Forbidden Planet (1956)

K: I saw this movie a while back with my folks, but it was worth a post. This was a surprisingly enjoyable 50's sci-fi film. The plot was pleasently rich, actually. Also, the conception of what the future would be like was pretty funny, and alone worth the price of admission (well, ok, it was free...but the price of my parents' admission). The communicators were attached to their belts by a retractable wire. The robot lead (Robbie--my dad owns an original tin toy of him) probably weighed 6 tons and had a top speed of about half a mile an hour. The space ship's communicator was some kind of crystal contraption, and they had some kind of contraption that looked like a star trek transporter, but didn't transport...or...well...do anything at all. The sole special effects were Robbie the robot (not so much special effect as guy in a suit), the ray guns (animated dots, streaming out of the end of the ray gun, held nonchalantly by the supposedly terrified spacement) and a gigantic monster, who was inconguously animated against the background. Not sure how I feel about that one.

The plot is really engaging for a sci fi flick of the time...with a surprising tinge of introspection. Highly recommended for anyone with even a passing interest in sci fi flicks.

Ushpizin (2004)

r: This is billed as the first movie made by the ultra-orthodox community in Israel. Have you read the "Brokeback Mountain" post? Do you remember a reference to an "Ultra-Orthodox Israeli" movie? This is that movie.

It's not unenjoyable. Instead of an utterly disposable comedy, we have a not-entirely-disposable comedy that provides some insight into an unfamiliar culture. That's worth something. And, like I said, it's fun. Transparent, preachy, but fun.

k: I really enjoyed this movie--mostly because it was entirely unexpected. It was funny! Like, funnier than average. And whereas I knew nothing about Orthodox Jewish communities before, I know next to nothing now. There were also several beautiful scenes between the husband and wife. In short--I expected something overly heavy, and I got something pleasently funny.

*To anybody who's seen the film, and knows some Yiddish: My impression, based on my limited command of German, was that the greedy, money hoarding Jews (the ones who fit every awful stereotype I've ever seen) spoke Yiddish (there were a number of words I recognized), while the Truly Holy Jews spoke Hebrew (not a word of wish I understood -- it's a guess). Eh?

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

R: Yeah, we saw it. Yeah, it's excellent -- 'Capote' and '3 Iron' were the only comparable things we saw this year. And yes, it will win lots of Oscars. And yes, it will be for the wrong reasons.

K: I cried harder during this movie than I've ever cried in any movie before. But...um...in a good way. Yeah, anyway, you don't need us to tell you to see this movie. Unless, of course, you've been locked in a box.

R: I read an interesting review of this that claimed that, contrary to all those other reviews, it was not true that "it didn't matter that they were two men." That, in fact, the whole point of the movie was the phenomenon of the closet -- that Ennis, at least, loathed himself because of who he was, not because society disapproved of what he wanted. And of course, there's merit to this. I mean, there are some fantastically unsubtle shots of, you know, the closet. And of course the poitn of makinga movie is that everything you put in matters, so of course it would be a different movie if they weren't two gay cowboys. In Wyoming. Etc etc. And I love the movie, so I'm glad that it is what it is.

But there is a part of all those other reviews that I agree with, and it's this: we see alot of movies at the Michigan that are basically bad movies. Or merely competent movies, but no better than what gets shown at the Quality 16. Except that they deal with an unfamiliar culture, or they play with gender roles, or whatever. And there's value in this -- we do go to see them -- but most of these movies can safely be filed under some specialty heading. "Lesbian Asian Movie." "Ultra-Orthodox Israeli Movie." Etc. And, unless they're essentially free, or you're interested in that particular specialty heading, there's no need to see these particular movies. We call them "bad movies for people who aren't supposed to like bad movies." "Brokeback Mountain," on the other hand, is legitimately good, which makes the story interesting to a wide audience, and the story itself is relevant to a wide audience. I have a hard time really connecting with the need to bone your fellow shepherd. I do have a deep-seated fear that my best days are behind me, that I'm "beating back ceaselessly into the past." I think this film is good first, and gay second, and that's why I would encourage anybody who hasn't yet to see it.

Roman Holiday (1953)

r: This, I think is the best movie that I've ever seen -- that includes a princess.

k: Oh com'on. How about "The Princess Bride"? Oh yeah. I forgot. You never SAW the Princess Bride. Cretin.

r: Yes I have, and Kate had to ask me how to spell "cretin." I can't recite it LINE BY LINE. Anyway, The Michigan decided to screen this for Valentine's Day -- Gregory Peck, Audrey Hepburn, she's a princess incognito, he's a sleazy journalist. Mopeds are ridden, guitars are smashed, love blossoms. In Rome!

You might see the date, hear the 'princess' word, and think that this will be the most cheesy, horrifically dated romantic comedy that one could come up with. You would be wrong. We learn about Audrey Hepburn's world right away -- a shot of her dancing with an uninterested (gay?) aristocrat, and another scene where she complains to her attendant about having to sleep in a nightgown -- "some people don't wear anything at all!

k: Thing is, except for the occassional war reference (and of course, the well-written dialogue and engaging plot) you would think that it had been made recently. The humor is smart, and the two leads are entirely believable as a couple. The ending is particularly satisfying--neither schmaltzy nor overly heavy-handed, it is a nice closer.

r: Also, Audrey Hepburn is totally hot.

k: Gregory Peck too. But actually, the photographer guy was more my type. Mmm...facial hair.

r: Indeed. It's light entertainment solidly done. While the film itself doesn't have a terribly complicated "message," I found myself surprised at how risque it was. Was this really made in 1953? Was this really contemperaneous with all of those awful sci-fi movies? And 'Leave it to Beaver'? One of the main characters is a lovable pornographer! As often happens, I find myself seized with a curiosity that, due to laziness, I will never satisfy.

k: All I know is, my curiosity about lovable pornographers never goes unsatisfied...