Female (1933)

This is a pretty weird movie. Made just before the Hays Era, the subject matter is frankly sexual, though not explicit.

Alison is the high-powered head of a huge company that she runs with a scowl and snap. No question that she's in charge. Most nights find her "talking over some ideas" in her hilariously nouveau riche mansion with some new eager guy from the office...who's often transferred when he wants more than the intended one night stand. This is pretty surprising stuff! A woman getting man-sized respect in business back in 1933 (something hard to attain even now) and bedding then dispatching a string of employees. But then Alison meets a guy who likes her for "who she is" until, that is, he finds out who she is.

In just 60 minutes, we see Alison go from being tough as nails to being ready to settle down and have "nine children." Not nearly as progressive as it first seemed, but pretty entertaining little film anyhow.

B-

Summer and Smoke (1961)

The fact that this film is based on a Tennessee Williams play was enough to have it languish in my TiVo's "Now Playing" list for months before I finally forced myself to watch it (I'm decidedly not a fan).

But, as Williams goes, this one is pretty palatable. Sheltered/inexperienced adult daughter of a preacher and embarrassingly senile mother gets a crush on her bad-boy neighbor, but has little idea of how to get his attention.

It's uncomfortable in places, but the mood is almost too safe to have any real impact.

C+

Slither (2006)

Feels like it should be a lot of gross-out horror fun, but it just gets into a rut way too early and keeps repeating itself. Winds up feeling overlong without nearly enough surprises or laughs.

The cast seems game enough (Nathan Fillion! Woo!), but there's just not quite enough story to go 'round.

C

Summer Wishes, Winter Dreams (1973)

One of those "bored, depressed woman and her boring life shown in all its boring detail so that the audience, too, can be bored and possibly depressed by the time the credits roll" movies. Ech.

Still, it has Joanne Woodward and that always elevates the material somewhat.

D+

Suspiria (1977)

This movie has been on so many "Top Horror Movies of All-Time" and "Best Cult Films Ever" lists that I couldn't wait to see it. So, to all those who have hyped this movie to high heaven, I say to you: What. The. Hell.

Apparently I'm supposed to be blown away by the sets and the lighting...but, dude, if you don't have a story to go WITH that stuff, you're in the wrong field. Pull out your Nikon, publish a coffee table book, and leave the moving pictures to someone else.

It's not scary. It's not beautiful. It's not cool. It's not well-acted. It's not anything other than a waste of time.

D

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

A shining example of "popcorn flick." Nothing deep here, just a good rapport between leads Willis (in out-of-step but still bad-ass mode) and Justin Long (all jangly techno-geek) and some pretty amazing action sequences.

My only real complaints are that it went on 20 minutes longer than necessary and that Timothy Olyphant's head bad-guy seemed bored by his own nefarious plan.

B

Killer Diller (2004)

We've been moving, so there's been no spare time to curl up with a movie for the last couple of weeks. Finally though, the boxes are unpacked, the couch is situated in the living room, the DVD player is hooked to the television, and I'm able to pull out the red envelope to relax for a couple of hours.

Well, hell. Now my first movie-watching memory in the house I fully intend to inhabit for the rest of my life is this piece of crap. How did this amateurish pablum about a Christian halfway house with a lame chorus-singing group transforming into a bar-playing blues band wind up in my queue anyway? Here's a taste: Lucas Black (still trying to recapture his Sling Blade glory) is cast as a piano-playing savant who requires sliced tomatoes whenever flustered. Yes, it's every bit as bad as it sounds.

And I figured out why this was in my queue: damn Ebert & Roeper.

D

Delirious (2007)

Pretty hard to take for the first half or so -- basically while Steve Buscemi is in charge. That's not to say the first half is bad, not in the least. The raw desperation and paranoia in Buscemi's paparazzo character was just so palpable that avoiding him felt like the smart thing to do.

Michael Pitt also does a fine job as the street kid with a natural, likable way with both people and acting. I wound up getting sucked in and enjoying myself.

B

Starting Out in the Evening (2007)

The story focuses on an aging novelist -- once well-regarded, now barely remembered -- working on what he knows will be his final book. When he's contacted by an ambitious student hoping to use him as the subject of her Master's thesis, he initially declines but then gets drawn in by her enthusiasm and, probably, the idea of being portrayed as a literary god by her hand.

I guess I'm getting to that point where "honest" is more important than almost any other criteria when it comes to the arts. This was quiet and true -- I simply loved it.

A

The Orphanage (2007)

Most of the film was atmospheric and genuinely scary. I really liked the way that the skeptics of the main character's beliefs were able to listen -- behaving reasonably -- rather than to just serve as naysayers getting in the way of the truth.

For me, though, I think the movie should have ended once we found out exactly what happened (which is awesome, by the way). The denouement nearly wrecks everything...story circles and roses on graves are unnecessary. My imagined ending was much more effective, as I'm sure most engaged viewers' would have been.

B+

7 Faces of Dr. Lao (1964)

Yes, Tony Randall impressively performs seven different characters, but so what? The story is ridiculous -- basically, "you got problems? Let the magic circus fix 'em!"

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

D-

Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)

I laughed a scant handful of times because it was just too low-key with most of the jokes being stepped on. I think it could've been great with a bit a shaping -- its current form feels disjointed and though some scenes just got shoved in willy-nilly because they couldn't bear to cut them.

I've been trying to nail down exactly why this movie didn't work for me...it's an odd one because my complaints about it seem to contradict what I think I want from a comedy. Usually I'm irritated when all of the funny is spotlighted, time allowed for laughter, with lots of mugging and double-takes to let the audience know it's "time to laugh!" like a broad sitcom. I desire subtlety. I mean, I love it when I'm trusted enough to laugh even when the equivalent of "do you get it??" isn't coming across the screen.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall certainly doesn't shove any jokes in faces -- so why didn't I appreciate it more? I've come to this conclusion: a comedy is like a beautiful girl. When she's well-groomed and wearing the right clothes, there's no need for a spotlight and a theme song to accompany her in order to get appreciative heads to turn in her direction. If, however, she's in need of some plucking and her dress is a couple of sizes too big, she's easily ignored without someone pointing and saying "Look at her. She's gorgeous. Don't you agree?" FSM is the "before" in a high school makeover movie. It needed someone to point out the jokes because it wasn't edited well enough for me to see them on my own.

C+