You-Review-It Monday, 1/28/08

January 28, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

So what did you do this weekend? Catch “Doubt” at the IRT? Visit the new gallery show at Herron? Take sides in the “Beethoven vs. Mozart” concert with the Indianapolis Chamber Orchestra?

Being under the weather, I was limited to the A&E offerings available on my television and laptop.
That being the case, I caught up on an eclectic collection of films available through our amazing public library system. (Seriously, who needs Netflix when you can walk into any branch, borrow a stack of new DVDs, all for—assuming you drop them off three days later—free?)
When you’re a bit woozy, of course, your judgment can be clouded. So take the following with a grain of Sudafed.

My sickbed fest:

“Ocean’s 13." It isn’t saying much to state that this one is better than “12” and the Sinatra “11’” but lesser than remake “11.” It rediscovered the clear, forward motion of the plot and the Vegas atmosphere that were lost in “12.” And Al Pacino hits just the right notes as the villain. What’s missing, though, is the vague hint of plausibility. Caper thrillers work when you buy the interior logic of the scheme. This plan relies too much on coincidence and just plain impossibility to totally buy into. (Bernie Mac introducing a new game to a casino floor on a day’s notice without the Casino Control Commission paying any attention? Ummm, no.) 

“Superbad.” I have a theory. There are certain films that are praised higher than they deserve because they hit critics where they live. That was the case, I think, with “Almost Famous” (retroactively satisfying every male critic-geek’s dream of hanging with—and being accepted by—a rock star) and it’s true with “Superbad” (satisfying every male critic-geek’s dream to rewrite their high school years in such a way that the hot girls not only liked them, but wanted them). Still, “Superbad” isn’t bad. It’s got laughs and decent performances. But it succeeds because audiences can rationalize the raunchiness. At it’s core, the leads are nice guys who ultimately do the right thing. It's an improvement over the similar-minded “American Pie,” but it’s still no “American Graffiti.”

“For Your Consideration.” The first of the Christopher Guest improv-based films not to be presented as a mockumentary, this one justifiably tanked. Like the lesser “Ocean” movies, the main problem here is an unbuyable premise. Playing the awful film-with-a-film, “Home for Purim,” as if it’s directed by “Waiting for Guffman”’s Corky St. Clair undermines the notion that it might actually garner Academy Award buzz. And if you don’t believe the premise, the rest seems like acting exercises.

“The Fountain.” This is a tricky one. A very serious-minded Hugh Jackman costume-epic oddity about life and death taking place (maybe) in the past, present and future, “The Fountain” disappeared without a trace after a brief run in theaters last year. And I understand that disappearance completely. Romances are supposed to end happily—or, at least, with cathartic tears. Science fiction films are supposed to have battle scenes. Trees aren’t supposed to float in bubbles. And, by the end of a film, you should know for certain what a writer/director was trying to do—even if he, she or they didn’t succeed in doing it. So while I hesitate to recommend the film—the odds are overwhelming that you’ll hate it (not just dislike it, but hate it)—I have to say that it held my attention in a way that few Hollywood films have. It took me a while to piece together what (I think) actually happens in “The Fountain,” but whether I’m right or not, I found it more creative, interesting, and human that most critically heralded films. And I’ll probably watch it again just to see if my theories about it actually make sense.

So much for my A&E weekend. Tell us about yours. Or chime it with your comments on any of these films.
  • I mentioned The Fountain in here last week, I think, so I found it quite a surprise to see someone else took the time to track it down. My taste in film pretty much sticks to narratives that make sense, so when I saw this film and was in awe, I couldn't believe what a visceral effect it had on me. I recommended it to a friend/ex-boyfriend/pen pal whom I thought would find the ponderables intriguing and he did indeed love it as much as I; his wife, on the other hand, who is very much terra-footed, said This movie blows. My husband agreed with her.
  • Well, I spent most of my weekend reading the website and using the word theme in ways that were completely new to me.

    But I also made time to see Doubt at the IRT, Say You Love Satan at Theatre on the Square, and a new storytelling piece by Stephanie Holman at the Indiana History Center. I appreciated all of them, for different reasons (obviously.)

    Oh! And I watched Rocky V for the first time, again thanks to the public library. I have been working my way through the Rocky canon.

    I have not seen Superbad but a friend who has seen it tells me that the 2007 book I LOVE YOU, BETH COOPER, by Larry Doyle, reminds him of that movie. I laughed out loud again and again as I read Doyle's novel. It is definitely raunchy, but also somehow sweet, and even though the plot was predictable, I was delighted by the surprises in the language.

    I started to read the Steve Almond book that you recommended to everyone in your last post. Thanks again for turning me (us) on to Almond! In the Vonnegut essay, Almond dissed my girl, Jennifer Weiner, but he also touched my heart (if that doesn't sound too mushy.) I was intrigued, too, by Almond's brief reference to the one girl's projection of her creative desires onto Vonnegut. I knew exactly what he was talking about: I used to crush on creative men instead of taking the chance on being creative myself.

    Well, okay, sometimes I still do that, but I'm getting stronger. (hee hee)

    'Hope you're feeling better, Lou.
  • I had a preview pass to see The Fountain when it was released. I found it a beautifully filmed, and moving story. It really makes you think deeply about things, and for people who only view movies as entertainment, then no, they wouldn't like it. I enjoyed being made to think about the deeper mysteries of life and I liked the message the movie gave about immortality.

    I'm still trapped in my house with a kitchen remodel so the only A&E I'm getting is also from my tv. I watched The Song of the Thin Man. Not as good as some of the other Thin Man movies, but still entertaining. I think they don't drink quite as much in that one...

    I've also been enjoying Masterpiece Theaters Jane Austen series. I've watched them all thus far. Of the three they've shown, I liked Northanger Abbey the best. The other two adaptations were okay, but I like their big screen counterparts much better. Watching Northanger inspired me to re-read the novel. I hadn't read it in many years and found it to be more enjoyable then I previously believed.

    And that's it for me - I hope to get back out into society soon and see some new movies/plays!

Post a comment to this blog

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
  1. John, unfortunately CTRWD wants to put the tank(s) right next to a nature preserve and at the southern entrance to Carmel off of Keystone. Not exactly the kind of message you want to send to residents and visitors (come see our tanks as you enter our city and we build stuff in nature preserves...

  2. 85 feet for an ambitious project? I could shoot ej*culate farther than that.

  3. I tried, can't take it anymore. Untill Katz is replaced I can't listen anymore.

  4. Perhaps, but they've had a very active program to reduce rainwater/sump pump inflows for a number of years. But you are correct that controlling these peak flows will require spending more money - surge tanks, lines or removing storm water inflow at the source.

  5. All sewage goes to the Carmel treatment plant on the White River at 96th St. Rainfall should not affect sewage flows, but somehow it does - and the increased rate is more than the plant can handle a few times each year. One big source is typically homeowners who have their sump pumps connect into the sanitary sewer line rather than to the storm sewer line or yard. So we (Carmel and Clay Twp) need someway to hold the excess flow for a few days until the plant can process this material. Carmel wants the surge tank located at the treatment plant but than means an expensive underground line has to be installed through residential areas while CTRWD wants the surge tank located further 'upstream' from the treatment plant which costs less. Either solution works from an environmental control perspective. The less expensive solution means some people would likely have an unsightly tank near them. Carmel wants the more expensive solution - surprise!