meant to watch this a year ago, as we read Oil! in my old Book Group not too long after the movie came out… Some of them even went to go and see it after we read it, though I did not go along. So as I really, really liked the book, and the movie did look to be exciting, I quite wanted to see it, even though I heard that it wasn’t so much a film version of the book as it was a movie based on portions of the book.

Now that I’ve seen it, and keeping that in mind, I feel the need to look at it from two perspectives. First off, as a movie in its own merits. I certainly thought that it was quite good… Very well made, well acted and well shot. It really just looked and felt great. It was a dark, compelling and engrossing drama, and quite well written… Except for some aspects I’ll mention below.





Daniel Day Lewis is quiet good as Daniel Plainview, a self-made Oil man in the early part of the 20th century. When he gets a hint that some goat farmer might have some oil under his land, he takes his son and goes to take a look. That’s where the meat of the story starts. He encounters Eli Sunday, a self-made preacher and prophet, whose father’s land is the land he is after. Eli is played by Paul Dano who does a really great job. He steals every scene he is in with his down-home yet intense fervor.





Most of the rest of the characters are either peripheral or their roles don’t last through enough of the movie to make much of an impact. Plainview’s son, H.W., seems a major character but ends up more as a plot device and Plainview brother is really the only other key character, but the relationship between Plainview and Eli is really the meat of this film. While Plainview starts off as a driven and independent man as the movie (and many years) progress he becomes very much bitter, abrasive and misanthropic. Exactly why doesn’t seem clear and this is one minor aspect of the area that I thought that the film suffered in. There are many things in this story that seem to have much more implied than witnessed, giving the feeling that you’ve missed something, especially involving Plainview and his son. Which I thought was interesting… Considering that the key difference between the book and the film is that the lead character has been switched from the son to the father.





As for the movie as it relates to Oil!, the novel of origin. If you haven’t read the book, then watching the movie won’t give the book away because the movie has a completely different focus. But they were kind enough to change the title, so that should serve as some warning that There Will Be Blood might not be the same as the book. The oil back drop and some of the characters are taken from the book, but that’s it. The book is told from the son’s point of view and is primarily the story of him growing from a child into an adult and discovering the truths behind labor, business, society, love and politics. His life revolves around his father and the oil business, but he is obsessed by the character Paul, the brother of the preacher Eli. Paul has a total of one scene in the movie and is barely referred to afterwords. The son is basically a non-speaking role, and in fact, the father here is cut from a much different (and less pleasant) bit of cloth than in the book.


I would thought, highly recommend both. Oil! is just one of the best epic novels I have ever read and There Will Be Blood, for all of its differences that I found unsatisfying is still a great and engrossing film. And one that I believe I would enjoy even more a second time around (having gotten my preconceived notions out of the way)!





We also tried, unsuccessfully, to watch I’m Not There. This film felt like a confusing and pretentious mess, though I suspect that was intentional. Admittedly, I’m not a Dylan fan but I feel that even if I was, I would find this homage to the many brilliant geniuses that apparently are Bob Dylan to be tiring. Having a different actor play each phase was interesting and, I thought, clever… But the movie was too full of dull arty cleverness to really be worth sting all the way through. Rather than a life story, it is more like a collection of fictionalized vignettes of “how it might have happened to the great Dylan”. We only made it about halfway through, stopping, oddly enough, during the Cate Blanchett part, which was easily the best portion of the movie up to the point. Well, except for the scene when he unleashes the electric guitars at the Newport folk festival, an admittedly historic moment that has always been my favorite Dylan antic.

Sad how it’s taken me two years to get just a third of the way through my glorious 18 movie Russ Meyer boxed set, but, in what is hopefully the first step in proceeding in a more productive fashion, I have finally gotten around to watching another! I have set up a page to track my RM progress here :RM Project. And now, presented in non-glorious black and white, his most famous feature, Faster Pussycat, Kill! Kill! is a family-friendly, tale of debauchery, sin and (as Russ might say) evil out under the hot California sun. With a cast of about a dozen and taking place over the course of one day in the desert entirely out of doors (except for a few scenes in a worn out house), this classic begins as usual with his always reliable gimmicky dramatic narration about sin (“Welcome to violence, the word and the act”) which again informs us that we are going to see a sordid tale of sin, sex, greed and violence all wound together tightly. We know what to expect before even the first scene appears on the screen.





When three hard-edged, hard-driving, car-racing, Go-Go dancers encounter a happy-go-lucky couple out racing in the desert, the tough automotive egos unfold under the hot sun and things start getting ugly. When the fella beats the gang at their racing game, then things get really ugly. Off the girls go: Varna (Tura Satana as the alpha gang leader), Rosie (Haji as the girl with a thing for Tura) and Billie (the rebel) across the desert… With the racing fella’s girlfriend in tow.





Of course, things are just starting. When Billie catches a glimpse of a muscle-bound hunk at the gas station and his crippled father, off the girls head in pursuit of some ill-gotten gains. But they don’t know what they are up against as they cross paths with this family of three men in the desert, especially the father (Stuart Lancaster in his second of many Meyer appearances) who is most certainly part of the mold for which the father in the Texas Chainsaw Massacre must have been taken.





Of course, the desert ends up littered with bodies as we are shown this fable of cars versus cars, cars versus will, cars versus wheel chair and cars versus human strength… Tura Satana and Stuart Lancaster put in classic roles as two foul souls who will stop at nothing to get what they want and everyone else suffers between them. Not one of my favorite Meyer movies, but certainly action-packed and a must see for anyone.



I’ve never been an active fan of Joy Division, owning only the Substance compilation, but I am fond of some of their music (especially They Walked in Line from their days as Warsaw… I’m not sure why this never ended up on any “Joy Division” comps) so I’ve never given them much thought. But once we saw that there was a documentary out about them, considering that they were such a seminal band with such a short dramatic history we decided that it was a must see. So we saw Joy Division.

After having seen the movie, I would suggest that it still is a must see for anyone with any interest in this band or in “modern” music in general. It was quite good, and produced somewhat different than I would have expected, it had the air of a high quality public television presentation and it was very dark. Lots of grainy old footage of the band back in the day and the current interviews were lit very darkly. Of course, the subject was dark too… Starting with the youthful despair of England and ending in death… The full 4 years from that Sex Pistols concert in 1976 up until the end in 1980.





Using great old still footage and film of the band performing in the clubs around town and the insightful and enthusiastic interviews with involved folks make it a very interesting story of the band, of the scene (musical and otherwise) around Manchester and the development of Joy Division’s sound and album covers. It is a very psychological story that they tell, starting with how the terrible state of social and civil disrepair in England in the late 70’s led to these disaffected youth and their music, the connection between the reality of Manchester and the music of Joy Division and the effect that Ian Curtis and Joy Division had on those that experienced them. They bring in Tony Wilson (the late owner of Factory Records), the designer who put their album covers together, the Belgian journalist who became Curtis’ special friend, Genesis P-Orridge, Pete Shelley and all sorts of folks who really bring the reality of the scene and the effect and importance of the band to the fore.





Of course, Ian Curtis takes a good deal of the focus here as the singer and lyricist (interestingly, the band members claim to have really not paid any attention to what the lyrics of the songs were) who was bipolar and became epileptic. His youthful marriage, being torn between his wife (represented here only through text from her book) and his girlfriend (who is frequently interviewed in the movie) and just his general lack of well-being. The New Order fellows (the remains of Joy Division) all seem like nice regular blokes and the frankness and honesty of the interviews is very heartfelt and revealing.

But there is also more ephemeral matter here, they show some albums that I would very much like to have fall my way and there is a goodly amount of film of the bands early shows, and, that said, Joy Division was worth watching just to catch a glimpse of Ian Curtis dancing.





For special features, it has extensions of the interviews which, though outtakes, are still interesting and are extensive enough to be could well just be another movie. Joy Division is well produced, quite interesting and is pretty much an essential music documentary.

Ok, after this I will only be about a dozen movies behind. Once I finally get the taxes done (due last Friday, of course) then I’ll get cooking! But I think that we will stick to the capsule commentaries for now. We’ve been do busy watching Big Love, Lost (yes, it does suck, but I watch it anyway… So there), Flight of the Conchords and working our way through all 11 hours of the Lord of the Rings trilogy… How will I ever fit all of this on my tombstone?

Trying to recall the recent movies… We watched A Stranger in the Kingdom. The second of Jay Craven’s film adaptations of Howard Frank Mosher’s Vermont novels. A Stranger in the Kingdom was much more engaging then the other that I have seen, Disappearances. Taking place in “Kingdom County” Vermont in the early 1950’s, it is the story of three strangers who arrive in the area: the new minister and his son, who are black, and a French Canadian girl. A couple of black folks arriving in rural New England in the 1950’s was certainly something that would cause a stir, but a French-Canadian? The girl arrives as a sort of Mail Order Maid who is not pleased with who she finds to be her employer when she arrives. In fact, she finds someone that she likes much better. Tensions start to increase and combine themselves together… The minister wants the best for everyone, but not everyone wants that. Once a body turns up, all sorts of finger pointing is engaged in, there is a trial (the the prosecution calling in the big guns… Martin Sheen!), lies, truths, backstabbing, gunfire. Yes, the responses to all these incidents by the locals are not completely good. It’s a nice and engaging story with some good mystery, and for the most part, it actually was filmed in the “Kingdom”. Unlike that fraud of a few posts back..

We also watched Good Morning Vietnam. This is certainly an entertaining Robin Williams comedy, but it wasn’t quite as satisfying as I used to find it around the time that it came out. Though it is a solid, filled out story, based on true events, Robin Williams is so non-stop Robin Williams that it becomes a bit overwhelming. His shtick is pretty tiresome, though there are some good relationships and he does do a great job though as the loud-mouthed and iconoclastic Disc Jockey Adrian Cronauer who is send to work on Military radio in Vietnam during the early years of the American involvement there. He makes some fast friends of the locals and some fast enemies in the Army, especially Bruno Kirby who is great as always here (and he gets another role where he can mention Frank Sinatra). But Cronauer maybe gets himself in a bit over his head and a bit too friendly with the locals. It was also my first awareness of Forest Whitaker, and he does a great job here.

Oh, and this. What a disappointment. I recall Picnic at Hanging Rock being a big deal when I was a kid, but I never got around to it until now and, personally, I found it rather dull and had a hard time paying attention towards the end. One thing that is done well is that I had always thought that the novel was based on a true story, but it’s not so they got me there. The story of a group of girls from a private school boarding in Australia who go on a day trip to a barren, rock surrounded by scrubby brush for a picnic. They don’t seem to have any plans except for to sit around in the heat at the base of the rock in all of their Victorian clothing. And I didn’t get the attraction of the rock. And the tale, well, some of girls go climbing to the top and get all mysterious up there by disappearing. The trouble is, who cares? I’ve never before seen a mystery where I cared so little about what the mystery was. I just wanted to movie to end so that I could watching something else. The rock and the movie both look unpleasant, the characters are obnoxious, it’s slow and, in fact, there isn’t really anything to recommend this movie.

Yes, that’s it. Inspired by browsing through Joe Bob’s Profoundly Disturbing, I decided to check out some classic blaxsploitation that I hadn’t seen in a good long while. As most of what I have of this ilk (aside from the Pam Grier films, which you’ve heard enough about here) is stored away or gone now, so there were slim pickings. This led us to start off with Superfly… Well, basically, it is a dumb piece of hooey. but it has a great soundtrack! The story of a cocaine dealer named Youngblood Priest who has decided that he and his partner should use all of their accumulated money to make one last big score that will make them enough bread to retire for good. Of course, there are some problems with this scheme. The person that he wants to buy the stuff from is retired, his partner doesn’t really want to retire and, of course, the cops are on the take. Which leads to some unforeseen problems. One a personal angle,  some of his women like the idea but some don’t. Regardless, I don’t know how they can be seen with him as his pimpmobile (or I guess it would have to be a flymobile) is a horrid looking contraption.

It terms of the movie, everything is bad: the acting, the dialogue, the film quality. It’s a washed out, badly acted and dumbly scripted thing. The fights scenes are terrible, most folks look like it is their first time on camera and they might be reading from offscreen cue cards. And it is quite boring. But it does have one of the great soundtracks of all time and Curtis Mayfield actually makes an appearance in the film.

They try to make up for the rest of this movie by trying to make the film “hot”, but it comes across as lukewarm. There is an extended bathtub “love” scene that isn’t just dragged on way to long, but it is also played in slow-motion… Which was just a bit to much of not much.

So yes, it may be a classic, but it is a classic of its time and that needs to be kept in mind while watching, as it certainly doesn’t hold much now. Unlike the movie I was actually reading about which led me to watch this, Shaft, made earlier by this director’s father. Oh and, is this supposed to be Superfly or Super Fly?

I try, I swear. This week I had another one of those urges to enjoy the Lord of the Ring trilogy. So I put in the extended version of The Fellowship of the Ring, we watched it and, well, I don’t know. While it looks good and has plenty of action, the boring scenes (any involving the “shire” or the lands of the, phhhft, elves) are too boring! Especially the scenes in the land of Lothlórien! Unbearable! Corny! But aside from Orlando Bloom’s Legolas (who has at least some spring in his step and doesn’t talk in an annoying whisper while being shot with a soft lens), the elves really chaff me. Even Cate Blanchett, who I generally like as an actress, is so moofy and simperingly irritating here, I just.. argh! Where are an orkle of orcs when you need them?

Though those boring scenes do have their highlights. The Shire (minus the hobbits) does look like it would be a nice place to live and I do like Bilbo’s house in the shire… In terms of the elf lands, the “Elrond’s Council” scene in Rivendell can’t help but bring to mind the f’n brilliant Jack Black “giving up of the ring” parody. So it’s got that going for it.

Most of the characters in The Fellowship of the Ring are either dull or irritating, with the exceptions of Gimli, Boromir and the old favorites: the Ring Wraiths. I liked all of them and they enabled me to survive the rest. Though Gimli is sadly almost just comic relief. Trying to make a movie out of this has sapped a lot out of these characters, but the Wraith’s still got it…

For those who don’t know. As told in The Hobbit, a little guy named Bilbo Baggins goes on an adventure and ends up coming back with a ring that makes him invisible. Of course the ring is actually a millenniums old artifact that belonged to (and somewhat contains the spirit of) an evil lord named Sauron. The Lord of the Rings (printed as three books) is the story of Bilbo’s nephew Frodo as he learns about the ring and set off on a journey to attempt the rings destruction. It’s a race against time as the dark lord is strengthening and not only sending out his forces to locate the ring, but also preparing armies to conquer the world! Sadly, Frodo has to basically go to Sauron’s house to destroy the ring and this first part of the story is him setting out, gaining some compatriots in allegiance (a fellowship, I dare say) and heading off towards the land of Mordor. Of course they encounter allies (always those stinky elves), adversaries (The wraiths, orcs, uruk-hai, etc) and betrayal.

All in all it is a good film version. Probably superior to the Bakshi version that I have thought fondly of the last 3 decades and his has a lot of fighting. And I did quite like the Mines of Moria, easily the neatest place that they travel to. The troubles within (aside from my life long dislike of any elf or any portrayal of an elf) are that, well, it is better as a book (I suppose that goes without saying) and most troublesome about the film itself are a lot of the scenes, the screenplay and the music! They have utilized these to add a terrible and unbearable schmaltzy aspect of melodrama to the story that I have a hard time sitting through. The weepy gazes, comic relief, overwrought music turn it from a “serious” fantasy story of good versus evil into another Hollywood epic. Albeit with much more interesting scenery and a more unusual plot then most. But hey, I remember these stories from my teen years and even with all of that, it is fun to watch a lengthy and generally well made version on the screen.

And look, at the far right… It’s Brett!

I’ve got such a big backlog of crap I barely recall from the last few months. I’ll just jot down some vague memories.

We watched Serpico. I feel somewhat surprised that I had never gotten around to seeing it as it is quite considered the classic. And I would have to say that it is pretty darn good. Brought to us by Sidney Lumet who, again with Al Pacino, would bless us with the great Day Day Afternoon two years later! Serpico is a straight-ahead 1970’s police movie… Stress, tension, yelling all that good stuff. But then again, I am partial to a good 1970’s crime films. Also, this is, of course, based on a true story. Al Pacino does a stellar job (though some of his fashions.. I don’t know) as Frank Serpico. The policeman who put it all on the line to expose corruption in the NYPD. Okay, I’ll give it away… He Gets Shot! But then, that’s the first scene anyway.

After that we go back to his days as a young policeman who idealistically joins the force (does anyone do that anymore?). He feels that he can improve things as he believes that using psychology and communication is the way to deal with criminals rather than force. Somewhat unusual for the NYPD and the rest of the men have a hard time getting accustomed to him. He also notices that all of the other officers are on the take. The movie becomes an uncomfortable pile of tension as he somewhat goes along with the other officers, while refusing his share of the take… Which makes them mad to no end. While this is going on he is trying to make detective and as he tries to complain to the higher ups about the corruption he ends up making more and more enemies on the force. And, as one might imagine, putting himself and those around him in a good deal of danger.

And Feast of love. This one was actually fairly entertaining, though certainly a chick flick. The story of two friends (Morgan Freeman and Greg Kinnear) their personal issues and those people around them. Freeman is, of course, the elder who is wise and strong in his ways, while Greg is an oblivious yet well-meaning fellow of the “why can’t we all just get along” persuasion who owns loses his way in life when his wife leaves him. As he sets out to find new love, up comes a second (and more action-filled, in more ways than one) line of the movie which is the love story of two of Kinnear’s young employees and their troubles. Of course, the movie includes drama, drugs, death, heart-break and lots of nakedness but, more than anything else… It was filmed in Portland! And not just filmed in Portland like most of the movies there, but there is Portland all over it. Kinnear’s coffee shop is the Fresh Pot on Mississippi, there is lots of shooting at Reed… It was fun to watch it now from far away. My first Portland movie I’ve seen away from Portland. But it was also a perfectly fine movie. Much better than most of the “adult romance” crap that comes out of Hollywood movie.

Oh, and we watched Juno. Which was a charming little movie. I’m not sure why it got such crazy buzz, but it was just dandy. The story of a high school girl who unintendedly gets pregnant. Juno decides to go through with the pregnancy and give the baby up for adoption so off she goes to find the right people to give to. Ellen Page is charming and fun as Juno, a girl who has some quirks that are a little too quirky and is yet very sure of herself (in a way) as she seems have little trouble coming to terms with her situation. Though there are some good relationships in the film with her boy/friend, her father and her step-mother, the meat of the movie seems to be her developing friendship with the future adoptive father, who is much older then she but they bond on his continued youthful interests in music and horror movies and such grand things.

Now that Elinor is approaching 2 years old and it is much too cold to spend time outside, she is discovering kid’s movies. I have generally not payed much attention to them, but I did end up sitting through Ratatouille. The story of a rat who loves to cook and gets his chance when he teams up with the garbage boy at a famous restaurant in Paris. Of course, many shenanigans occur as they become famous all while the kid is actually cooking under the instruction of a rat under his hat. Like seemingly all Pixar movies, it looked great and had a fun and unexpectedly rich storyline.

Thinking that it would be a good afternoon movie, I had my second go through North by Northwest. And I’m glad I did, as I liked it better than last time. Or maybe the two leads bothered me less than they did last time. It’s a great and crazy story of a man being mistaken for someone that he isn’t (someone who doesn’t exist even) who happens to be a secret agent. After an attempt is made on his life he sets out to uncover who is after him and why. In his attempts to clear his name and get out of trouble, he gets a murder pinned on him and becomes a fugitive from the law. North by Northwest is a tale of secret agents, international espionage, mistaken identity, and is a fun tour through Chicago, the plains (with the famous bi-plane pursuit), the United Nations building and that wonderful crazy chase across the front of Mount Rushmore! Cary Grant does still bother me in this (with that accent…) but he does an alright job and is actually rather appropriate for the role. James Mason is just great as the lead villan and Martin Landau is fine, but sadly underused… Though this was quite early in his career. In this day and age the the suspense isn’t that over the top but (except for some tiring, yet relevant romance) the movie is non-stop and the sets are good, I especially like James Mason’s house in South Dakota.

Otheriwse, we watched Eagle vs. Shark. We had to, as it stars Jemaine. But it wasn’t particularly good. A sort of “indie” movie that is a little too intential to be genuine and a little too boring and corny to be entertaining. Jemiane is a nerdy guy who meets a nerdy girl and they akwardly get together, even though he is basically a big asshole and is obsessed with going back to his home town to beat up the Samoan who bullied him when they were in high school and “ruined his life”. There is some lame disfunctional family dynamic going on and the the dumb or dull characters are more like caricatures. It felt like listening to a hip indie rock album if it were made by MadTV.

Then we watched Margot at the Wedding. I don’t know… Maybe it was good. One of those dramas about people who treat each other badly. At the end I thought, “if you were to sum up this movie in a paragraph, who on earth would think that it was a movie that needs to be made?”

Margot is a woman who is in the process of leaving her husband and having and affair. To aid in both of those efforts, she brings her teenage son to the wedding her estranged sister. These sisters don’t get along. And Margot does not like her sisters fiancee Malcolm, thinking him too “coarse” and beneath her level. She also escalates a unpleasent feud that her sister is having with their hillbilly neighbors. Anyway, while all of the “drama” is going on, they throw in some other unsavory stuff as we wonder if this wedding is even going to happen…

Ok, that sounds bad enough but… Margot is played by Nicole Kidman, who is horrible enough in her own right, but her she puts on a portrayal that is the most unsympathic character I have ever seen in a movie, just a terrible snotty bitch who is arrogant, selfish and mean to everyone nearly all of the time. Her sister is played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, who in addition to that unbearable affectation that is her voice (not as bad as in The Hudsucker Proxy, but still) is a a nutty and erratic loser. There is some relief in Jack Black as the artist/musician fiancee, who is kind of a jerk, but is certainly of more interest than any other character. And for some reason, perennial favioite John Turturro makes a couple of appearences as Margot’s cuckold husband. Bascially the movie is a of downer that goes no where and says nothing except that these folks are fools and don’t treat each other very well.

Down the road at the local store, we picked up a couple of DVDs from their rather sparse rental selection. Firstly we got Casino Royale. As someone who grew up watching Bond films, I haven’t had much interest in any of the movies since Moonraker, and I hadn’t much interest in seeing this one. The James Bond films are easily my favorite film franchise, but my only experience of the films since Roger Moore left is a viewing of Goldeneye, which I didn’t find particularly exciting. It didn’t occur to me to bother with this new Bond until the new film came out and I read that it picks up immediately after the conclusion of Casino Royale (this, the 2006 Casino Royale, not the atrocious parody from 1967) and, for some reason, I then decided that I should step back to the films. I came away from this one with a generally favorable feeling, though with some mixed opinions. If it would have just been a British Espionage/Action movie, I think it would have worked better for me. As a James Bond movie? I don’t know. I didn’t mind Daniel Craig, though I didn’t really think of the character as Bond (Sean Connery will always be Bond, Craig was acceptable as a fugazi, but certainly not the real thing) as the character was somewhat lifeless, but the movie was quite exciting… Though I spent a good deal of the running time wondering if anything of substance was ever going to appear. There are some exciting chase scenes and I thought that the chase through the construction site had some great twists and turns. Sure, highly improbable, but in a very entertaining fashion. It also features a good death count and multiple Aston Martin’s (the classic Bond DB5 and seemingly the public unveiling of the new DBS) .

Aside from all of that? Casino Royale is the early story of James Bond, starting before he receives his “00”. This Bond is quite brutally violent and he gets in a bit of trouble when a killing of his is photographed. Ordered (by, um, Judi Dench) to take a vacation, he continues a crusade to follow the trail of terrorist money through a string of villains. Featuring exotic locations, car chases, explosions, double-crossings, fancy things (cars, houses, yachts, ladies) and a very high roller poker match that dominates the middle of the film… All the goodies are here. The only part that really snoozed me was that is has It has a very un-bond romance storyline which takes way too much of the film for my liking. But excepting for that, I did find it to be a nicely serious and grim film. Maybe if I watch the new one, I will become more accepting of Criag as Bond and Judi Dench as M?

We also rented State and Main. It was a comedy about a film crew coming to Waterford Vermont to make a film. Now, as the town line of Waterford is a couple of hundred feet up the road from our house, and we just drove through the “largest” of the two villages in Waterford last week, I was very curious what they would put in, as the village is one street with about three buildings that aren’t houses. It was quite shocking to see what appeared on the screen. A full-on town! Sidewalks, streets, intersections, all sorts of businesses! Nothing at all like what Waterford is like. If they were intent on filming a movie in Massachusetts about a town in Vermont, couldn’t they have at least made up a fake town? Biddleford, Vermont? St Waterford, Vermont? I know that movies are frequently filmed places other then where they say that take place, but something that obvious to anyone who knows the town is a bit hard to swallow.

Anyway, the movie is rather forgettable, though entertaining enough. A film crew of Hollywood jerkies comes to town (after being kicked out of a town in New Hampshire) to make a film called The Old Mill. Of course, this town has no Old Mill and that’s just the beginning! We proceed to get all sorts of knee-slapping incidents with the locals, romance and even some illicit behavior! It’s pretty flat, but it has some funny moments and there is quite a cast: William H Macy (the beleaguered director), Phillip Seymour Hoffman (the screenwriter), Alec Baldwin (the pedophile movie star), Sarah Jessica Parker (the starlet with a conscience), Charles Durning (the town mayor)… Even Jonathan Katz makes an appearance. And the cast do a pretty good job. State and Main is a very light-hearted movie, but not particularly memorable… Not at all what I would expect from David Mamet, who wrote and directed it.