Viewed: DVD

I couldn’t finish watching this movie. From the DVD front cover image and the back cover text, I expected an exciting action movie. But what it proved to be is a chick talky flick with 60 seconds of action — uninteresting action. Granted, I stopped watching after an hour and a half. If there was more action at the end, I missed it.

I know the movie is supposed to be an homage to (or parody of) the 70s low-budget, independent, grindhouse flicks, so the editing “errors” didn’t bother me. But, if it’s supposed to be like the old 70s cheap flicks, it shouldn’t have 2000s pop culture and tech in it. The cell phones and text messages and such really felt out of place in this story. But, I could have overlooked the anachronisms had I been given the mindless action I expected.

Another odd thing was the decent acting, especially by Kurt Russell. I mean, I thought the whole concept of this movie is to recreate the feel of the cheap 70s grindhouse flicks, with bad editing, bad filming, bad acting, and all. But Tarantino gives us the bad editing, some bad filming, but good acting, and 21st century props.

And then there was the story. The first 45 minutes are just girls talking about . . . nothing. When Kurt Russell showed up, I thought, “Okay, here we go.” But he just added to the talking for another 15 minutes. Yes, the dialogue and acting is good, but it’s about nothing. I was completely bored. Nothing interesting was happening. Nothing.

Then there was the 60 seconds of car crash, and then a couple minutes of talking about it.

Afterward, we go back to another group of girls talking about nothing. I thought, Oh my god, you have got to be kidding me. I don’t want to listen to another hour of this pointless chit chat. I stopped the DVD at this point and just put the disk back in the case.

I intended to ask Blockbuster if they give refunds for crappy movies, but I forgot when I got to the store, and I just dropped the movie in the outside return slot. Maybe the movie got good and active at the end, but I really don’t want to sit through 105 minutes of boredom so that the final 15 minutes feel exciting.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

Several days ago, my wife rented a couple of movies: Toy Story for our boys, and Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer for us. Unfortunately, we didn’t get time to watch anything for a few nights. During this time, her friend brought over a movie to let her/us see.

Then a couple nights ago, when I was suffering from a bit of writer’s block, I saw the FFRotSS DVD sitting on the kitchen counter. I needed a little action and excitement to grease the imagination.

“Hey,” I said, waving the Fantastic Four DVD in my hand, “want to watch a movie tonight?”

“Yes,” she answered. “There’s one in there my friend brought”

The Holiday – a chick flick about “relationships.” Yuck. Not at all what I was hoping to get into. I showed her the FF movie, but no go. I held back a sigh. I’d have rather tried writing, even poorly, than watch a chick flick right then. I put the FF DVD back in the kitchen, and just “forgot” to grab The Holiday.

A minute later, my wife retrieved her friend’s DVD and brought it to me. “Put this in the player, please,” she said. I held back another sigh, and I might have rolled my eyes when her back was turned.

I put the DVD in the player and started it up. She sat down on the sofa and asked me to come sit with her. When I sat down, I picked up the DVD box and looked for the running time for the movie. I could put up with it and hold off doing my work for 90 minutes or so. I found the running time: 136 minutes. “Oh geez!” I did sigh this time.

“What’s wrong?” she asked.

“It’s over two hours long,” I said.

“You don’t have to watch it,” she said.

My work really increased in importance at that moment. I went to my computer and got down to writing, poorly.

As I sat there, I could hear the movie. When I looked at my wife, I could see her smiling while watching it. Only a schmuck would work when his wife wants him to sit with her and watch a movie. So I left the computer and went to sit with my wife and watch that, sigh, two-plus hour chick flick.

From the back of the DVD case:

Iris is in love with a man who is about to marry another woman. Across the globe, Amanda, realizes the man she lives with has been unfaithful. Two women who have never met and live 6000 miles apart, find themselves in the exact same place. They meet online at a home exchange website and impulsively switch homes for the holiday. Iris moves into Amanda’s L.A. house in sunny California as Amanda arrives in the snow covered English countryside. Shortly after arriving at their destinations, both women find the last thing either wants or expects: a new romance. Amanda is charmed by Iris’ handsome brother Graham, and Iris, with inspiration provided by legendary screenwriter Arthur, mends her heart when she meets film composer Miles.

Every once in a while, during the movie, my wife said,
“A man with a machine gun is about to jump out.”
“That car is going to explode.”
“Guys are about to parachute down with guns.”
“Ninjas are about to attack.”

She knows how to keep me interested in a movie.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

Viewed: Theater

I love Westerns. I love the shoot outs, I love the horse riding, I love the dress, I love the wide outdoor scenes. But I also love all of those things to be wrapped up in a good and logical story. Unfortunately, this movie fails in the story logic.

The whole series of events starts because the bad guys let the rancher and his boys live when they witness the stage robbery. The bad guys murder (murder) the Pinkerton agents who survive the stage wreck (except for one, who they just gut shot for sadistic pleasure), but they let the rancher who witnessed it all go free and alive? The whole first 30 minutes of the movie is to establish just how evil, ruthless, and uncaring these bad guys are, but they show uncharacteristic benevolence to let the rancher go. Of course, had they not let the rancher go, the movie would not have a protagonist.

There are many other logic-defying scenarios throughout the movie that just keep me from liking this movie.

The posse (including the rancher) taking Ben Wade, the self-admitted evil murderer, in hand shackles, let him sit at the dinner table right next to the rancher’s youngest son and his wife—and he’s eating with a long, sharp object. He uses that exact object to kill a man later in the movie.

After Ben Wade kills two of his captors, while still shackled, the posse doesn’t execute him on the spot. They have the chance to kill Ben’s terribly evil second in command, numerous times, yet they don’t do it. The second in command is able to go round up his scattered and in hiding gang to rescue their boss in less time than it takes the posse to escort Ben two days ride. The Apache attack is laughable. Just problem after problem—I haven’t mentioned them all.

The plot and story in this movie just relies on so much stupidity and ineptitude on the part of the heroes/posse that it actually angers me. I don’t expect heroes (or villains) to always do the smartest or most logical things—sometimes people do something stupid, especially when they are rushed or in danger—but when the whole story relies on continuous dumb decisions or scenarios, it’s just bad writing.

There are plenty of movies where the hero only survives and succeeds because the bad guys have to be stupid, but this is a movie where the story keeps going only because the good guys have to be stupid.

There is no extra scene at the end of the credits.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com

Viewed: DVD

I had seen bits and pieces of this movie through the years, and much of its dialogue is well known among fantasy role playing gamers.

“My name in Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”
“Inconcievable!”
“I do not think that word means what you think it means.”
“Never bet against a Sicilian when death is on the line.”
“He’s just mostly dead.”

But I had never seen this from beginning to end. So I rented it, and the wife and I sat down to watch it together.

The beginning, with a grandfather reading the book to his grandson, sets the understanding that the tale to unfold is completely a self-admitted make believe story. The low-budget look of the costumes and special effects actually support this movie’s light-hearted feel. The corny names, like the title character’s name, Buttercup, and Prince Humperdink, all lend an air of a fairy tale. Although it is not a Monty Pythonesque comedy, it’s a fun tale not meant to be taken too seriously.

It never made me laugh out loud, but it kept an entertained smile on my face through the whole hour and a half. The occasional interrupting scenes, at intense moments, with the grandfather and grandson reaffirm the undestanding that the story is being told rather than happening.

All in all, this is a very happy movie. It’s fun, entertaining, and watchable for the whole family.

Bullgrit
bullgrit@totalbullgrit.com