Little Blue Pill (2010, NR)

When I first read the description of the movie I thought it was some general fictitious medicine other that that little blue pill.  Turns out it was that little blue pill.  Or at least a parody of it: "Erecta"!  I can't say it's a good movie, but if you watch it sufficiently late at night and with sufficiently many drinks in you (as I did), it can be pretty damned fun!  The acting was terrible.  Well... I've seen worse.  But it's still not good.  There were no actor's I'm familiar with nor the director or screenwriter.  They had a decent camera and film stock, and some of the shot cuts near the end were actually noticeably good.

The premise is that the main character thought he was taking some over-the-counter painkillers for his headache (it was his roommate's medicine bottle) but it was actually a sample of the experimental (stronger) version of an erectile dysfunction medication.  And he took what would be a double-dose (fortunately he didn't take the third one in his hand).  He finds out that overdoses can cost his "equipment" and scrambles to try to find an antidote.  Parts of the setup are a lot like a high school buddy movie: the main character is a nice guy, his roomate/friend is a crude jerk, the girl is his just-friend who he might have a crush on.  The pharmaceutical company (Phalico) is trying to hunt him down and get rid of the evidence of the failed-trial version (this part is not standard high school comedy fare).  His self-imposed restrictions on how to deal with his problem are reminiscent of 40-Year-Old Virgin, which I also liked.  It's a "late night comedy" which means it's a raunchy romp with plenty of wackiness.  High school/college boys, this bud's for you (sorry, that ad campaign's inception predates even mine, but it's a line from Weird Science -which I watched probably close to 100 times growing up- so I have a soft spot for it).  There's really not much to say about this film other than it's a bit crude, it's got boobies, and my favorite line is "You're loosing your edge, Grampa: he's still alive."  If you're sober and the sun is shining, if you're above or below the age (or at least maturity level [and be proud of wherever you are]) to get a kick out of this, don't watch it.  But otherwise... do it.

The Cable Guy (1996, PG-13)

I had kind of been meaning to watch this film for a while but never got around to it before.  I had been partly hesitant to do so because 1) I was not much of a Jim Carrey fan when the movie was new and 2) from the clips I had seen, it looked like the movie would just make me uncomfortable.  And I was right.  The Cable Guy falls under the category of "comedy" but it's not so much the sort of comedy that makes you laugh as the kind that makes you squirm, and I prefer the former of the two.  The protagonist was played by Matthew Broderick (Ferris Bueler's Day Off) and the title character is played by Jim Carrey (Dumb and Dumber).  While I enjoy a crazy comedy as much as anyone (Hot Tub Time Machine and Forgetting Sarah Marshall had me rolling around laughing), Jim Carrey is one of the comedic actors whose dramatic roles I like much more.  I absolutely loved him in The Majestic and Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (on a tangent, I also prefer Robin Williams' dramatic roles ultimately in One Hour Photo, but also in Insomnia and Final Cut).  One benefit to me watching this movie at this later point in my life is that I can catch a lot of Carrey's television and film references that he makes more and more often as the film progresses.  His character is a dark product of being raised by the television and near the end of the movie they try to make a point of this fact and make it a cautionary tale.  Also some of the predictions his character makes about the future of media are almost precognizant.

Honestly I felt a little more horror elements in the film than comedy ones (though don't confuse it with a Horror/Comedy like Stan Helsing or Transylmania).  The premise is that Broderick's character Steven recently moved to a new apartment (had been recently living with his girlfriend, but they hit a snag) and the cable guy attached himself to Steven after he installed the cable.  In theory they could be fine friends, but the cable guy is histrionic, sociopathic and pretty much stalks Steven to make sure they stay friends.  The horror-like element is that the cable guy has a lot of resources to call on due to the free cable he's given to so many people (knights at Medieval Times, police, prostitutes, etc).  It's like trying to escape the wrath of the mafia if the mafia didn't have logical goals.  And I tend to like horror movies, but the Ace Ventura-like histrionics made it hard for me to get into the proper fight/flight mood.

I don't think I could ever be in a propper mood that this would be the movie I want to watch again, but if you're a big fan of 90's-era Jim Carrey antics, then you'll get a healthy dose here (though with a different twist).  Or if you're a fan of movies that make you squirm (but not gross-out squirm like in parts of American Pie movies or in Van Wilder), then this would be exactly your kind of film.  But none for me, thanks.

Silver Bullet (1985, R)

Stephen King is one of my favorite authors, so I feel compelled to watch any movie based on a book of his.  One day I'll learn better.  There are some good movies based on his books (The Shining, The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile) but there are also some pretty sub-par ones (the second attempt at Carrie, The Running Man [I know it's a cult movie now, but if you've read the book, the movie will make you cry])... OK, now that I look at the filmography, most that I've seen don't fall below "just OK", but I still find that pretty disappointing (Sometimes They Come Back, The Langoliers, Pet Semetary, Thinner).  I think Silver Bullet is my least favorite yet.  The credits say it's "based on a novelette by Stephen King,"  but that might be generous.  I know filmmakers love to base films on Kings stories - and there are plenty to choose from, with over 60 books to his name, several of which are collections of short stories - but this one is the shortest yet: Cycle of the Werewolf is about 20 pages (compared to his average of 500-600), and was intended to be a calendar! It has about one page per month of the year (on the full moon) plus illustrations.  So we can only expect so much in terms of plot.

The lead role of Marty is played by a 14-year-old Cory Haim and the film is narrated by his sister's character as if she's recalling it in her adulthood recalling how they didn't get along.  Gary Busey plays the crude fun-loving Uncle Red who has a great rapport with Marty (and soups up his electric wheelchair).  I get the feeling that the movie would be a lot more fun for a 10-13 year old boy then it would be for me.  It's a shame it's rated R, though I get the impression that is mostly for the gore which I thought was appallingly cheesy (for an adult).  Yeah, it's the kind of movie to watch at a sleepover with friends when my parents are asleep (not that I'm condoning this of course).  Everett McGill plays the town reverend and helps keep up the film's creepy-face quotient.  Cory Haim never wowed me and Gary Busey always weirds me out, so the cast and acting is nothing to write home about. 

In case it wasn't obvious, the story is about a werewolf terrorizing a small town (I imagine in Maine, because it's Stephen King, though it was not mentioned explicitly).  This is another movie that's only available to stream through this weekend (gone 10/1/12), but unless you share my accursed completionist mentality and are a fan of King and/or werewolves (or if it's late and your friends want to watch a cheesy werewolf movie) you shouldn't skip anything important (or even mediocre) to catch Silver Bullet.

The Deaths Of Ian Stone (2007, R)

Another film that's only available for streaming until 10/1/12 is The Deaths Of Ian Stone.  Labeled as a horror movie, I'd say it's more of an Action/Horror.  I hadn't heard of this movie before but I liked the sound of the premise.  How it works is: Ian Stone gets killed by this supernatural being, a shadow wraith or something.  But he doesn't go to the afterlife, doesn't even get reincarnated (at least not exactly)... he wakes up in a new life the next day.  He has the same face and name, he acts pretty much like him, but he's in a different job in the same city (London, though he's got an American accent), he encounters the same people but in different (though similar) relationships to him.  And then he gets killed by the same (or another very similar) monster again later in the day.  Basically he gets killed every day and wakes up as someone new and not remembering the old life (until someone in the know clues him in, which would have to happen for the plot to go anywhere).  But I love crazy crap like this, and it kind of reminds me of the currently-running Image comic Grim Leaper which I also get a real kick out of (Grim Leaper is about a guy who is extremely death-prone and keeps getting "reincarnated(?)" into a new pre-existing adult body with his own full memory.  He doesn't know why but gets pretty paranoid about death but not at all concerned about health, since he'll get hit by a bus or decapitated by a flying manhole cover in a couple hours anyway.).

I really enjoyed the intrigue of trying to figure out what's going on with Ian Stone and why; and it was a blast once he figured out how to fight back.  His girlfriend from the second life had the most delicious voice I've ever heard and the rest of her wasn't too far behind.  If your preferences and/or organ sets run opposite to mine, the male cast was attractive as well.  The only face I recognized in the cast was Andew Buchan who played the brother to Matt Smith (Doctor Who) in the British TV series Party Animals (about political parties, not frat parties, and quite good as well), and he was a side character.  The visual quality and cg creature effects were good, especially considering what under-the-radar horror flicks often are (I'm thinking of Dark Floors here.  You haven't heard of it, and you're not worse off for that.).  I especially liked that this movie sets up its own mythology for how things work with the shadow creatures, and it's pretty original despite some similarity to a classic monster (I'm not spoiling which one).  As a negative, later in the movie the wardrobe department started channeling The Matrix, a decision that I didn't think was necessary at all for the story and made it look like a cheap imitation.  But other than that I had a blast.  This film won't change your life or anything, but if you like Action/Horrors and want to have a good time, you could do a lot worse than this movie.

Shrink (2009, R)

This one's last day to stream on Netflix is tomorrow (Friday, 9/28/12, sorry for the short notice), but hopefully it comes back soon [update 9/29/12: it's back].  If not, and if you'll like it as much as I did, then it's worth renting anyway.  It stars Kevin Spacey who I love in everything I see him in (21, K-Pax, American Beauty, Se7en, The Usual Suspects, Pay It Forward... ::happy sigh::  Watch all of those movies if you haven't already.  I'll say K-Pax and Se7en are optional, but still quite good IMHO.  It made me sad to see Superman Returns).  He plays a psychologist in southern California who is getting over the tragic loss of his wife.   Well, I shouldn't say "getting over", more like "suffering from".  He's in a bad way as we find out early in the film.  He's drinking a lot, smoking pot all day every day, sleeping on his pool chair or couch or whatever non-bed he finds handy when sleep overcomes him (he does have a bed, and a nice one at that, he just never uses it).  I would actually compare this movie to Everything Must Go with Will Ferrell (Step-Brothers, Anchorman) which is also very good, though you would never expect Ferrell to star in a drama about an alcoholic hitting rock-bottom (excellent film also btw, I highly recommend it).  Both are dramas and sad ones at that, but unlike many other of the most notable dramas (like Animal Factory or Trainspotting) it's never soul-crushingly so I can watch it all the way through and experience the mood of the tale but not feel like I'm suffering for it.  I wouldn't have to brace myself for certain scenes like I would with the alternatives I just mentioned.

I had not heard of the film before encountering it as a suggestion for me on Netflix, so I didn't know what to expect, but one of the first things I noticed as the movie started was that it had solid production quality.  I don't want that to sound snobbish, but a clear picture from good film stock and proper lighting really streamlines the process of getting the cast and crew's story through my eyes and into my head.  Spacey and the rest of the cast did a fine job in their roles.  Mark Webber was also in the movie as an aspiring screenwriter and family friend/client to Spacey.  I couldn't remember where I knew Webber from at the time, but now that I'm at my computer I can find out that he was in Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World  and Good Dick (which is not a porno, I swear); he's never the lead role, but I tend to like his characters.

I don't want to spoil any of the plot (that's one of the main goals of this blog), but the film does revolve around several main characters who have some interactions with each other if only brief and tenuous.  All of the characters are very much characters and have their own problems that need to be dealt with, perhaps aided in part by a psychologist if he can pay attention through the whole therapy session.  Like any good drama should, this one has a couple moments of lightheartedness and humor to break up the sadness and overall I liked it a lot.  It's not a fast-paced movie, more of a mood setting work, but I think the pacing worked well for it.  There were times when I thought a scene was going to go to a bad place (one I think is worse than the already bad place the characters are in) but was relieved that the characters tend to be good-natured despite a tendency to screw up (one guy is a jerk, but he's not harmful and tends to provide some of the light humor scenes to the film).

If you like Kevin Spacey movies, or Mark Webber movies, or dramas that don't kill you to watch, then this is the movie for you.  If you don't want to sit still through a montage of two young people hanging out and learning to enjoy life again and would rather watch something with more action, this is not the movie for you (but my next review very well might be: stay tuned!).  I really liked it; for me I'd probably give it 4, 4.5 stars.

Breakfast At Tiffany's (1961, NR)

Right after Platoon, I watched Breakfast At Tiffany's (like I said, wide and varied movie tastes), and maybe you've heard of this one as well.  Apparently I saw the first minute of the movie before, but was fooled into thinking it was the end.  The credits were rolling and Audrey Hepburn's character was eating a bear claw (or some other kind of breakfast pastry) in front of Tiffany and Co.  Most movies these days wait until well into the movie and often the end before the purposed of the title comes to fruition (unless it's obvious like Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, etc) and the credits... well, yeah.  Plus the scene had the feel of the end of a movie.  It didn't seem to be establishing a setting (like in Midnight In Paris) and it looked like she was relaxing and winding down after whatever course of events the film is about.  Plus she was getting out of a cab in the pre-dawn hours, again with a winding-down feel.  So when I walked through the family room years ago, I had assumed I'd missed the movie and walked away.  See, if I walk into a room and a movie is starting, there's a very strong possibility I'll stick around for the whole thing even if it's not normally to my taste.  Kind of a convenience factor thing.  That's how my sister got me to watch a Gilmore Girls marathon with her one time (though I must admit there was some good witticism in that show).  I tend to keep my brain on whent I watch movies and notice things that are blatantly unrealistic, though I try to keep in mind when suspension of disbelief or just-go-with-it mentality is required.  In this opeining scene she's wearing black full-length gloves when she reaches into her donut bag and I couldn't help but think there's no way someone dressed up like that wouldn't at least take off the gloves first (I didn't get the impression that this was for humor's sake, though much of the movie did have a lighthearted and slightly comedic feel to it).  The movie was listed as a comedy, and I suppose it was in several ways, but I think it's more of just a movie movie: elements of drama, elements of comedy, but neither foot far enough into its respective genre to call it a dramedy nor should your mood for either genre on its own lead you to this film.  This was another movie that I'd added to my queue as "homework" and it felt a little more like it this time.

It turns out the film is bases on a book by Truman Capote (the main character in the biopic Capote, starring Phillip Seymore Hoffman) which I have not read, but the general mood/feel of the conversation scenes doesn't make me doubt it.  The movie had that cool 50's/60's sense of style that made me want to put on a fedora and make a martini while watching the movie (it wouldn't be the first time I've done that...), but for me that was about the only reason to watch the movie other than to understand any pop-culture references to it.  I now know that Holly Golightly is the name of Hepburn's character in the movie and not just a request for a December-born girl to tiptoe.  As soon as Holly finished her donut and left the store window she exhibits several behaviors that reveal her to be a character that is the center of her own universe and seldom considers others.  I imagine her particular actions were intended to make her look fun-loving and idiosyncratic, but it just made me despise the main character (or one of the two anyway; for me the male lead became the main character simply because I could find some empathy for him).  At other times she just went along with things and I found myself thinking "nobody is that stupid...".  Also Mickey Rooney was made-up as the upstairs neighbor Mr. Yunioshi and lampooned a clumsy slapstick Asian man, an act which I found more than a little off-putting.  While Yunioshi had several appearances throughout the film, his most brutal exhibition was in his first (and to a lesser extent second) appearance, so I think if I were to view the film a second time, I would start about 10 minutes in and have a much better time for it.  Maybe then I would not have been rooting against her and feeling vindictively justified when things don't go Holly's way.

The premise of the movie is that single girl Holly Golightly wants to have money.  But she doesn't want to work for it.  She doesn't even want to steal it (too much work, I imagine).  She just wants to marry a rich guy.  To her credit (?) she's not concerned with a man's looks, just his ability to provide for her and stay out of her way when she's on a flight of fancy.  Paul Varjak (played by George Peppard, who I am not otherwise familiar with) is a writer who had one successful book several years ago but has a bit of trouble getting his next one onto paper.  Paul moves into Holly's building and handles her idiosyncrasies well in stride and they get along quite well.  As you might imagine by the fact that this is a movie over 10 years old and that it has both a male and a female lead, romantic tension builds.  I liked Paul's character overall except when he said things that remind us how much this was in a different time ("you belong to me").

Anyway, I think Breakfast At Tiffany's would be a fine movie to have playing in the background at a cocktail party or something because it demonstrates that level of classy cool, and if you've been meaning to watch it, you've got up though this Sunday, 9/30/12  to stream it, or else rent it (though maybe it'll come back to streaming soon after). [Update 10/1/12: it's back.]  Don't get me wrong, most of the film is just fine and I had a decent time watching it, I was just put off by the first few minutes.  I wouldn't go out of my way to watch it a second time, but again I say that if I did I would start a few minutes in and be OK.  I presume this film predates the MPAA rating system, hence the NR (not rated), but I would probably stick it with a PG only because of slightly adult suggestive scenes (though very young children would not know them as such) nor would a young child find any interest in the movie.

Platoon (1986, R)

Ok, I just finished watching Platoon (maybe you've heard of it).  ...I wish there was a way to indicate sarcasm in text.  For the purposes of this blog, I think I'll use red text to indicate sarcasm, facetiousness or any form of verbal irony.  Anyway, if you haven't heard of it don't worry, but it is kind of famous.

The movie is no longer available on Netflix streaming as of 10/1/12 which is next Monday, so if you want to stream it you'll need to do so by whatever time Sunday night they drop movies.  In my experience it tends to be some time in the wee hours I think between 1-2am.  I don't know if time zone is a factor but this is CST.

So the movie.  I really liked it.  I'd added it to my queue under a mental category I call "homework", meaning it's something I think I should see/have seen rather than something I want to be seeing (though there is often overlap between those two types before and after I see the movie in question).  Platoon is a movie about a group of soldiers (some might call it a "platoon") in the Vietnam War.  I had seen part of the film before, around in the middle and based on what I had seen I thought the movie was largely about the (I'll put it delicately) differences of oppinion between two sargents regarding how the war should be fought.  Having now seen the movie from start to finish, I'm glad to see that it was only one of several concepts/threads that was quite well explored in the film.  I thought the narration was cheezy, but that may be due in part to the fact that we've all heard that "war is hell" before and so this didn't come across as original.  Also, the movie was released in 1986, when this might very well have been a new concept to the civilian public, but I was barely old enough to watch Sesame Street back then so I would have missed out on this graphically violent war movie.  I'll get back to my main point and say that the overarching message of the film was the horror of war, especially the Vietnam War in which a lot of the "civility" of combat/engagement was out the window.  The movie did a pretty solid job of getting it across though the story told, the characters were well fleshed out and engaging, tension was solid.  So it didn't even really need the narration at all; I think they could have given a little more credit to the audience in that regard.

There was a great cast full of familiar faces who I'm pretty sure were nowhere near as famous then as they are now.  Forrest Whitaker (from The Last King of Scottland, though I'll always remember him from The Crying Game which I thought was phenomenal as was his rolein it, no small part due to the fact that I'd never heard of it at the time much less anything about it.  I'll say no more), Willem Dafoe (the Green Goblin in Sam Raimi's Spider-Man), Keith David (the Thing, though his most memorable role to me was in Men At Work, which also starred Emilio Estevas and Charlie Sheen, and I love every movie I see him in), Charlie Sheen himself (Two And a Half Men), and John C. McGinley (Dr. Cox from the show Scrubs).  Johnny Depp was also credited as a featured face, but I didn't even notice him in the movie, so either he was a really minor role and fell to the background or he was just so young that I couldnt recognize him.  Must be the lack of makeup/eyeliner.
Yes the movie is graphic, but in places that I thought were fitting for it (unlike Tokyo Gore Police, the title to which is not misleading at all).  Some heavy language, but again it's what I'd expect to hear from partially educated soldiers overseas.  I thought it hit up enough different parts of the infantryman's life in the war to give me a fully-fleshed-out idea of what he was living.  I liked the pace to the movie: not dragging, not breakneck; had propper balance of characters talking (but not wasting the audience's time), situations with tension rachetting up, and firefights.  It does have some really tense spots (not a happy time period) so if you're a nervous/tense person, this might not be the film for you.  It runs around two hours, but dont watch the clock: I think I benefitted from not knowing when to expect an ending, so (like the soldiers) I can't really predict what to expect in the near future.

Is the red text idea stupid?  Am I not giving you guys enough credit?  I just miss being able to rely on tone of voice to convey it.  Anyway, if you have any ideas for it, questions or constructive criticism, please leave a comment.  (This spell-check isn't responding... I hope that means I spelled everything right...)  Ta!

Introduction

Hi, my name is Patrick and I like movies. I like a wide variety of movies and I tend to watch a whole bunch, but… I rarely go to the movies. I love seeing a film from the comfort of my own couch, with a tasty beverage of my choice in my hand and able to pause the film when I need to pee or make a sandwich or something. And there are enough awesome movies out from the last several decades that I don’t feel a gaping hole in my life for not seeing the brand-spankin-new shows on opening week (unless it’s X-Men; I can't help it). As you might imagine, I think instant streaming services are the greatest invention since sliced bread.  I can slice my own damn bread! One of the things I like the most about streaming is that I can add a bunch of movies to my queue when I stumble across it in listings and have a huge catalogue of me-specific awesomeness to sit down in front of. Sometimes I add a movies because I’d been meaning to watch it for a long time; maybe I’d heard it was good (like The Thing [1982]; I loved it), maybe it caught my attention years ago and I never got around to watching it (Cool World was not what I expected, but I did have fun) (sometimes I realize I was just a sucker for a flashy trailer when I was a kid: Lawnmower Man ::shiver::).  Sometimes I run across something I’ve never heard of before but looks pretty cool…

And now we come to the reason for this blog. Some people actually value their time and only want to watch good movies. Ppffsht! I personally like watching the variety: the bad ones make the good ones all the more rewarding, and I value the personal experience of having found with the under-the-radar films. But I know I’m weird for this. Anyway, I’d like to share with you my thoughts regarding some of the films I watch. These are not recent films (with rare exception) hence the name Past-Due Reviews (despite the fact that I’m pretty sure professional critics did in fact review them when they were new).  My goal is to give candid opinions about whether it’s worth your time to watch, and who would get the most out of it. I tend to get the most enjoyment out of good story and character development rather than big explosions and flashy colors. I often like when a movie pushes the envelope in a certain way or does a really good job of getting a certain feeling across to the audience.  Basically I'm a story junkie: my favorite music is the blues, my favorite books are fiction, my favorite tv shows likewise are fiction.  You wont see a lot of reviews for reality TV though on some occasions I will end up watching a documentary and like it.

The service I use is Netflix, though there are other services out there that also provide streaming. When a movie is within a week of leaving the streaming option (sometimes for good, sometimes temporarily), they list the date that the movie will be departing. I scan my queue (which tends to be full near the maximum of 500 movies/TV series; like I said, a lot and much varied!) almost daily to make sure I prioritize the movies that are leaving soon, and I’ll try to post about those ASAP after I watch them to let you folks know what I thought and when it will be gone. In case it doesn’t come back, you might want to hurry. For example, I currently have ~15 movies that will no longer be available as of 10/1/12, so I’ve got a lot to try to watch this week (in addition to my full-time job). I assume that when I added them, I did so for a reason, and sometimes my present-self thanks my past-self for the wonderful gift.  I hope this site helps you find some good stuff.  Happy viewing!