I told you not to go there! I TOLD you not to go there!

TURISTAS

And now, a gringo tourist with an open letter to the guy that stole his kidneys.

Well, why did you do it? Are you some sort of jerk or something? They're *my* kidneys! What did you think I'd drive home and not notice it was stolen? What are you then? Some sort of *prick* ? Some sort of idiot? Some sort of thief? What would you do with just my kidneys anyway? You human loser! Well, why didn't you just use your own kidneys if you wanted some so badly? That's what I did. Well, don't you think I need those kidneys? Well, well, what were you thinking? JERK!

And now, a gringo tourist with an open letter to the people who watched while the guy stole his kidneys.

Well, you knew they weren't his kidneys! Well, why didn't you do something? Why didn't you say something? You human piece of apathy! Why didn't you say "Hey, those aren't your kidneys! Those could be a gringo tourist's kidneys!" Just eatin' brunch. Well, didn't you think I needed them? I did! Well, look at me. Fiest your eyes on that act of violence! Good work, Einstein. Pus!





This movie was better than I thought it was going to be. (That puts it at notch 1 ) I came into it expecting a cheap rip-off of Hostel but it really wasn't. I would say if you liked Hostel, you might like this movie too but I would not say it is an actual rip-off. No sir.

The acting was decent. The premise was decent. I found this film to be quite scary in my opinion. Along with Hostel, it did for foreign tourism what Jaws did for beach swimming. One of the first things I said after watching this was "Well, I'm not going to Brazil." Seriously, if I ever do go to Brazil on holiday, I would have to forget about this movie first. I do have to add that although the characters were believable, they were also slightly stupid or knuckle-headed, as my dad would say. Call me square but I think I would have waited around for the next bus instead of going to that bar and getting wasted, So I might have avoided this horrible organ-thief problem. Also, even if I did get wasted and followed the Kiko guy, I wouldn't have hesitated to turn back when Kiko decided to grow a conscience and change his mind and say "Y'know what, I know I lead you all the way here but lets go back, yes?" Obviously something was wrong here and I would have picked up on that warning and went back. I'm surprised Josh Duhamel wasn't a little more 'wtf' about that. I mean, doesn't seem a bit odd that you have been following this Kiko guy for like 10 hours (or was it 10 miles?) in middle of nowhere wooded mountains to find an alleged middle of nowhere house for help, everyone is all hot, dehydrated, sweaty, hungry, ready to pass out and you get there and Kiko is like "Y'know what, houses are over-rated. Do we really need to go to this house? Lets not. Lets turn back." ? That seems weird that he would say that. Why else would he say that if not to warn them because he feels guilty cause of how friendly they all were to him and he knows they are all going to get their kidneys stolen? Think about it. Josh should have thought about that more.

Overall, it was a very entertaining movie. Good to see once. On DVD.

Look, mom. No condom!

KIDS


We saw this movie because after making me watch a handful of Larry Clarke movies throughout our movie-watching career, the Larry Clarke debut (I am pretty sure Kids was his debut) KIDS was the one I saw that Jp had not. I warned him he's not missing much but the usual Larry Clarke disturbia. We put it in the queue anyway and ...(sigh) watched it.

This movie was like the cinematic equivalent of watching a bunch of monkeys take a crap in their hand and slinging it at other monkeys and frolicing about in a big monkey crap party. What a waste of time. Some people would argue that Larry Clarke was doing something brilliant by giving you a window into the raw side of inner-city teens, delivering "harsh reality" of how idiotic and amoral modern youth can be and the dangers and consequences of thier ceaseless quest for sex, drugs and trouble. I say - its CRAP!

What was it that this movie was trying to say? All I got was an unpleasant 2-hour public service commercial about how parents are the Anti-drug. The kids were ugly, terrible actors (besides Sevigny), nothing but shitty, boring, ignorant dialogue, and what I would call border-line child porn. Of course, thats all typical of Larry Clarke. The only difference between this movie and the rest that followed is the quality of actors and plot. Bully had more plot along with that Paradise one with James Woods. In this movie, the only name you can recognize is Chloe Sevigny and a young Rosario Dawson. Its uncomfortable to watch in the worst way and unentertaining to watch in the most annoying way.

The movie mostly follows a main character named "Telly". A slack-jawed chudd of a kid who's idea of safe sex is having sex with virgins. He talks like he was dropped on his head and on several occasions, we are forced to see him naked and "on the job" with these tween girls,laying on the worst "seductive" lines I've ever heard. I wanted to throw up. In a way you feel sorry for these girls but then you don't because you would have to be a desperate moron to fall for it and sleep with him and who's desperate at 13-14 years old anyway? So sad. Even sadder is Chloe Sevigny's character, Jenny. She was one who once was dumb and desperate enough to give up her virginity to Telly, the one and only time she has sex, only to find out she is HIV-positive. There are other kids too that don't really do a whole lot else but drugs, drinking, sex and parties.
This movie sucked on so many levels. It sucked so bad, it sucks writing about it.

When I saw that it was actually executive produced by Gus Van Sant, I was like "Oh, no wonder it sucks monkeyballs."

Yeah, this is my own personal shit.

Holiday

When we rented this movie the idea was that, best case scenario, it would be good like Trust the Man. I guess I should have realized that it was much more likely to be forgettable like Under the Tuscan Sun. This movie was seriously flawed. Even without the preview-spoilers and the knowledge that of course the two main girls in the credits would end up with the two main guys in the credits it was just so... obvious. So painfully forced. So lacking any shred of spontaneous or natural human emotion. All it really had to rely on was cute lines, but they were few and far between. It was the kind of movie that makes a good preview (ironic, given the Diaz charcter).

The ladies were the problem. The ladies and the writer. Normally I like both Cameron and Kate, but these characters sucked (Camron D. especially). The guys weren't much better, but they had the ability to float in and deliver a good line without having to carry the dead weight of poor writing that the girls did. Jack Black in particular, although his character was more serious and grown-up then any Jack Black character we've ever seen, which made this, too, seem forced.

There was cuteness abound, and I must admit it did grow on you eventually. But every time you got into a scene they would over do it just a bit. Every plot point they made they had to hit you over the head with. Old Jewish Hollywood guy? Funny, until we get water aerobics and a comeback special. Cute proper English kids? Funny until we get Young & Restless level dialog from them. Winter romances that might blossom into something? You start to get into them and then they get ridiculously predictable (either that, or Elisa saw this movie without me in secret, because she was like a fuckin' psychic over here).

In the end, I'm glad we got it, and glad we didn't switch it off for Hollywoodland after 15 minutes. I just wish that it sucked a little less.

Drink More Ovaltine

ZODIAC


Well, This movie definitely didn't suck. I can tell you that much. For what it was, it was pretty damn good. Robert Downey, Jr was awesome in this movie. I was a little bummed I didnt get to see more of him but I was still digging it, nonetheless. Everyone who has seen this movie always goes on about how Mark Ruffalo made this role his bitch. I agree, he was outstanding but I dont think Jake Gyllenhaal got enough credit and praise for his role as ..y'know, the cartoonist guy who wrote those books on the Zodiac killer. He was fantastic. I really think he needs more praise for his amazing acting but I think the other two incredible actors steal a bit of the show from him. Thats my view anyway.

David Fincher is still the man. The cinematography and lighting was all typical Fincher with the almost grainy, greenish tones and darkened feel to everything. The movie was good but I was a little disappointed at the fact that it just isn't as rewatchable as Se7en or Fight Club. The characters, story, everything was great but I felt the screenplay could have used a little bit more Fincher-y goodness that his other movies had. That was my only real problem with it.

What I liked about this movie is that it did a great job at illustrating the creepy feel of having a serial killer, (or is it mass murderer?) running loose shooting people in your town. The murders as they happened were quite scary and even shocking to some degree. Watching how creeped out the victims were in their sucks-to-be-them situation and how they didn't even have much time to react to their creepy situation or process what was going on as the killer just practically shoots them in the head mid-sentence. Those scenes were quite effective in scaring the figgly boogles out of me. I kept thinking "Geez, man, I hope that doesn't happen to me, ever."

And with the bigger picture, Fincher also did a wonderful job of illuminating the creep factor with the fact that this particular killer was such a big mystery, the police department would get exhausted and damn near throw up their arms and say "I give up." which is a scary thing. The mystery of this killer was almost as scary as the killer himself. That is why this movie was such a good idea. It was real. Real fear, real events. You dont have to make up some elaborate story about how sick a killer is or why he kills people, or create an excuse to watch pyschos chase teenagers with chainsaws. You didn't have to see anyone drenched in fake blood to be scared in this movie. Fincher just had to capture the terror and frustration in the event of a killer on the loose, taunting the police and press with coded letters and not being able to find him or catch him. Any evidence they find leads to dead ends and it just goes in circles. The fact that it really did happen, there really was a creep killer, and even scarier- the fact that he was never caught. You still dont know who or why. That is some scary scary stuff. You can feel the pain of the cartoonest/writer throughout this film and while you are feeling a bit sorry for his family, you can totally empathize with his consuming desire to find the Zodiac and get him arrested. Fincher captured that and it was brilliant. Gyllenhaal was brilliant. It is what Spike Lee's Son of Sam wished it could be. It took everything Son of Sam sucked at and should have done and made it all brilliant. AND even scarier because unlike David Burkowitz who was caught and even confessed, the Zodiac was never figured out. It was all done right.

I dont think I will buy this one on DVD but it was definitely worth seeing it in the theatre and I liked it very much.

I am your neighbor and a liar. By the way, do you have Zoe's number?

The Science of Sleep

Michel Gondry is well known for his crazy music videos (like the White Stripes "Lego" video). He has a crazy love for creating stunning visuals with stop-motion animation and eschews the more modern computer animation techniques like CGI. His last movie, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, did justice to the brilliant Charlie Kauffman script and gave us visual representations of memory and neurosis through tricks of scale and set design (like adult Jim Carry hiding under a giant kitchen table or swimming in the kitchen sink - man that movie was really great, wasn't it? I have to go back and see it again now.) He also created that Jim Carry "Peacan Pie" video with the crazy bed-car.

Here takes on writing as well as directing a feature-length film. The special effects are charmingly cute (the 1 second time machine, a cardboard city rising from the ground, the TV studio that is his subconscious) and the characters are charming and cute as well. The movie takes place in France, but Stephane does not speak French well so most of the time he relies on English, occasionally drifting into Spanish as well. He has trouble differentiating between dream and reality, occasionally getting himself into trouble by acting things out in the real world that he thinks are only a dream. He also has trouble opening up and showing his true feelings to Stephanie, the girl next door who shares some of his quirky sensibilities (it's Parallel Synchronized Randomness he believes, that two people share the same dreams at the same time).

This movie was a lot like Rushmore, it exists on the borderline between fantasy and reality and we identify with the characters, not because they resemble the way we are, but because they resemble the way we see ourselves in our imaginations. Their crazy actions resonate with our crazy emotions. The end result is a beautiful, wonderful film that dares to be different and pulls it off. It is hilarious and heartbreaking and amazing. Definitely worth seeing and maybe worth buying. Gael Garcia Bernal is probably our favorite Mexican actor right now.

I'll have the Casino Royale with cheese, a small fry and chocolate milk- shaken not stirred.

CASINO ROYALE


There was a lot of buzz about whether or not Daniel Craig would make a good Bond or not. I actually thought he made a pretty good wee Bond man. He was cool, sexy and looked good in a tux. The movie overall was alright. I guess the best thing to compare it to would be pancakes. You are all excited about 'em in the beginning but towards the end, you're fucking sick of 'em. This movie did seem a bit too long. After you see a few action-packed chase scenes, some slow poker games, some mediocre love scenes, and Daniel Craig being wet a few dozen times, you are just like okay, come on already.

And I have to talk about this some more because it was one of the only things in this film that I got a kick out of... I am convinced that there was only one point this movie wanted to make and that is ...Daniel Craig looks damn good wet. Point taken. It seemed like Daniel Craig had more wet scenes in this movie than Ashton Kutcher in the Guardian. I'm not complaining cause I totally get their point that Daniel Craig is very sexy when wet but it was funny to see how many ways they could find to soak him in this movie. Even in a tux where you think "wow, this guy cleans up nice when he's dry." , he just happens to come back to the room where the British chick is sitting and moping under a running shower and for no reason, he sits down with her under the running water, still in his tux and gets soaked for no reason. There really was no point to that scene that I can think of, other than to see Bond wet again at least one more time. Ok, movie, you do that. I'm not getting sick of it but is it really necessary? Did they throw that in there for the ladies who were getting dragged to another Bond movie by their boyfriends? Cool. Ok.

Moving on, there were also some things I could have done without in this movie. Like the longness and the repetition and Eva Green. She was crap. Boring, ugly, NO CHEMISTRY with Craig whatsoever(which bugged me the most), horrible acting, and had nothing to offer the role. I think she actually brought the role down a few notches and really got on my nerves towards the end. I mena, how hard is it to have chemistry with Daniel Craig? -He's adorable. She could have been replaced by a fembot and you wouldn't notice because she was so blank, I could puke. She had about as much flavor as a boiled poptart. To hell with that. I fell asleep towards the end. Did she die in the end? If she did, good. I'm glad. She was awful. I never want to see her again. She will NEVER be half the star Cillian is and we all know who the real rising star this year is and why he didn't win. We're aware of the whole conspiracy and its okay. Winning the rising star award is probably a career curse anyway. Like a sitcom. James McAvoy won it last year and he's not doing shit now. Nobody is talking about him. Just like nobody will talk about Eva Green unless the word "sucks" or "who?" is by her name. Cillian was robbed.

ANYway, she sucked in this movie and almost ruined it for me but they managed to make it up to me in Daniel Craig wet scenes so this movie was still okay. However, the evil villain had next to no personality either. I wouldn't even be able to separate him from the extras if it wasn't for that lame-ass scar on his eyeball (oh, okay, he's the bad guy that bleeds from his eye occasionally) and a forgettable accent. He's semi-evil. He's quasi-evil. He's the margarine of evil. He's the Diet Coke of evil. Just one calorie- not evil enough. How boring. I had no doubt in my mind that Daniel Craig could take this guy. Piece o' cake. Sure, he's short but he can kick some ass - which pretty much sums up why Daniel Craig played a good Bond in this movie.

Don't nobody undersand the words that are commin' out of your mouth!

Babel

Babel. Best Picture nominee, staring Brad Pit but featuring several loosely intertwined stories dealing with communication and its discontents. Directed by Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu, who made Amores Perros and 21 Grams. A tragic accidental shooting of a woman on vacation in the middle east by two boys using their fathers new rifle, a nanny who is forced to bring the children she watches to her Son's wedding in Mexico and the nightmare that ensues trying to get them back, and a lonely deaf Japanese teen girl who longs for a physical relationship and feels like an outcast.

There was a lot to absorb in this movie. I think we could get even more out of watching it a second time, but it is not really a re-watchable movie. It was dark, but hopeful at times. It had strong themes of communication and miscommunication, understanding and misunderstanding, desperation and loss of innocence. It also dealt with family, love, selfishness, mistakes, and loneliness. It was a well made film and I think we both enjoyed it.

Death and taxes? What an odd pairing.

Stranger than Fiction

I've been looking forward to this movie for a while. It has the potential and ambition to be another Eternal Sunshine or Adaptation, but it could also be a horrible art house dud or frustrated comedian vanity project. Most likely it will fall somewhere in between, and probably closer to failure then success.

Well, I am happy to report that it was pretty good. Will Farrell's performance was not over-acted and he never took you out of the moment (which is the biggest risk in casting a scene-stealing big name star comedian to your quirky dramedy.) He was... subtle. Careful and reflective. The people around him got to do most of the acting (Maggie and Dusty were much bigger personalities) and his character was mostly conveyed by the voice over narration and the special effect inserts that were meant to convey his neurosis and OCD. I think movies need to be praised sometimes for the missteps they avoided, for resisting the urge to fall into cliche or milk tired stereotypes, and this movie avoided several. I'm happy to say Will Farrell did not ruin this movie at all.

That is not to say that it was without flaws. The crazy plot started to unravel a bit in the end when, even after everyone figured out (but never explained) the god-like power that the author had over this guys life, they still insisted that it was better off to continue along and let him die because it was such a good story (?!?) Yeah. The take notice of your life and do the things you always wanted to themes were presented quit nicely but this movie completely chickened out at addressing any of the free will v.s. destiny issues it raised with the crazy premise. The result is a weaker story and an ending that feels tacked on. It may have just as easily worked as a mid-life crisis and a boy-meets-girl generic romantic comedy since they never really did anything with the character in a work of fiction plot other then jolt him out of his comfort zone and threaten to kill him. Seems like they could have achieved that by borrowing the plot of a different Queen Litafah movie and having a doctor tell him he had 3 weeks to live. It didn't aspire to anything more then quirky romantic comedy.


In the end I have to say I enjoyed it. It worked as a quirky romantic comedy (where the characters fall in love just because they are supposed to, and not due to chemistry or anything really besides proximity and a few nice gestures). Maggie Gyllenhaal was good, Dustin Hoffman and Emma Thomspson are ok, the movie had a good pace and a few twists and turns. It didn't live up to its potential, but it didn't crash and burn either.

Somebody shit on the burgers. Someone has shit on or around the Burgers.

FAST FOOD NATION

Riiight, so this is the movie adaptation of the muckraking McDonald's expose by the same name. The biggest challenge here is taking the book and making it into a story that you can actually watch, because a faithful translation of the book would be something more like An Inconvenient Truth or March of the Penguins.

Well, Linklater uses a stories involving a marketing Exec investigating the cleanliness of the meat, a teen girl working the counter and hanging with some hippy-activist college kids, and illegal immigrants working in the meat plant to illuminate different aspects of the Fast Food industry while adding a little narrative structure to the information presented in the book. The gimmick is a little odd because the characters have no relationship to each other and the whole thing feels a little forced, but that's because it is. Linklater does succeed in giving us realistic characters (so much so that we occasionally loose sight of the fast food issues and think we are watching a movie about immigrant workers or a teenage coming of age movie) and he resists the urge to get too Upton Sinclair on us. The characters were honestly portrayed and the movie never went off the deep-end, which is pretty much all you can ask. It did the best it could do with the source material it had.

I stand by the point that nothing in this movie was unrealistic or even exaggerated, and it isn't the end of the world. 99% of the people who watch it will continue to be occasional fast food eaters, myself included. We all go back to business as usual like Greg Kinnear, and like Bruce Willis tells us, we all have to eat a little shit sometimes to get a good, convenient product out and meet our profit margins.

Poppa tomatoe smashes baby tomatoe and says "Ketchup."

OK, I am finally back from my extended absence and ready to catch you up on some movie goodness. it's not that I haven't been watching movies lately, I have, it's just that I haven't been updating my journal. Time to remedy that. Here are some highlights from the last month or so of movie viewing:


Miami Vice: Elisa already reviewed it, but I am going to have to disagree with her. Michael Mann should not be criticized for failing to play up his marquee stars and the cheesy 80s TV source material - to the contrary this movie is a success precisely because it does not cater to campy pop-culture and Ironic Hollywood casting.

Let's face it- there are a million movies out there that have super-action-hero celebrities jumping off of exploding speedboats and dodging Uzi fire, delivering cheesy one-liners and defeating the Russian terrorist drug dealers single-handed. Some of them are good, some are not so good- but this is not one of those movies at all. Michal Mann was involved in the original Miami Vice television show back in the day. He has a history with the characters and the subject matter that allows him to jump in and re-visit them, only this time with a seriousness, a budget, a special-effects team, an R-rating, and a depth that 80s TV would not afford him. It is a very cool concept and the reverse of what we have become used to. They took a familiar concept and instead of making a joke out of it and building the plot around in-jokes or parody (see: Starskey & Hutch, Dukes of Hazzard, etc.) they take the ideas seriously and build a complex, adult story around it. It's nice to see how it stands up with a sincere treatment, much more satisfying then the other remakes (though anything with Vaughn and/or Stiller is going to be enjoyable for different reasons.

Marie Antoinette: This movie was OK. We owed it to Sofia to see what she could do here. It was an interesting interpretation of the historical figure infused with her own personal experience and modern teen girl celebrity pop culture undertones. I think the movie suffered somewhat because it lacked the strong lead acting talent that Lost in Translation had. Sofia seems to love setting the scenes up and then stepping back and letting us look at them. I noticed the same thing from Jared Hess in Nacho Libre. There seemed to be some storytelling missing and a little too much of a director in love with their own set design. It is still a movie, guys, we do need something to happen here.
There's nothing else to say because Elisa has already written the definitive essey response to watching Marie Antoinette, and I love her for it.


Transamerica: Where Breakfast on Pluto was a little unsettling and depressing but infused by a Neil Jordan / Cillian Murphy quirky sort of heart, this movie was just unsettling and depressing. Instead of a fun, outgoing, flamboyant transvestite we get a weird, antisocial and kinda creepy pre-op transsexual. I suppose it was a good performance by Felicity Huffman but it's hard to tell with the crazy voice and the weak story (uh-oh, looks like your whole carefully constructed world is about to come crashing down during a cross-country road trip with your estranged son during which you will learn a lot about each other but even more about yourselves!) In the end,the story felt too contrived and the characters, too bullshit. I never really cared about anyone in the film, so it was just 100 minutes of unpleasant with a few interesting scenes. Final judgment: Overrated. If you want to hand out Oscars for that shit, give one to my wing-man Cillian.


Syriana: Even more confusing and convoluted then Traffic. I had high hopes for this movie but We (Elisa) kept putting it off. I don't know if it would have benefited from being seen at the height of the Clooney resurgence but by the time we got around to this one it almost felt like a chore. If they had a point to make they lost it. Clooney is a CIA man and there is no loyalty in that business, plus he gets into some shady shit and gets screwed over. There is some behind-the-scenes backstabbing in a Middle Eastern Royal family, but ultimately the US is going to get what they want regardless. Matt Damon's innocent eyes are opened to the harsh reality of oil exporting, and his kid is needlessly killed off by the plot machine. Big Oil mergers skirt government regulation with back room dealings and corporate greed from Chris Cooper, and when the Feds catch up to them a patsy takes the fall. OK, we get it, but can you make it a little more entertaining when you give it to us? See, when I get to Fast Food Nation you might appreciate the fact that at least the story was clear, concise, somewhat entertaining, and not nearly as contrived as Syriana.


We also went back and watched Larry Clark's Another Day in Paradise, which was decent, a little different from Clark's usual nihilistic teen-centric soft-core depress-fest. It was more of a crime picture with a mentor/apprentice angle (and there were worthless drugged up teens having sex and making horrible decisions, but what did you expect?)

Then we went back and saw Lost Highway thanks to IFC (since David Lynch is a bitch and won't release it on DVD.) There are some great scenes in that movie which is why I wanted to see it again, but there really is nothing holding it together (and those scenes really aren't that great). It was nostalgia for Nine Inch Nails and the late high school/ early college years when this sort of moody art film thing was cool.

The upcoming Grindhouse inspired an Desperado and Dusk 'Till Dawn movie night, and I had forgotten how great those movies were- especially Desperado, which I hadn't seen in years and years. QT and RR are national treasures, and no one can do what they do better.

We saw most of Dead Alive and all of Evil Ed because I inexplicably went on some B-movie horror gross out flick kick. Both were somewhat disturbing and unpleasant, we'll have to chalk that up to a 'what the hell was I thinking.'

I didn't mean to be too negative here, I know it seems like I am ripping everything. There were many other movies we watched and some that I really liked but I want to give them their own review (if I can). Stay tuned...

Are you out of your FUCKING MIND??! .....YOU REALLY ARE out of your FUCKING MIND!!

THE BUTCHER BOY

Wow. I'm not even sure what to say or where to start with this movie. I never read the book although it has been sitting in my Amazon wishlist for a little while. Now I'm afraid if I read the book, it would only be more disturbing without the positive, colorful coat of sugarsweet gloss Neil Jordan adds to the film that makes Patrick McCabe's stories go down easier. (As he did also with Breakfast on Pluto.)

Both films had similarities. At least thats the idea that crossed my mind as we settled in about half way through The Butcher Boy. I noticed that the main character, Francie, like Patrick "Kitten" Braden from BOP, seemed in desperate need for love, acceptance and attention. Francie was also practically an orphan with his mom being a bit on the crazy side and his dad (Stephen Rea) an alcoholic. Neither of his parents were really there for him and as an escape or relief from that loneliness, Francie lived often in his own dreamworld. Sometimes it is like a dream like when Mother Mary talks to him and other times it would be more like a state of denial or something. Francie increasingly became harder for me to understand throughout this film, which is part of the reason why it was so disturbing.

To summarize the plot, Francie (Eamonn Owens) and Joe (Alan Boyle) live the usual playful, fantasy filled childhoods of normal boys. However, with a violent, alcoholic father ('Stephen Rea' ) and a manic depressive, suicidal mother the pressure on Francie to grow up are immense. When his mother eventually commits suicide and Joe goes off to boarding school, Francie sinks ever deeper into paranoia directed mainly against Mrs. Nugent (Fiona Shaw), a nasty neighbour, and fantasy where he has visions of the Virgin Mary ('Sinead O'Connor' ) . After his father dies Fancie's condition worsens, his behaviour becomes more bizarre and erratic culminating in the extremely bloody murder of Mrs. Nugent whom he holds responsible for all the wrongs visited upon him. The authorities arrest Francie and commit him to an asylum in an attempt to cure him.

Was this movie disturbing? Yeah. You can say that. I felt quite disturbed at the end of it. I think JP found this movie to be more disturbing than I did. However, I would not really categorize this movie with other movies I concidered disturbing such as Requiem for a Dream, American History X, Bully (or any other Larry Clark film for that matter). It didn't have that somber energy about it or even let you see anything disturbing coming. The movie always carried a peppy, humorous vibe which if you didnt expect it, it could throw you off and weird you out. Watching this crazy child run around, terrorizing ladies, yelling things, scaring people...the way it is narrated is actually funny. But the whole time you are like, Should I be laughing at this? This is crazy.

For the first part of this movie, I compared him to Kitten Braden and wanted to jump in the film and give him a hug. Maybe adopt him. It seemed all he needed was to be loved. If he found love, his craziness would be cured...so I thought. Then as the movie went along, I see this Francie kid just get crazier and crazier where you might even think he was dangerous. I stopped understanding him and was completely unable to predict what he was going to do or say next. He had serious problems and quite an attitude about Mrs. Nugent. Even though he was crazy, she really was a bitch so when he goes in to her house to destroy all her cakes, you dont feel too bad for her. I was even laughing a little but following the scene more, my smile pretty much froze on my face and became a smile of "Uh, what the fuck is going on?" . Francie went crazy destroying all her cakes and with the same level of enthusiasm and gusto, he is painting the word PIG all over the walls and pictures. In shock, I'm watching and wondering if maybe I missed the part where he was adopted by the Manson family while I took a bathroom break? And when Mrs. Nugent gets home, Holey Cheeses! This kid really is out of his fucking mind!

I did like this movie. Not quite War of the Buttons but was another great film by Neil Jordan and another weird, lost misfit story by Patrick McCabe. Even though there are similarities between the two stories by McCabe, I will say after watching the entire movie that Francie is NOTHING like Kitten Braden in the likes of character. I wanted to love Francie but this kid truly turned out to be a total monster while Kitten maintained her innocense and good nature throughout the entire story of Breakfast on Pluto.

Speaking of War of the Buttons, I do have to mention how much I loved seeing my Gregg Fitzgerald (Fergis!) pop up for a short time in this film as one of the "Bogmen". He was even in a boys orphanage thing (like where WOTB left off) and I was just cracking up when he again said "Shote youer Mothe!" (sigh) I want to adopt him. He's adorable and I wish he was in more films.

And I love Stephen Rea.

My wife has an ass in her cock in the drive way,alright?

BITTER HARVEST (Cillian Murphy movie marathon Day 8-ish)


What an interesting movie this was. JP and I couldn't really figure out if it was supposed to be a drama or a comedy. All I know is that Colm Meaney was a ridiculous man in this movie. He was cracking me up through the whole thing. He was such a prick in the craziest way. It was good fun.
As a movie, I liked it. I'm not quite sure what the whole Colm Meaney being a tree thing was. All while he was raising his hands up by his face, all we could think about was that part in Talledega Nights where Ricky Bobby was giving an interview and didn't know what to do with his hands. That's exactly what Colm Meaney looked like to us and we were laughing so hard, our face almost fell off.

Ok, so this movie is set in 1924 in a place called Skillet, Ireland. Where Harry (Colm Meaney) and his son Gus (Cillian, the most perfect man) live on the edge of town and farm Cabbages. Some time back, Gus's mom died and I think he had a brother that died too so it was just him and his Da there in that crappy house. Gus is a handsome, sweet, adorable, nice, really really shy young man who kind of works for his dad with the cabbages and chores and everything.
Moving on, Harry wakes up one day and has finally figured out what he wants to do with his life. He decides out of nowhere one day that he needs an enemy, for a man is measured by his enemies. So he picks this one dude, George who I guess is the town "marriage broker" or Loooove broker, if you've seen Night Shift. It seems like everyone in town kind of knows that Harry hasn't been the same mentally, since his wife died and kind of takes every crazy thing he says in stride. Even the George guy didn't really think anything of it, when Harry names him his enemy. He was just like, whatever dude. He even offers his son, Gus his "services" and says he can hook him up with the new girl, Eileen he just brought into town. But Harry gets all bajiggity about it and then forbids Gus to have anything to do with Eileen just because she's associated with George. Gus wants to be hooked up with Eileen anyway and Harry agrees to make a deal with George about it. I guess Eileen's hand in marriage was traded to Gus for some Cabbages. Well, it turns out that wasn't a very fair deal because the Cabbages didn't turn into cheating whores like Eileen did. Eileen came with a bit of fine print. Can anything good come from an Eileen? My ex-boss's name was Eileen and she was a douche bag. Much like this Eileen here who didn't deserve such a fine, and perfect husband. Poor Gus Gus. He was so sweet and so shy. He was so grateful that he got his woman, he didn't even want to think about how many dudes she was banging behind his back. I'm serious. What was really gross is that it was with that George guy who hooked them up. He wasn't even attractive and he had a wife and kid of his own, that dirty Federline. She wasn't married 55 hours yet and already she was a total slutface before she makes a move on Gus. I felt bad for him, we all just felt bad for him.

I mean, he was so shy and inexperienced that he just needed a little time to get used to the idea that there is a girl in his bed. Well,She evidently can't be waiting around for him to get it up so she goes around the town, whoring it up with George and doesn't even try to keep it a secret. Harry wasn't surprised when he finds out and then he tells Gus that his wife is a dirty tramp and he doesn't even get mad at her. He just buries it all inside. "Its painful and I love you!"

What was she thinking? She didn't have anything going for her at all until Gus married her. She has a beautiful, blue-eyed, strong, sensitive Irish lad and takes it all for granted. For some twisted-ass reason in her whacked-out skull, she thinks sleeping with some old, big-nosed George guy is a better experience than her sweet, fair-skinned Gus. She wins the fucking JACKPOT in the hot Irish guy lottery and she does this. Why? Why? This movie drove me nuts with this question. And he could have done a lot better than her. Especially if I was in this movie. There would BE NO George. I wouldn't have needed him to pimp me out to Gus, I would have discovered Gus's hotness on my own. and I definitely wouldn't have slept with anybody else but my handsome Gus because it doesn't get any damn better than that. Its not even debatable because its a fact. No George's necessary in my movie. I'm sayin', the movie wouldn't have even been called 'Bitter Harvest' if I was in it, it would have been fucking called 'Sweet Harvest' cause there would have been a lot more steamy, Gus-in-the-barn love scenes and the George craziness would have been reduced to zero. Let me just quote someone who pretty much stole the whole thing from me anyways "OMG, he is like the sweetest guy in the world...hes soo nice...like when he hits her he feels soo effing bad about it...and even if he can't get it up right away...he is still so so so sweet...i wanna marry him and have sitting up sex with him...lol..kidding." ...but I'm not kidding. and even though she(he?) stole my game, at least it proves that its not just me. I'm not crazy. Something is wrong with Eileen and she needs to get the hell out of this movie.

I wont explain any further with the plot because it gets crazier as Harry gets crazier and I wouldn't even know how to explain the rest of it. Plus, I just get mad at the Eileen chick for making me crazy through the whole movie. I couldn't stop yelling at her. I see a pattern here. It seems like all these Cillian movies shows him being under-appreciated. That's bullshit. What is wrong with Eileen? Especially in the scene where it is like, their first night and she kisses him on the bed but he is so shy, he's kind of reluctant and shocked by it. She kind of gives up on him after a few minutes and doesn't do enough for his ego at that moment. You have to be patient with the Gus. He doesn't know what he's doing. You have to love him and stroke his precious ego until he has the confidence to make it through a whole kiss, and then baby-steps with making out and then sex. If he can't get it up because of his nerves, fucking calm his nerves. Hold him, touch him, kiss him all over his fair, freckly body until he pops back up with the ready energy to get it on. Don't give him less than an hour and call it quits. You get your ass back on top of him and you give him passionate love. That makes more sense to me than the whole "Oh well, we'll get there eventually" approach. She didn't care cause she was out closing the deal with George the whole time. DUMBEST chick ever. Whatever, she doesn't deserve him.