HeSaid SheSaid Movie Reviews

HeSaid SheSaid Movie (Short) Review: Orbis Romanus

HE SAID

Sometimes short films can come across as being rushed or unfinished. Such was not the case of my recent viewing of Edward St. Pe's film debut, Orbis Romanus. This short film has a definite story to tell and achieves a fulfilling beginning, middle and end...something other films of this genre habitually seem to struggle with. Overall, Orbis Romanusseemed to be a small part of a much larger idea...a more complete story that is begging to be told...but it is in a positive sense, for it leaves the audience asking all the right questions: Who is the main character, Saturius? How and why did he form such a strong allegiance to Rome? What is his relationship with his family and the life he left behind? These are questions that the film raises, but do not necessarily need to be answered...rather, they are simply intriguing to consider.

Though I met Edward at a recent viewing of this film at the Pi Lounge in Fondren, I did not discuss with him as much of the details involved in the creation of Orbis Romanusas Shawn did. I think that this made for a "truer" viewing of the film for me, because I really could appreciate the strength of the film making...and this is where St. Pe shines. The edits and cut shots are flawless, as is the use of lighting to convey mood shifts. Also, the professional costumes and make-up work were strengths (not - as is often the case with independent films - disappointing). But it was St. Pe who stood out as the lead role, both physically and emotionally believable as a Roman soldier. The supporting cast deserves a nod as well. Everyone on screen in this film were completely dedicated to their roles.

If anything, Orbis Romanisis almost too condensed. In fact, I had to watch it a second time before I fully grasped the story St. Pe wanted to tell. Sometimes the characters were hard to hear (most notably the witch). Also, there was some symbolism - a future-telling dream sequence - that during my first viewing seemed out of place, though upon a second viewing I realized that the visions of a future history were crucial to understanding the extreme importance of Saturius accomplishing his mission. All in all, this film makes you think...and it's hard to criticize any film these days that accomplishes that.

He Said: Orbis Romanus is a strong, solid example of independent film making in its purest form. If you get a chance to catch this one at a film festival, don't miss the opportunity. I look forward to seeing what St. Pe has to offer in the future.

SHE SAID

Orbis Romanus(literally "the world of Rome"), Edward St. Pe's film debut, is set in 9 A.D. just prior to a pivotal battle between Germanic and Roman soldiers at Tutenberg Forest. Saturius (St. Pe), a Roman spy readying to return home after many years in battle, is asked to delay his homecoming for one last mission to check out a rumored ambush.

When The Eskimo and I spoke with Edward about his recent foray into filmmaking, he emphasized that he wants to concentrate on films related to myth and legend, because those were the stories that he was passionate about as a child and, still, as an adult. And that passion shows. (After all, he wrote and directed the film - and starred in it too.)

The heroic material offers a chance to explore some big ideas in a short time (as it weighs in at 22 min.): fate vs. destiny, heart vs. mind, duty to country vs. duty to family, glory vs. valor, luck vs. skill. And that is really my only complaint about the film - it seems like there was enough material there to keep going. And the history lesson at the beginning of the film is hard to grasp quickly for those unfamiliar with the period (like me).

Though new to filmmaking, St. Pe has worked in television his whole life - and it shows. He is at ease in front of the camera and behind it. The film (shot in the Germanic forests of Brandon, Mississippi) is beautiful to watch. Sam Watson worked on the sound. (He also did the sound for Ballast, a film set in Mississippi currently winning many awards on the indie circuit).

She Said: Overall, Orbis Romanus is an impressive debut - and even more so because of the substantive material tackled in such a short time. Next up for St. Pe is The Gate to Valhalla, with shooting set to begin this winter.

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Orbis Romanus audio commentary here or in the player below.

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Eraserhead

HE SAID

Plot Summary:  Not a chance.  Maybe Shawn will figure something out.
 
Easily one of the most visually stunning films ever made, Eraserhead is the epitome of David Lynch's "art" of filmmaking.  I put "art" in quotations because it is a subjective term, and applying it in this case might be argued by some people.  If your experience with film is limited to picking up DVDs from the New Release rack, or seeing the latest blockbuster at the local cineplex a few times a year, then you are probably not going to like Eraserhead.  In fact, you'd probably think I'm crazy for loving it.
 
You see, Eraserhead isn't really about anything.  I mean, I guess it must be about something, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.  And David Lynch is notoriously quiet about his inspirations for this film.   My point is that Eraserhead is more of an emotion than a story. It's like watching some else's bad dream on the screen…full of disturbing images, uncomfortable moments, random noises, and an evil mutant baby that will blow your mind. (Eskimo note: NOT A JOKE. If nothing else, just seeing the baby is worth watching this film!)
 
So, some of you may be saying: "Okay, Eskimo, you're not really selling me on this film." And if that is the case, I make no apologies. I don't want you to see this film if the above doesn't intrigue the hell out of you. In fact, this movie made by any other director would probably have resulted in just another mindless exploitation film (kind of like all the Saw movies).  But the brilliance of this film isn't the content…it's the way it is presented. Lynch makes you feel this movie. His use of black and white only heightens the crispness of the shots, with clean lines and minimalist set design. And it is full of symbolism that you'll never figure out. Every time I watch this movie, I see something else in the background, or on the night stand, or in the streets…something that doesn't quite belong…and it makes me think about what it means. Imagine that, a film that makes you think!  Plus, Eraserhead is a great conversation movie.  For better or worse, everyone takes away something different at the end.
 
He Said:  I'm going to say skip it, only because I don't want to be held responsible when you watch this brilliantly weird film. And I know you will.       

SHE SAID

Plot summary: Boy meets girl. Girl disappears and then reappears with mutant baby her mother says is boy's. Boy and girl get married. Mutant baby cries all the time and girl disappears again. Then I fall asleep and dream a half-version of Lynch's dream of dark and troubling things and my own.
 
David Lynch cited his greatest influence in Eraserhead as the city of Philadelphia. Eraserhead was born in Philadelphia. It's "my Philadelphia Story," he said.
 
Something tells me the tourism bureau ain't thrilled about that either. (James Parton described Philadelphia as "hell with the lid off" - and Lynch would surely agree.)
 
The film's title comes from a dream sequence occurring during the last half hour of the film. And, in true Lynchian fashion, I had my own dream sequence at the same time. For an Eskimo, The Cold One keeps his home rather warm. And I was lying on the floor snuggled up to my blanket and a pillow. And it was rather late. And I had been surviving off five hours or less of sleep for three nights in a row. And the film is chock full of white noise (which sounded very similar to the fan I leave on while sleeping).
 
So I dreamed a little dream with Lynch, off and on. Which is apt, really, as he called the movie "a dream of dark and troubling things."
 
Only my dream somehow involved the doll head (aka Babyface) from Toy Story and scenes from T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland" (scuttling claws and all) interspersed with Lynch's own drama. I was so into my dream that when The Eskimo woke me up to tell me the movie was over, it confused the hell out of me - 'cause the movie was still playing in my head. (Dreams look weird as hell in black and white, by the way.)
 
Lynch says Eraserhead is his "most spiritual movie." And if you're single (especially a single man, I'm guessing), you'll definitely pray you never find yourself married with children. I found especially funny the writhing worm he carried in his pocket after he got married. He'd get it out and look at it and then hide it in the cabinet, out of reach of the wifey. (The worm representing all of the sexuality he has to repress now that he's married, only amplified by the presence of The Beautiful Girl Next Door.)
 
Premiere magazine voted Eraserhead one of The 25 Most Dangerous Movies Ever Made. They write of the 25 movies selected for the honor: These are movies about which you could say, "That's Not Entertainment." They're not "rides" or "diversions." They are galvanizing experiences that place squarely in your face all the stuff Hollywood usually presumes you go to the movies to get away from. Films that rearrange your head, that challenge your bedrock ideas about life and love and the big sleep. Consciousness-expanders, in other words, but rarely in a pleasant way. Thank God for them.

And thank God for David Lynch. As the Lady in the Radiator says: "In Heaven, everything is fine. In Heaven, everything is fine. You've got your good things. And I've got mine." And David Lynch's dark and troubling dreams and spiritual journeys have always been one of mine.
 
She Said: Watch it. If you hate it, you'll have fun making fun of it. If you love it, you'll learn something along the way. And you'll wake up from a dream wondering exactly what it is...

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Eraserhead audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Run Fatboy Run

HE SAID

You know, just the other day, as I was flipping through a back issue of Reader's Digest on the sundeck of my yacht, I thought to myself: "Eskimo, my boy, you need to have a more positive outlook on life." I mention this only because I think it is ironic that the very next day I had to sit through David Schwimmer's comedy film, Run Fat Boy Run.

So what can I say that is positive about this movie ………………………… well……………………. um……………. OK dammit, I guess the ending was pretty good. At least it was funny, if not totally obvious and expected. And Simon Pegg was pretty good as the lead, but after seeing him in films like Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, this role felt kind of flat.

I feel like some people really would enjoy this movie, because it is funny and heartwarming in a sense, but unfortunately for me it included one of my biggest pet peeves: lazy filmmaking. In fact, I recall one moment in particular that I actually yelled at the screen.

Let me explain: You see, the crux of this movie is that Simon Pegg's character, Dennis, is planning to run a marathon to prove to his ex-girlfriend that he can finish what he started. Of course, Dennis waits until the last minute to sign up, so he has trouble finding a sponsor. Then…OOPS!...he falls down a flight of stairs, and conveniently injures a person who was also planning to run in the marathon. What a coincidence! (sarcasm) Now Dennis can take his place…problem solved. (disdain)

Now, some of you may be thinking, "Come on. Lighten up. This is a romantic comedy…not an Oscar bid…the plot elements don't have to be perfect." And I would agree with you….but what I don't agree with is lazy filmmaking. It would've taken all of five minutes to think of a more believable, yet funny, way for Dennis to get into the marathon other than falling down stairs. (And, by the way, falling down stairs stopped being funny when I was eight.)

Anyway, that is just one example of many similar problems I had with this movie. It seemed like the filmmakers rushed through the first half of the movie…not really caring how it played out…just to get to the last fifteen minutes which is the best part anyway. That is my overall problem with Run Fatboy Run. I didn't care until the end…and by that point any redeeming qualities were hopelessly lost.

Not very positive, but at least I'm honest.

He Said: Skip it...rent Shaun of the Dead instead.

SHE SAID

A couple of years ago, at the age of 36, a group of my crazy friends talked me (who had never run in her life) into training for a half-marathon. We formed the Half-Crazy Marathon Club ('cause we figured if we ran half-marathons only, we'd still have enough energy to shop afterwards). We began our training in April and ran the St. Jude's Marathon in December.

A couple of weeks ago, I rented Shaun of the Dead (with Run Fatboy Run's Simon Pegg as the lead and co-writer in that movie too) and finally got around to watching it during one particularly sleepless night recently. Neither movie was quite what I expected, but with one I was pleasantly surprised and with the other I was a bit disappointed.

Run Fatboy Run disappointed me not so much because it was horrible but because it could have been so much better. It could've joined a canon of endearing, funny running scenes in movie history (think Forrest Gump whose "Run, Forrest, Run!" I suspect is the take on the title) - but instead only leaves us with the slapstick comedy of Dennis Doyle (Simon Pegg) in outlandish (and too tiny) running clothes. It leaves you with the laugh of seeing that man on the beach who shouldn't be in a Speedo (easily gotten and easily forgotten)

I was especially disappointed with the writing in the movie. The majority of the jokes that rely on the writing rather than the actors could all be boiled down to I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I? put-downs. There's really not one line in the movie that I would quote to you, which is really unheard of for me.

Honestly, I was almost ready to stop watching the movie in its first 5 minutes. The leaving-the-pregant-girl-at-the-altar opening scene was that painful - poorly written, poorly set up, poorly shot. The formulaic romantic comedy set-up was oddly forced (considering that it was a little novel in its premise) - and there was no real chemistry between any of the supposedly romantic characters in the movie.

But what saved the movie for me was Simon Pegg. And Dylan Moran too (Dennis's best friend, Gordon). If you like Simon Pegg, you will enjoy the movie. If you don't, you probably won't. The laughs that don't fall flat are all from the good comedic timing and rapport between these two. Pegg is similar to Chevy Chase and Steve Martin for me - he doesn't even have to say anything for me to laugh. The expression on his face is enough.

She Said: It's an acceptable movie for a rainy day when you just want a mindless romantic comedy. Don't expect too much from it and it won't let you down. (Kind of like Dennis, really.)

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Run Fatboy Run audio commentary here or in the player below. (And find out which film The Eskimo picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Citizen Kane

HE SAID

Some have proclaimed it as the best movie ever made. What does The Eskimo think?

Well...not quite. But pretty damn close!

In essence, Citizen Kane is a biography of American elitism. The story of a man born into unimaginable wealth, who strives for the one thing that money cannot buy: Love.

Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles) inherits a literal gold mine of wealth as a young boy. As he grows into manhood, Kane takes control of his fortune, intending to use his wealth to fight for the rights of the needy and downtrodden of the world. He pursues his dream as an outspoken newspaper mogul and philanthropist. The story begins at the end with the news of Kane's death in the form of a believeable (yet unsatisfying and stereotypical) news-reel summary of his life and accomplishments.

As the audience, we know that there is more to this man than public perception. Following up on a loose end, a journalist from Kane's own neswpaper, The Enquirer, investigates Kane's final death-bed utterance: "Rosebud."

What does Rosebud mean? What secrets of Kane's life does the mysterious Rosebud reveal? As the journalist investigates the underbelly of Kane's very public life, the audience is introduced to a number of characters who were intimate with Kane and who enlighten the audience with intriguing "behind the scenes" details of his life.

The overall message of the film is that, despite unlimited wealth, no amount of money can buy a person happiness. The irony is that the main character has little use for his fortune except for the benefit of mankind. Tragically, despite his good intentions, Kane ultimately realizes that his monetary fortune only brings about personal misfortune in the lives of the people he loves.

I have to say that I was very impressed with how successfully Citizen Kane transcended the time-barrier of films of this genre. Keep in mind that this is a black and white film released in 1941- and set in the early 20th century- so, as with most films of this era, it must be viewed in a relatively forgiving sense, much like High Sierra or The Philadelphia Story. But Citizen Kane overcomes all perceived stereotypes through brilliant directing and, even more so, a comprehensive and captivating storyline. Of course, there are the typical cliches of a 1940's movies...moments of cringe-worthy overacting and some absurdly daft scenes...but surpisingly, these elements are not very distracting, and even add an element of timeframe to the story-arch. I think that it is this fact alone that separates Citizen Kane as a true classic.

In fact, I was amazed at how well this movie was made. During many scenes I found myslef thinking that the direction was very "Scorsese like," though in all fairness, it must have been this classic film that influenced Scorsese's more modern style. To be more specific, I compared many scenes in Citizen Kane to Scorsese's The Departed, whereas it was a film that was primarlily character driven through complex dialogue and strong plot development. Also, Citizen Kane is a bit out of place with the filmography of its same era, incorporating surrealism along with a twisted ending.

Speaking of the ending: I could only call it "satisfactory" in an overall sense, but the ending didn't really matter one way or the other. The audience more or less plays the role of a voyeur in this film, and, as such, we live out the life of a fictional Hearst or Rockefller or Kennedy....imagining the unimaginable: Wealth and social power beyond out wildest dreams. What would we do with such power? This is this questioning of self that draws the audience into the film...and it is this very same element that makes the audience want to understand how it could all go wrong. Wondering why is of no real consequence.

He Said: A must see. Definitely not the best movie ever made, but pretty damn close! Don't have overly high expectations going in to this film, because it could never live up to all of the hype. Citizen Kane should be required viewing for any film buff! 

SHE SAID

Love. Money. Desire. Ambition. Power. Success. Failure. "Rosebud."

In Citizen Kane, the reporter, Jerry Thompson (William Alland), concludes that one word could never define a man's life - but it sure as hell has defined one man's film for posterity.

The Eskimo picked this movie for us to explore if it held up to the Greatest Movie Ever Made title it so often wins. I'm not sure if it does, but it doesn't really matter. It has captured the imagination of a generation of filmmakers and film critics like no other (and if everyone thinks you the fairest of them all then, damnit, you are - no matter what the mirror says).

I found it interesting that the only Oscar win for the movie was the Best Original Screenplay category. It was nominated for many other categories but only won on screenplay. And the movie is well written, but, even now, it's easy to see that the brilliance of the movie is in the film making itself - the camera shots, the angles, the guerrilla filming techniques. What makes the film worthy of a "great" or "greatest" nod in my opinion is how it used the film media to its greatest advantage - the screenplay was good but secondary in many ways.

In addition to the one word that so defines the movie, the focus is on the one man, Charles Foster Kane (Orson Welles), and his singular ability to delude himself (and sometimes others) that his unbridled ambition is selfless and that people - from his best friend to his wife to the general public -  will think, as he tells Emily (Ruth Warrick), "...what I tell them to think."

After two unsuccessful marriages, his best friend, Jedediah Leland (Joseph Cotten), chastises him that he only wants "love on his terms." Kane replies that there's really no other kind: "A toast, Jedediah, to love on my own terms." (Of course, in the end, he even wants Jedediah's friendship on his own terms too.)

The movie itself is a "biggest, strangest funeral" for a big (larger than life), strange man. ("I suppose he had a private sort of greatness, but he kept it to himself," Leland says.) In Xanadu did Kubla Khan a stately pleasure dome decree. It isn't enough to tell us what a man did - you've got to tell us who he was. And, in the end, I found out what "Rosebud" meant - and it did explain everything.

She Said: It's a great film whether it's The Greatest Movie Ever Made or not. And it has held up well over time. Watch it!

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Citizen Kane audio commentary here. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

Powered by Podbean.com

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Ghost Town

HE SAID

When I heard that Greg Kinnear dies in the newly released film Ghost Town, I thought for sure that this would be a must see.  Unfortunately, there was life after death for everyone’s favorite not-so-A-list actor.  I will say that this was not Kinnear’s worst film…but the praise stops there.

Ghost Town is a typical romantic comedy with a twist:  Really annoying dead people.  Let me attempt to summarize the plot of this movie by outlining all of the clichés it contains: 

Bonafide jerk and unfaithful husband, Frank Hirlhey (Kinnear) narrowly avoids a falling air conditioner by jumping into the street, at which time he is promptly smashed by a passing bus.  Meanwhile, grouchy and antisocial dentist, Bertram Pincus (Ricky Gervais) dies briefly during a routine colonoscopy, after which he discovers he can see ghosts.  All of the ghosts on his block, including Frank, try to enlist Bertram to help them resolve issues from their past lives.  Bertram refuses at first because…well, he’s just not a very nice person.  Frank offers to get rid of the ghosts if Bertram will intervene in the marriage plans of Frank’s widow, Gwen (Tea Leoni) and “bad guy” Richard (Billy Campbell).  Bertram reluctantly agrees to meet with Gwen, but then finds himself falling in love with her.  The plot stumbles along as expected, but the main idea is that Bertram learns the importance of being a good person and helping people.  All of the ghosts (including Frank) finally get to go to heaven in a flash of light after their past-life issues are resolved.  The end.   

OK.  Now you don’t have to see this horrible movie, right?  Oh, but you will…I know you will!  For some reason that I will never fathom, the majority of movie goers in America love this kind of film.  As I am writing this review, Rotten Tomatoes shows 86% positive reviews. 

Anyway, I won’t bore you with the details, but here is a run down of the good, bad and ugly about this film:

Good:  Nicely shot. Ghost Town was a “good looking” movie. There were some really funny moments, helped along tremendously by Ricky Gervais spot-on acting and dry British delivery. And, even though I like to joke around, Greg Kinnear was pretty good in this film as well.

Bad:  The rest of the actors’ performances were forgettable at best. Tea Leoni especially gave a (surprisingly) poor performance, with a lot of fake laughs and over-done moments, but maybe that was more the director’s fault than her own. Either way, it seemed her pacing was off throughout the film.  Also, and perhaps even more damaging, was that this film held no surprises. The story-line was very cliché, and there were many moments (like Frank being hit by the bus at the beginning) that I saw coming a mile away.   

Ugly:  Despite all of the above, this will be the #1 movie in America over the weekend. 

He said:  Skip it. You’ve seen this movie many times before, just with a different title. Not unbearable if your date drags you to it, but your $15 is better-off spent elsewhere.

But what do I know?!  Maybe you liked this film…if so, I’d like to hear from you.  Email Shawn and/or The Eskimo at [email protected].

SHE SAID

OK, I'm 0 for 2 in my Night at the Movies selections, so I think I'll just watch DVDs for a while.

One thing I will give Ghost Town - I'll think (and look) twice now if someone sneezes while walking down the street. And it made me immediately want to be back in Central Park. And there were some laugh-out-loud moments in the film (which, honestly, doesn't take much with me). But that's about all nice I have to say about it. (And I don't like the title now that I've seen the movie - and y'all know how I am about titles.)

If you took Chances Are or Ghost and combined it with a little bit of Scrooge and a dab of Sleepless in Seattle, you have Ghost Town. A misanthrope (Rick Gerbais) who needs to be shown the error of his ways through the transforming power of love (via Tea Leoni). Dead spirits with unfinished business that needs to be tidied up before dissolving softly into a white glow.

I never got how Bertram Pincus (or Pink-Ass, as Greg Kinnear's character likes to call him) goes from stealing Gwen's (Tea Leoni's) cabs and closing elevator doors in her face to falling madly in love with her during a pretty awful lecture on mummies. It didn't fit. Nothing happened to change him.

I liken the movie to the Scrooge tale because the ghosts that Frank can see (who have unfinished business of their own) also point out to the living their unfinished business. And that was an interesting concept - but the whole storyline is just built upon so many standard movie cliches that you just want to roll your eyes in parts (which, honestly, doesn't take much with me).

She Said: If you just want an excuse to sit in a dark theatre and hold hands while watching beautiful shots of Central Park and laughing occasionally, this is a great date movie. Otherwise, pick something else.

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Ghost Town audio commentary here. (And find out which film The Eskimo picked to review next.)

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Pi

HE SAID

For this edition of hesaidshesaidmoviereviews.com I picked an independent film (winner of Sundance in 1998) by Darren Aronofsky, titled with the mathematical symbol Pi. 

This movie is about a psychologically disturbed, yet brilliant, mathematician, Max Cohen, who attempts to discover patterns in the stock market. Max believes that everything in nature can be described by mathematics, and that with enough formulation, predictable patterns will emerge. In the course of his studies, Max comes across a mysterious 216-digit number, later referred to as the “God number,” that he believes holds the key to the answers he is searching for. Other interested parties emerge throughout the film, including an aggressive Wall Street firm and a sect of Hasidic Jews. Both parties desire the number for their own purposes. Max becomes increasingly paranoid as the plot unfolds, and by the end of the film, the audience is unsure which scenes are real and which scenes are products of Max’s worsening delusional state. 

I first watched this interesting little psychological thriller not long after it was released on VHS.  At the time, I had not seen many films of its type, and, though I did not remember the plot, I did remember it making a lasting impression on me. I see now why. This film is very dark and surreal. It is artistically framed, and shot with a lot of non-conventional methods, such as a grainy black and white medium, along with odd camera angles. I loved the music and overall pacing of this film. It was easy to watch…there were definitely no boring moments. I was also intrigued by the storyline and the mathematical principles described in the film.  Had Aronofsky simply stuck with the art-house method and compelling subject matter, I think this film would have been much better.

Unfortunately, that was not the case. Just about halfway in to the movie, the simple, yet compelling story line devolves into a muddled mess of multiple plot elements. Max is bombarded from all quarters by individuals who desire (or fear) the knowledge contained in his mind. I see where Aronofsky was going with this, but it transforms Pi from what was originally a subtle character exploration into a supernatural thriller. And it was a clumsy transformation at best. Aronofsky attempts to use the camera to convey Max’s ever-decreasing mental state, employing shaking shots and quick cuts, along with disturbing imagery. But it is not that the camera work is badly done.

As I stated before, this film was easy to watch throughout. It’s just that it took away what I most enjoyed about the film, making it more about the “God-number” that Max discovers rather than about Max himself. Also, there are certain bothersome holes in the plot, for instance:  What exactly does Max do for a living?  How could he afford all of that advanced computer equipment in his apartment?  Where and when did the Wall Street firm come to know Max?  And (rhetorical question) isn’t it convenient that Max stumbles across a sect of Hasidic Jews searching for the same “God number” that Max discovers only a day later? There are a lot of plot elements in this movie that Aronofsky purposely leaves to the imagination of the audience. That method works well sometimes, but in many cases it felt untidy to me…like Aronofsky himself didn’t quite know how all of the plot elements tied together.   

All that being said, the story comes together pretty well at the end, but I saw the climax coming a mile away. Some of the imagery was a little over the top, and out of place in this film, but overall Pi is an interesting watch, and one that keeps you captivated throughout.

He Said:  This is a good rainy-day film.  Definitely not a date movie or casual rent.  I would cautiously recommend Pi to those of you who are fans of independent films.  You will want to discuss this movie immediately after watching.

SHE SAID

We adore chaos because we like to restore order.
~ M.C. Escher

I'm reading (and enjoying) Richard Kelly's Ten Bad Dates with DeNiro right now. It's a book of alternative movie lists, and one of the more interesting lists is D.B.C. Pierre's "Ten Films To Avoid On Medication (Or Within Reach Of A Cutlery Drawer)." If I were adding Pi to a movie list, it would be "Ten Films to Avoid While Not On Medication."

It's weird. But it's weird with a purpose, so I can forgive it. It still seems like it would be a movie much easier to "get" while on some form of medication. I'm just saying is all. Luckily, I was very tired, which was close enough.

The film, written and directed by Darren Aronofsky, is shot on high-contrast black and white reversal film and would be beautiful to watch with the sound turned off. (And, in parts, it might cause less confusion that way.)

The movie follows mathematical genius (or madman) Maximillian Cohen (Sean Gullette) as he tries to bring order to chaos - or chaos to order, just depending. The motivation behind all science is to discover if nature obeys rules. Is it in any sense predictable? Is there a pattern or order underneath? And whether you like or hate this movie, you will still have to admit at the end that the question was handled cleverly, even though it was never answered.

Max often consults with his math mentor (and competitor in games of Go), Sol Robeson (Mark Margolis) during his quest to find the answer, which he decides - along with many others from Wall Street brokerage houses to Hasidic rabbis - that the answer lies in a 216-number sequence. But Sol constantly reminds Max that he needs to bring some order to his mind before he attempts to bring order to a chaotic universe. (If you're looking through a chaotic lens, how can you ever "see" order?)

Over games of Go (with the board viewed as a tiny microcosm of the universe), Max and Sol debate whether the world (and the game board) is basically chaotic or basically ordered. This is a repeating theme in religion too, so the religious elements of the film never seem overstretched (though the Wall Street aspect did to me at times). Max falls on the side of order and Sol on chaos, for the most part.

Max has several hallucination sequences brought on by blinding migraines, where the viewer is brought directly into chaos from an ordered world (a linear film). We don't know what's real and what's imagined, what's order and what's chaos. It's all mixed up - but for a purpose.

To me, the backstory of the film is the most interesting part. Aronofsky sold "shares" of the movie to friends and family for $100. (Darren's mom was the caterer on the set.) The movie only cost $60,000 to make. He was able to pay all of his "shareholders" back with $50 profit per share when the film was sold to Artisan Entertainment.

It's a very smart film. Not a particularly great film, but good - and interesting, at least. I feel like I would have to watch it two or three more times to fully understand it - to bring some order to the chaos. 

She Said: Watch it. But you better be in the mood. It's definitely not an easy film. But it will make you think. Whether you want to or not.

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Pi audio commentary here. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.

BONUS MATERIALS

And here's the clip from Streetcar Named Desire that I reference in the audio commentary for The Eskimo (and anyone else I can convince to explore my comparison of the similar endings of Pi and Streetcar).

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Lars and the Real Girl

HE SAID

I have to confess that when I heard that Lars and the Real Girl was about a man who falls in love with a blow-up sex doll, I prepared myself for a lot of cringe-worthy moments and groans of disgust.  You see, I generally hate movies like this. Or, rather, what I thought this was. 

I had every expectation that this film would tackle the plot in one of two ways:  Either it would be in the vein of movies like Old School or National Lampoon (total slapstick comedy), or, even worse, a bunch of sex-hungry teenage boys making crude jokes and having awkward sexual encounters (à la Weird Science or American Pie).  I mean, how else could you make a movie about a guy who falls in love with a blow-up sex doll?  I couldn’t really like this movie, could I?

Wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong…so wrong, in fact, that I am almost (not quite, but almost) ashamed at myself for pre-judging this movie.  As a journalist, I broke one of the cardinal rules of my trade.  But my mistake was small compared to the mistake made by Hollywood for failing to give this independent film a full release and the marketing to go with it. The problem, I think, was that on the surface this film seems to be a pretty standard romantic comedy...more of the same, you know?  But it’s not really a comedy at all, at least not in the traditional sense. It’s much more of a love story. And there is nothing typical about this film. In fact, its best quality is its originality.

When Lars, an introverted and emotionally disturbed young man, shows up with his new “girlfriend,” Bianca, you expect his family to waste no time in locking him up in the nut-house. But they don’t. They care about him. They want to help him. So they play along until they can figure things out. When it becomes obvious that Lars will insist on bringing Bianca with him into social situations, like church or parties, at the family’s request the entire town comes together to accept Bianca as part of their community. Some of the best parts of the movie are when we see how over time, as the townspeople “play along” with Lars’ delusions, Bianca truly does find her place. She is dressed up (more conservatively, of course), and given a “job” as window dressing at the local mall. She is brought to the local hospital to do “volunteer work,” visiting children in the cancer ward. But over time the townspeople stop just playing along. They become used to Bianca’s presence, and are even interested and intrigued by her, offering to cut her hair in a different style or talk about how envious they are of her figure. In one scene, a neighbor picks up Bianca for an employee party, leaving Lars at home alone.  He wasn’t invited. Upon Bianca’s return the couple has a heated argument (one sided, of course) behind closed doors about how she is not spending enough time with Lars. These moments are the true comedy in the film. It is subtle and touching and, most importantly, believable.

Of course, you have to suspend reality a bit for this film…that Lars delusion of Bianca as a real woman could play out so long and so perfectly. But it is not too much of a leap, and that is a testament to the superb storytelling. The writers missed a thousand opportunities to insert the low-brow humor the plot suggests, and thank God they did. This movie is sweet, and funny, and touching, and something completely different than what you would expect. Lars and the Real Girl is a great little film, and is, in my opinion, a must see.

He Said:  Guys, I’m talking to you now.  This is a perfect date-night movie.  It is not a “girl” movie in the least (no offense, Shawn), so you’re safe on that front.  Of course, your girl may question a movie about a blow-up sex doll, but rest assured she’ll be pleasantly surprised upon watching it…and so will you.            

SHE SAID: Thinking outside the box

Because here's something else that's true. In the day-to-day trenches of adult life, there is actually no such thing as atheism. There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.
~ David Foster Wallace

I'm big on movie titles - on the words meaning something or adding context to a movie. So I probably spent way too much time reflecting on why the title of this movie is not Lars and the Real Doll or Lars and the Fake Girl rather than Lars and the Real Girl. I never reached a conclusion, really, but I think it remains an important question.

It's actually a clever play on words, because you're not quite sure if the "real" girl is the fake one from www.realdoll.com or Margo (Kelli Garner), Lars's (Ryan Gosling) implied love interest at the end of the film.

Bianca, the plastic object of Lars's affection, is a life-size, 125-pound doll that seems to bring out the best in Lars (a reclusive, socially retarded young man) - and, eventually, the whole Wobegonish town. After repeated questions of girlfriends and sexual orientation from friends and family, Lars just designs his own woman online and has her shipped (who looks suspiciously like his sister-in-law to me). Bianca, half-Brazilian/half-Danish, was raised by nuns and is a missionary. While visiting Lars, she is "on sabbatical to experience the world."

But the charm of the movie is that the world experiences Bianca right back. Dagmar (Patricia Clarkson), the family doctor and a psychologist, suggests to his family and friends that they play along. Let the doll be as real to them as it is to Lars: "Bianca's in town for a reason," she adds.

Lars explains, "That's why God made her...to help people"- and everyone sees a bit of Bianca in themselves. One of my favorite scenes of the movie is when Lars wants to play Scrabble with Bianca one evening but she has charity work on her "calendar." The church lady tells Lars that he is just like her husband and that he can't be expecting Bianca to just sit around the house waiting for him to come home all day. She has needs too!

Bianca's in town for a reason, but she also dies for a reason. Lars begins to have feelings for a real "real girl" - and he can't cheat on Bianca. Just before she "dies," Lars and Bianca share their first and only kiss - adding to the irony of a man who orders a sex doll to dress her up and bring her to church on Sunday.

Whether you love the movie or not, it is full of big ideas that will definitely make you think - inside and outside of the box!

She Said: Watch it! I think it's an especially good date movie because it makes great fodder for conversational questions from "What is delusional?" to "What is love?" (After all, they are often purported to be one and the same.)

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Lars and The Real Girl audio commentary here. (And find out which film The Eskimo picked to review next.)

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.

BONUS MATERIALS

And here's the Spongebob Squarepants "To Love a Patty" episode for The Eskimo (and anyone else I can convince to explore my comparison of Lars and the Real Girl with me!).

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Good Night, and Good Luck

HE SAID

First, let me just get this of the way:  I have no love for this film. In fact, I am still so bored from watching it that I'm afraid all of the built up boredom will carry over into my review. If that happens, it is NOT my fault.

Okay then, now that the disclaimer is out of the way: My pick of films this time around was Good Night, and Good Luck, written and directed by George Clooney.  The front cover of the DVD rental says that it was nominated for six Academy awards.  Must have been a slow year for movies back in 2005…but more on that in a minute.

Actually, I had every intention on reviewing another film, but of course the local video store didn’t have it, so while wandering the aisles, the cover of a DVD jumped out at me - one with a picture of who I thought was John Cusack.  Unfortunately, it wasn’t Cusack, just the surprisingly similar mug of David Strathairn.  I should have known then just to put it back on the rack, for it would not be my last disappointment. 

The plot centers around 1953, at the height of McCarthyism, when many in the media were accused of being Communist sympathizers. It took one of the most trusted faces in journalism at the time, Edward R. Murrow, to stand up to the tactics of fear and falsehoods used by the McCarthy inquisition.
The movie unfolds like a high school history lesson (i.e. BORING!).  Perhaps it would hold more interest to a person who was actually alive during that period in history, but some quick math shows that you would have to be around 70 years old or so for that to be the case.  Not exactly a desirable market segment. 

Anyway, the interaction in the movie was just pretty much a back and forth between the Murrow and McCarthy camps, each carefully tip-toeing around accusations of fear mongering and Communist influences. There were a few behind-the-scenes subplots involving the production of Murrow’s televised commentaries, but all in all this movie was about a test of wills between two influential historical figures.   

One highlight was Strathairn’s performance as Murrow, in which he came off as believable and sincere.  Also worth mentioning is that the entire film is shot in black and white, which lent it a bit of authenticity.

Despite my misgivings about the film, it came out to glowing reviews. Checking some of the other movie review sites, I found it also has some critical acclaim. One thing that stood out to me in this movie was the parallels between McCarthyism and the more modern War on Terror. People at the time, especially the media, were hesitant to criticize the government’s questionable tactics, fearful of being labeled as Communist sympathizers. Back in 2005 when this movie was released, the United States was at the height of the Iraq war and was the still feeling the effects of the September 11th attacks (as it is today). I think this might be one reason this film was so readily accepted, because it hit on an undercurrent in American politics at just the right time.

He Said:  Skip it. Unless you are particularly interested in this period of history, this movie will offer no new insights (or entertainment) than what we all learned from the text books.   

~ The Eskimo

SHE SAID: It's not you. It's me.         

When this movie first came out, I guessed that it would be beautifully shot (in black and white), well written, impeccably portrayed (with that great cast) - and boring as hell. And I was so right.

But this movie brings up a great point. There are movies that you are supposed to like - that are nominated for all the top awards (even deservedly so) - that you sometimes just don't. And it's not your fault or the movie's fault. There's just no chemistry there.

The movie begins with the true story of the U.S. Navy's dismissal in 1953 of pilot Milo Radulovich. He was forced out of his position for being a "security risk" because he refused to denounce his father and sister, who were suspected of Communist sympathies. All charges against him were kept sealed, and CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow exposed the story on his news documentary show, See it Now, despite concerns from network executives who feared a backlash.

"I thought it was a good time to raise the idea of using fear to stifle political debate," explained director & co-writer George Clooney (himself a journalism major). "The real teeth of journalism has been missing [recently] but there is still some [good] journalism out there," he said. And there are biting overtones of how, in the Iraq War era, we have hearkened back a bit to that time.

The movie is a bit like a history class - with actual footage of McCarthy and others mixed in throughout. There's little else to relieve the tedium of the lesson though. The only thing that kept me hanging on was the beauty of the medium.

The movie was not actually shot in black and white. It was shot in color (on a gray scale). And as graphic designers know, there is a difference. And it was interesting to see how they mixed together the old clips with the new shots. "At first I wanted the film to look like an [old] Godard film, but then we looked toward Pennebaker docs like 'Crisis' for inspiration," Clooney explained.

I thought it was a bit ironic that the movie knew that you may be bored, and even scolded you a little bit for it. As Murrow said in one speech during the film: "But unless we get off our fat surpluses and recognize that television in the main is being used to distract, delude, amuse, and insulate us, then television, and those who finance it, those who look at it, and those who work at it, may see a totally different picture too late."

I would respond, respectfully, "But, Mr. Murrow, a spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down."

She Said: This is one of those movies that you go see on a date to show someone that you are not one of "those people."  You can take a little fiber in your films. You're no intellectual pansy - you can appreciate a laugh that doesn't originate from a fart joke. And you'll both look at each other quizzically at the end - afraid the other actually liked the movie. One of you will finally get the nerve up and say, "OK, that was boring as hell." The other will let out a relieved laugh. (It's OK, though, George. It's not you. It's me.)

~Shawn

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Good Night, and Good Luck audio commentary here. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Burn After Reading

HE SAID

Burn After Reading
or
Burn Before Reading (this script)

Greetings all. Eskimo here. 

I have been looking forward to seeing Burn After Reading since Shawn announced it as her pick in the last audio commentary. I am a bit of a closet Brad Pitt fan, especially his earlier roles in movies like Seven and Snatch, so seeing him teamed up for the first time with the Coen brothers - along with other A-list actors like Frances McDormand, George Clooney and John Malkovich - seemed like a no-brainer.

Alas, I was to be severely disappointed.  Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I really expected more from an all-star cast under the direction of the same creative team who brought us such gems as Fargo, The Big Lebowski, and last year’s Academy-award-winning No Country for Old Men.

The plot plays out like a parody of a spy/espionage thriller. Documents are discovered by Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand’s characters, who mistakenly think they have stumbled upon top-secret government information. They then proceed to become involved in a befuddled blackmail scheme with a former CIA employee (Malkovitch) who lost the documents in the first place…or the Russian embassy…or whoever is willing to fork out some much needed cash. A side plot of overlapping, barely believable love triangles intertwines the lives of the characters. (Hence the Coen brothers' signature style, where events play out in a series of far-fetched coincidences that push the plot forward.)

The first thing I thought after the final credits rolled was that the movie was way too long.  Then I looked at my watch and realized it had only lasted an hour and a half. The first two-thirds of this movie was dedicated primarily to character development, which was necessary for the audience to understand the confusing ending.  Unfortunately, despite all of the time spent on development, the audience still doesn’t (or at least I didn’t) sympathize with the any of the characters. In fact, there was barely a single likable quality about anyone in the film, with the lone exception of the gym owner, whose actions were at least motivated by love. 

It was the last 20 minutes or so of this film that saved it from being an utter failure. Ironically, the Coen brothers give voice to the very criticisms that I mention above, with the introduction of two CIA agents who follow the actions of the main characters and attempt (like the audience) to figure out what the hell is going on amidst all of the absurdity. It is in these brief scenes that the film comes across as the parody that I think it was meant to be in the first place.

He said:  A shame, really. Great cast.  But no amount of great acting could have saved this script.  About an hour into this film I remember thinking to myself that if it wasn’t for Shawn sitting right next to me, I would have walked out of the theater. Considering the films that I’ve sat through in my lifetime, just the fact that such a thought crossed my mind is all that needs to be said.          

~ Eskimo

SHE SAID

Movies are a bit like people. Sometimes you just meet the wrong one at the right time, and this film was a bit like that for me. The beginning sucks, the middle's shaky at best, and the ending really sucked - yet, somehow, I still enjoyed it.

Ironically, it's a movie about reinventing yourself, as Linda Litzke (Frances McDormand) shows us repeatedly with her penchant for plastic surgery, that probably needed a bit more reinvention of its own.

But it's the vignettes. The movie, taken as a whole, sucks. But there are scenes and characters that are worth the price of admission.

Everyone talked about the Brad Pitt (Chad Feldheimer) and George Clooney (Harry Pfarrer) roles in this movie, but, in my opinion, John Malkovich as Osborne Cox stole the show. If you took Malkovich out, the movie would have been over about 30 minutes in.

Joel Coen said that he and Ethan decided to do a spy movie because "we hadn't done one before," but it turns out to be more a Shakespearean comedy of errors and egos than a spy movie - or even spy spoof, really. (Besides the beginning and ending shots fade in/worldview shots, I mean, which even Spy Kids used. Come on, Brothers Coen. That was just sad!)

There were just too many stories going on that never fit together in the end. As Linda says, explaining why she just can't be happy with the way she is, "I've gone as far as I can go with this body." And when you leave the theatre, you feel the same way about this film.

She Said: Rent it at the video store - don't waste your money at the theatres.If you're a Coen Brothers fan, you'll find something to enjoy about the movie, but you'll still wonder why in the end.

~ Shawn

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Burn After Reading audio commentary here. (And find out which film The Eskimo picked to review next.)

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.

HeSaid SheSaid Movie Review: Blue Velvet

HE SAID

Plot summary: Guy finds severed human ear. Guy meets girl. Crazy sadomasochistic sex scene ensues with Dennis Hopper. Guy gets girl. (You want plot summaries, go to IMDB!)

Hello guys and gals, The Eskimo here.

I had the honor of picking the first film for the inaugural He Said, She Said Movie Reviews, and I have to admit that I copped out a little by choosing one of my favorite David Lynch movies, Blue Velvet. Hell, to be honest, this is probably one of my favorite movies of all time...but for all the wrong reasons. Confused? Wait until you see the film.

This is one of those films that I've seen on numerous occasions, but I only took the time to watch in its entirety maybe once before, many years ago. The fact that it stuck with me after all these years is probably the main reason I put it near the top of the list, but it's hard to describe exactly why. So, before seeing it again, let me attempt to explain.

The thing is, there is nothing particularly great about this movie. Rather, it's the way it makes you feel...the emotions it induces...which you only realize until after the credits roll, and you kind of sit there in shock thinking to yourself, "What the hell did I just watch?" (Or in Shawn's case, "That is not at all how I remembered it!") Blue Velvet is so opposite of the mainstream that it is almost vulgar. It's like hearing a priest let "god damn" slip in a middle of a sermon, or seeing your friend's little sister naked in the shower. It's so wrong on every level that it's intriguing just to experience the way it makes you feel, before shaking it off and attempting to forget it ever happened. But somewhere, deep down inside, you know you'll never be able to forget it.

So, obviously this film made a big impression on me, but what did I think after watching it again? One word: Vindication. The thing that really stood out to me was the build-up. Lynch does a superb job opening the movie with the setting of an average small-town life - a life lived by a recently home from college Jeffery (Kyle MacLachlan). But there's something underneath the normality, like a nest of vermin writhing just below the manicured lawns of Lumberton. It is a seedy underbelly of crime and sex and corruption that Jeffery gets drawn into after discovering a severed human ear in a field near his home.

Obsessed with the mystery he has uncovered, Jeffery ultimately takes on the role of a voyeur, spying on a local lounge singer, Dorothy (Isabella Rossellini), who is a person of interest in the case of the severed ear. As a voyeur, Jeffery effectively provides the point of view for the audience, witnessing the crux of the plot unfold as Dorothy is sexually abused by a drug-crazed maniac, Frank (Dennis Hopper). Lynch brilliantly draws the audience into the film when Jeffery is discovered in the act of his voyeurism. It is at this point that Jeffery suddenly goes from being an uninvolved observer to an active participant in the unfolding plot. Likewise, as the audience, we feel somehow that we've been drawn into the plot with him. Typical Lynch.

But it's not until the above-mentioned Frank's first appearance in the film do we see how far Lynch is willing to go. And boy does he go all the way. Dennis Hopper offers perhaps the most believable performance in the film (disturbing as it may be) and provides the substance of the underlying conflict when we see the Jeffery character attempt to return to his "normal" life. It is no accident that the audience cannot look at Jeffery's cookie-cutter life in the same way again. The entire context of the movie has changed. Again, typical Lynch.

So overall the film does not disappoint. In fact, it holds up very well to more modern films considering it was released over 20 years ago. Kyle MacLachlan gives his standard stiff performance, moving around the set like an animated mannequin. But it is that very creepiness about him that adds much to the tone of the film. Dennis Hopper effectively revived his career at the time with his role as Frank, and it is no wonder why. Isabella Rossellini is believable in her role as Dorothy, and even if she overacts at times, her missteps can be forgiven because, honestly, her character must have been nearly impossible to convey on screen. The other characters (namely Laura Dern, Dean Stockwell, Brad Dourif, and Jack Nance) were pretty much stand-ins for plot development, and, in my opinion, not worth mentioning.

In conclusion, there is no question that Blue Velvet is a typical David Lynch film. The same script by any other director would have failed miserably. In fact, it probably never would have been attempted in the first place. It is Lynch's use of camera work - the vibrant colors, the close up shots, the brilliant visual symbolism - that makes this movie a classic. And it gets the point across: That just steps away from our everyday, ordinary lives, lives an underbelly of society that we could never imagine...and one that we certainly don't want to get involved with.

He Said: This is definitely not a first date movie (understatement of the year), but it is one well worth watching for anyone who appreciates not just a good film, but also the art of good film making.

Cheers!

~ The Eskimo

SHE SAID

Plot Summary: Boy meets severed ear. Boy meets girl. Boy meets wife of man who now has one ear. Girl helps boy solve mystery of husband with one ear. Boy and girl decide, in the end, that some things in life are probably just better left a mystery.

David Lynch says Blue Velvet all began with a mood he felt while listening to Bobby Vinton's "Blue Velvet" - but watching it tonight I kept hearing Beck's "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometimes" playing in my head. (Yes, I know. Wrong movie. Still.) But I'm a music (and lyric) junkie so I'm going to force myself to not talk about the music, as I would write a book.

I watched this movie years after it came out (on VHS and rented from the buck-a-day video store in Hattiesburg, I'm sure) in college in the early 90s. And it was very different than what I remembered from almost 20 years ago. I remembered many more night club scenes. I also remembered it as a much sexier film (not with much more sex, just much sexier).

It opens up like a reading of Curious Jeffrey and the Man with the Yellow Coat. (The Eskimo insisted the yellow jacket was insect imagery, noting Jeffrey posed as a bug exterminator in the movie even. I hate it when he's right.) Jeffrey admits to Sandy's father that he's "real curious" about the severed ear he found in the vacant lot. Later, Sandy admits to him, "I don't know if you're a detective or a pervert." Note to Sandy: These two are not mutually exclusive.

Jeffrey explains his fascination to Sandy with only, "I'm in the middle of a mystery." He also remarks that he finds her a mystery and likes her very much. Note to self: This always shuts a woman up, doesn't it? We all want to be a mystery, it seems. But solvable.

In a movie full of curious detectives, no one wants to be looked at. Both Dorothy and Frank demand that Jeffrey stop looking at them. In this film, the power is definitely in the gaze. The looker. (And I won't bore you with the volumes of research I did on "the gaze" back in grad school in the 90s. Suffice it to say - it matters. It matters whether you are the one watching or the one being watched. Lynch definitely gives away all the power to the voyeur.) And Sandy later admits to Jeffrey - of the naked and battered Dorothy Vallens in her living room, clinging hungrily to Jeffrey - "I couldn't watch that."

One thing I didn't remember at all from my earlier viewing was the beer hierarchy. The college boy comes home to help care for his ailing father and help run the family business and he's only drinking Heineken. Sandy's father is a Bud man. "King of beers," Jeffrey remarks. Psycho Frank drinks Pabst Blue Ribbon (a tribute to his white trash upbringing one is to surmise). Sandy had never had a Heineken before she went out with Jeffrey. (I'm guessing her high school boyfriend, Mike, was a Schaefer's man if he was anything like the guys I went out with in high school.)

Sandy had never dreamed of robins (or the lack of them in the trees) before she met Jeffrey either. But she tells him that the very first night they met, she dreams the world was dark because there weren't any robins - and the robins represented love. But all of a sudden thousands of robins were set free and there was "this blinding light of love." Her interpretation of the dream is that "there is trouble until the robins come."

And in the closing scene, Sandy's robin does come. And it sits on the windowsill as Sandy and her family are enjoying a leisurely lunch at the Beaumont household, with Jeffrey's healed father tinkering in the sunshine in the backyard. But the robin's got an insect in its mouth now - a bug wriggling nervously with the knowledge that it's about to be supper.

What Jeffrey and Sandy and all of us realize by the end of the movie is that sometimes you're the robin and sometimes you're the worm. And getting up early really has nothing to do with it at all.

It's a strange world, isn't it? But everybody's gotta learn sometimes.

She Said: I guess it depends on how weird you are about sex scenes on whether or not to watch this movie early on in a relationship. Personally, I don’t want to watch sadomasochistic sex scenes with a relative stranger. But I guess you could at least glance over and get some indication by the look on his face of whether he was appalled or intrigued. Probably learn more than small talk over coffee.

THEY SAID

After reading each other's reviews, The Eskimo and Shawn always discuss the reviews (and the film, too, of course). Listen to the Blue Velvet audio commentary here. (And find out which film Shawn picked to review next.)

SHARE THE PODCAST or EMBED IT ON YOUR BLOG OR WEB SITE.