The Thomas Crown Affair — Holy crap, I love Faye Dunaway. She sported a great wardrobe for sure. And she looked amazing.

I loved the gamesmanship between Thomas Crown and Vicki. I liked how they were kind of set-up as intellectual equals. There was sexual tension, to be sure, but there was also just a battle of intellect going on. I never quite figured out whether or not the two characters were really falling for each other or whether they were just using that sexual tension to their advantage so that they could win. Was Vicki really coming on to Crown during the chess game, or just trying to throw his game off so she could win, or both? Also, when she cries at the end, it was unclear to me whether she was crying because she lost this person she was falling in love with or if she was crying because she lost the “game.” That ambiguity was quite appealing to me. My favorite of our McQueen marathon so far.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes & Another Earth — Saw these together a few weekends ago. I expected to enjoy Rise of… and love Another Earth. I ended up quite impressed with the former and just liking the latter. I still have a crush on Brit Marling, but it was the other movie that won me over.

The Sand Pebbles — The second in our Steve McQueen marathon. I liked, but didn’t love, this one. I thought McQueen was great. And it looked beautiful. The river and dock/shore shots were beautifully captured. And they did an excellent job with the stuff on the ship. The interior of the ship felt real, unlike in some movies where the inside of a ship just looks like a fabricated set. And a war film released in 1966 is certainly saying something (intentionally or not) about Vietnam, and America’s overall foreign policy, but I haven’t yet developed any conclusive opinions on what this film is saying.

Cracks — Directed by Ridley Scott’s daughter, this one was another take on the all-female boarding school. There are mean teachers and jealous girls and inspirational teachers. Nothing ground-shattering.

I Saw the Devil — An interesting revenge film from South Korea. Very misanthropic. Kind of weird and sick and beautiful in that S. Korean sort of way.

Badlands — Terrence Malick’s first feature film. I think I still like the esoteric later stuff better. But you can certainly see where Malick was finding beauty in a film like this, which is certainly more narratively straightforward than later works. Sissy Spacek and Martin Sheen are wonderful. And upon looking back, the violence that takes place, while misguided, certainly starts from an accepted place.

Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench — A small indie musical delivered in black and white 16mm. Very entertaining. A good find.

Soldier in the Rain — The first in our new Steve McQueen marathon. For me, this film was all about the love that comes out of a good friendship. It doesn’t have to be romantic or sexual to still be love. There’s a man’s love for his dog. There’s the unlikely friendship between soldiers of different ranks and backgrounds. And there’s the unlikely friendship between a teenager and an older man. I think one could argue, if they wanted to, that Eustis and Metzler had their own kind of friendship. The kind which is best, in the case of the military, not asked or told.

I liked how the film steadily progressed from something silly (that first scene was silly and a bit off-putting) to something with some emotional depth. The friendships all seemed unlikely at the start. But by the end, the emotional stuff coming from Slaughter’s death seemed completely earned. Sure its still a trifle of a film. But a nice early Bromance to be sure. A good start, I thought.

The Adjustment Bureau — Based on a story by Philip K. Dick, this was a fun scifi-ish diversion. Matt Damon and Emily Blunt are wonderful as the leads. The chase scene at the end was a lot of fun. But the denouement was a bit too preachy and over-explained. A little more mystery would have been preferred.

I was glad to see Twin Peaks show up on Netflix. I had some vague memories of it from the original run and from the pop-culture ether. It’s just about everything one would expect from an early 90′s Lynchian soap opera cum crime drama. It’s abstract. It’s weird. But never pointless. I think the series would’ve been better if Lynch had been able to let things play out more leisurely on his own schedule. Instead, we confront both Laura Palmer’s killer and the second season’s evil antagonist too early. That being said, I cannot imagine a show like this making it onto television today.

Next it was onto the first and second seasons of Friday Night Lights. A teenage soap opera, the excitement of football, and a realistic depiction of a marriage all captured with a wonderful cast. Who could ask for anything more? As with another teenage high school drama–My So-Called Life–I find myself mired in some confusion about whether or not I relate with the kids or the parents. The obvious answer is that relate to both. But I somewhat disturbingly find myself strongly relating to the teens as well. It’s a little nostalgic, a little longing, but mostly the result of good storytelling. I love this series.

Then in a single weekend I knocked out all of Party Down. This was a two-season comedy series that premiered on Starz. It had some of the people from Veronica Mars and Freaks and Geeks. There’s a very strong cast led by Adam Scott. The series reminded me of Arrested Development. A not quite as funny but still pretty good series.

Now that Star Trek is on Instant Viewing, I’ve got plenty to keep me busy.

Hobo With a Shotgun — Like Machete, this movie came about after its Grindhouse mock trailer. This one wasn’t in the Grindhouse duo of films, but was a winner of Robert Rodriguez’s contest for such trailers. It was okay. It works in that grindhouse-y place. It’s very blood splattered. But I preferred Machete quite a bit to this one.

Source Code — Duncan Jones’ follow-up to the wonderful Moon. This is another sci-fi film that plays with reality and our sense of self. Jake Gyllenhaal plays a man (Colter Stevens/Sean Fentress) who must relive eight minutes of a train bombing in order to ostensibly save the city of Chicago from more destruction. Gyllenhaal is really strong here. And Jones impresses once again.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller — This one seems to take the revisionism a tad bit farther. In the previous films, we see a revisionism in place whereby the hero isn’t always the cowboy or the US soldier and the enemy isn’t always the Indian or outlaw. Here we are introduced to a character who is certainly a gambler but may also be a gunfighter. But it doesn’t take long to figure out that he doesn’t walk the walk. And he barely talks the talk.

The women, although almost all still whores, fare a little better here. At least they seem to be somewhat in control of their destiny. They seem at least as entrepreneurial as the men.

McCabe wears out his welcome. He is quite the annoyance. But he’s not a bad guy. He’s just not cut out for the west.

This one really made me want to revisit Deadwood. The building of the town reminded me of the first season of that show (from tents to finished buildings). Then you’ve got the bar with the gambling and a brothel. And the Chinese opium den.

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger — A decent, but far from great entry from Woody Allen. At this point, Allen’s films are like pizza and sex. Even when they aren’t great, they’re still pretty good. There were some good ideas and good characters here, but they didn’t quite go as far as they could’ve. In many ways, this one almost seemed like it would’ve played better as a stageplay.

Swingers — A classic. And one that, sometimes unknowingly, gets referenced in our household on at least a weekly basis. Now that’s money.

Mega Python vs. Gatoroid — Debbie Gibson and Tiffany. And a barely there Micky Dolenz. Wow. Just, wow. At least it was more entertaining than last week’s Countdown: Armageddon. But that’s about all I can say for it.

Bad Teacher — A decent summer comedy. But again it felt like it could’ve been better. It was definitely better than most mind-numbing summer comedies tend to be. And I really like Cameron Diaz and Jason Segal. And I’m really starting to like Lucy Bunch (who was also in You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, wonderfully). This just needed a few more writing passes. It was a few drafts away from being either brilliantly funny or at least a really good movie.

Super 8 — Now THIS is a summer blockbuster. For the most part, it was a great blockbuster in the mode of Spielberg’s earlier stuff. Adventurous kids and aliens. It’s wonderful. Elle Fanning is stunningly good. All the kids are good, but she is a real standout. Like Best Supporting Actress good. It doesn’t quite reach Spielbergian heights, but it’s strong in its own right. And the kids’ film, which plays during the closing credits, encapsulates everything there is to love about movies and about the desire to make them yourself.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind — Well, after Super 8 we had to go back to the man himself, Spielberg. I had seen fragments of this film throughout my years. And of course the mashed potato sculpture and tonal light show are firmly fixed in the pop culture ether. But for the most part, I went into this one not remembering much of the movie as a whole. And was I stunned. I loved it. It’s quickly been catapulted into my shortlist of best movies of all time. I can’t believe it’s 34 years old. It’s nearly as old as me.

Oddly, my favorite part is how Roy Neary’s family reacts to him as he becomes more obsessed. His wife, played by Terri Garr, seems to become more distant. I couldn’t tell if it was bad acting or brilliant acting, either way it works. And the kids just start crying and acting out in response to losing their dad. That response is juxtaposed with Roy’s immediate connection, nearly passionate, with a fellow UFO-sighter played terrifically by Melinda Dillon.

Howl — An entertaining and interpretitive look at the poet Allen Ginsberg through his autobiographical poem of the same title. The film also looks at the obsenity trial that surrounded the publishing of that poem. Not groundbreaking by any means. But I still gained a great deal of reverence for Ginsberg and finished the film wanting to read and/or write some poetry.

The Freebie — A decent low-budget talker (mumblecore?) from Katie Aselton. Aselton, former Miss Teen Maine and wife of Mark Duplass, stars along with Dax Shepard in this film about a couple who must deal with the outfall of a misguided attempt to inject romance back into their marriage by allowing each other a one-night stand. I think both actors play the relationship quite realistically. This could have veered off into uncomfortable comedy territory in Hollywood hands, but Aselton handles the tone, pacing, and reality of the situation quite well.

Brothers — A remake of Susanne Bier’s Danish film about two brothers dealing with the trauma of their lives. As Tommy is released from prison, Sam is sent back to Afghanistan where he is eventually captured and presumed dead. Tommy comforts Sam’s grieving wife and children. The real crisis, however, doesn’t hit until it is discovered that Sam was only MIA and finally returns home, scarred from war. The cast here is quite strong. Natalie Portman is good. I think Sam Shepard plays things a bit too predictably. But both Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal are very good as the two brothers.

Creation — A welcomed film about a brief portion of the great scientist’s life. The film chronicles Charles Darwin as he puts the finishing touches on his On The Origin of Species. But the movie isn’t so much about the book, or what evolution means, as it is about how the loss of his daugter Annie put him in and brought him out of a personal funk.

Cedar Rapids — A decent comedy starring Ed Helms. A country bumpkin goes to the big city (Cedar Rapids). The normal fish out of water with the usual sophmoric humor.

Citizen Ruth — Alexander Payne’s first film about the crazies on both side of the abortion debate. Made in 1996, the film is just as relevant as if it were made yesterday. Those same crazies are still lingering around.

Cars — One of the Pixar films I hadn’t yet seen. I kind of expected this one to be a very weak entry in the Pixar catalogue. I expected it to be simplistic and childish, like most other animated movies aimed at children. But this follows strongly with the Pixar tradition of creating wonderful visuals that are backed up by a strong story. I quite enjoyed myself. Now I see why my little nephew loves this movie so much.

The Wild Bunch — This was my first time watching this film. I have to admit that there was some difficulty, near the beginning, trying to discern who was who. Pike looked too much like Deke for me to be able to easily distinguish between the two and their respective groups. I basically ended up using Ernest Borgnine to tell the groups apart.

That difficulty in distinguishing the different groups didn’t really bother me. I quickly established a vague idea of who was who and that got me through well enough. Some of it seems very much intentional. Even if you can physically distinguish the different groups, there is certainly moral indistinguishability. It’s hard to point to any hero. I suppose Pike is the protagonist…but it really feels like a film with no real protagonist and a bunch of antagonists. And then the ending just adds to the confusion. You can’t trust anyone.

Pretty much everybody is after their own self-interest and willing to use violence to achieve it. Same with the sexism. Women are treated only as whores here. The film portrays these morally bankrupt people without glorifying anyone for it (or at least not overly glorifying).

Pretty much everybody is bad, save for the innocent townspeople at the beginning and the townspeople in Angel’s village. And the kids…who seem to just be picking up on the violence so they can continue the cycle in their own, more modern ways.

Of course there’s the Vietnam War stuff. The moral ambiguity of it and the pure violence of it. You can see how some of that stuff was touched on.

And then there’s the unavoidablity of looking at it through the lens of today. All the slow-mo stuff and “gore” didn’t really jump out at me. You see it so often today (in a way that’s often over used). But in retrospect both would’ve had more impact at the time.

So far I have to say I come down on the side of the smaller, more intimate westerns. I appreciate the big epic-sized ones for their grandeur, but so far I prefer those with more emphasis on character. That binary distinction is oversimplification to be sure, given I’ve only seen 4 so far in our Westerns marathon.

Another Year — Another wonderful character drama from Mike Leigh. It revolves around an older couple’s seemingly happy existence and its depressive interlopers. Jim Broadbent and Ruth Sheen are wonderful as the happy couple, Tom and Gerri. And Lesley Manville is quite good as the awful Mary. She is at times over-the-top annoying but plays Mary as realistically desperate. One can certainly feel Tom and Gerri’s conflict, empathizing with Mary and wishing for the best for her but also wanting to go on with their own lives without Mary always looming over them.

Countdown: Armageddon — A horrible, horrible movie. I was hoping for bad. But of the SyFy Original variety. Not of the Left Behind variety. This movie was originally titled Countdown: Jerusalem. It was something about the Rapture. And destroying Israel to bring the End of Days to the fore. And finding Jesus before it’s too late. Or something. I quickly lost interest.

So I’m involved in a “film club” of sorts with a few friends, in part styled after the Filmspotting marathons. We take turns choosing a theme (could be a particular genre, director, actor, or simply “Movies I Loved As A Kid”), and then everyone chooses films within that theme – hopefully with an eye towards presenting a fairly comprehensive overview (well, maybe not so much with “Movies I Loved As A Kid.”). After each film, we discuss.

Our current theme is Westerns – one that I approached with nearly virgin eyes, having never really seen a Western aside from the Coen brothers’  True Grit remake. The genre has never been terribly appealing to me. But one of the things I like about our film club is that it forces one to try new things. And there have been a few surprises. For instance, I found that I really, really like The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

However, the last two films (The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and The Wild Bunch) have been a validation of my avoidance of this genre. Although I recognize and appreciate the stylistic flourishes and breakthroughs in filmmaking Leone and Peckinpah gave to the world, both films ultimately left me feeling bored and alienated. I’ve been trying to figure out why, since both are widely regarded as classics and are beloved by many.

The Wild Bunch, the most recent film in our marathon, made me feel like I was watching a foreign-language movie, without the benefit of subtitles. I could make out bits and pieces of what was going on, but any nuance or clarity that would be obvious to a native speaker, was lost on me. While I recognize the themes (adherence to a code of honor, betrayal, trying to adapt to a changing world) I guess I’m just not fluent in the language of this genre. Also, I realize how strange and kind of stupid it sounds, but there’s just something about these faces I’m not terribly familiar with, these actors of an earlier era, all with similar clothes, hats and facial hair, that make it really hard for me to tell them apart.

For another thing, despite the fact that there was probably a higher quantity of violence and action than in any of the previous films we’ve seen, it all became rather monotonous after awhile, and I was actually weirdly bored. (Oh, look – another shootout! Oh, look – more male bonding with booze and whores!)

Which brings me to my next point – the overwhelming absence of women in these films. I don’t want to reduce my disconnect from the Western genre to something as arbitrary as onscreen gender representation, but I do have a little bit harder time with a movie in which women are onscreen for approximately 10-20 minutes in a 2 1/2 –hour movie, and those roles are limited to old biddies marching for temperance, or whores to fuck and/or shoot. (And rarely did any of these women even get to speak.)

The reason I hesitate to wander too far off into this territory is that it’s not long before you then start dividing films into “men’s movies” and “women’s movies” and arguing that only men are interested in war and violence, and only women are interested in relationships. It also implies that women need women on screen in order to become invested in the story (and conversely, that men will only see movies about men). That’s completely bullshit, in 100 different ways. Personally, I adore a little of the ol’ ultraviolence, and there are plenty of movies with all (or mostly) male casts I enjoy. And I know several men who laughed their asses off during Bridesmaids. A compelling film is a compelling film, regardless of whether the protagonist has XX or XY chromosomes.

Since the True Grit remake was the only Western I’d seen prior to this round of Film Club (and I’d enjoyed it immensely), I next wondered if perhaps the age of the film might have something to do with it. Maybe contemporary films are still somehow easier to grab on to, even if they’re in a genre you’re not as familiar with, and even if they’re set in an earlier period. At least you’re more likely to recognize the actors’ faces. But by that logic, how could I explain my love for Hitchcock?

Even after some soul-searching, I’m at a loss to explain my lack of love with Westerns. I probably should seek out more films in this genre, since the five we watched, while perhaps a good introduction, could hardly be representative. Maybe someday I’ll get around to checking out a few more.

Zombieland and Celtic Pride — The result of a really lazy Saturday afternoon. I had little desire to do anything besides lay on the couch watching TV. It just so happened that Zombieland was just starting on the Encore HD channel. I’d liked it the first time I saw it, so why not catch it again? Then after that one, I was extremely lazy so I just didn’t even bother to change the channel. Celtic Pride came on next. Very middle of the road. Not particularly original or funny. Interestingly, however, the script was written by Judd Apatow.

Somewhere – Sofia Coppola’s latest. I really liked it. Sofia’s movies seem to be quite divisive. A lot of people dislike them because they seem to deal with the problems of the privileged. I think they work because a viewer can empathize with out sympathizing. Also this one takes it’s time. Nothing really happens. But it’s those slow, less dramatic moments that really give this film meaning. Plus, Elle Fanning is wonderful here. Can’t wait to see some of the other stuff she is starting to show up in.

Iron Man 2 — When the need for lighter fare hits, why not look to what’s streaming on Netflix. Not much different from the first one. It does some things better, some worse. But whereas the first one, along with The Dark Knight, seemed to make the comic book movie seem a little fresher and more interesting to the non-geek audience, this one seems less interesting simply perhaps because it is a sequel. We’ve already seen the grittier, more based-in-reality origin story (of The Dark Knight and the first Iron Man) so that it has lost some of its novelty.

The Tree of Life — Sarah’s already posted her thoughts on this one. I have to say that I liked this one more than she. I still haven’t really unpacked it all. That would require multiple viewings. But I already think it’s a masterpiece. It’s not one family’s story so much as it’s one man’s fragmented and nostalgic look back at a particular point in his childhood. As an autobiography, I think this is filmmaking at its very best. Of course one man’s story is not going to resonate equally with all people. But I was certainly happy to be along for the ride. It was quite surprising to see a packed theater for a Sunday afternoon show. I guess not too surprising was the fact that there were at least a half-dozen walkouts (from about 15 minutes after the start of the film to about 5 minutes from the end of the film).

Thelma & Louise — Another one available on Netflix Instant Viewing. There’s plenty of that early 90′s-ness to it that makes it feel a bit dated. But it’s dark and original enough to still hold up. And regardless of the gender politics of it, it’s just kind of nice to see a movie with two strong (in their own way) female leads.

For me, the challenge in developing a semi-thoughtful opinion about Terrence Malick’s latest work, The Tree of Life, is this: how do you fairly evaluate a film that is so clearly sensory and subjective? How do you render a judgment on a film that is so intertwined with an individual’s experience and perception of the world if you yourself cannot entirely relate to that experience, and are even, in some ways, put off a bit by it?

There is so much that I love about The Tree of Life. This film is not prose, but poetry. I’d have been content to spend much longer than the film’s 2 ½-hour running time simply letting Malick and cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki’s images wash over me. These are truly stunning images, whether they’re of the creation of the universe, or of a long summer afternoon in the backyard. I can smell the cut grass of those long summer afternoons. I can feel the sun on my shoulders, and the soothing coolness of the river as I dip in a toe. I can share the bewildering, frightening confusion as you overhear bits and pieces of your parents’ argument, as you begin to realize the significance of very grown-up things like death and sex. On a sensory level, I can love a lot of The Tree of Life.

It’s when I start thinking about it, however, that I hit a wall. Maybe you’re not supposed to think about a movie like this – maybe you’re supposed to feel it –but senses have their limits, especially when you have a different perception of the world than the protagonist. Despite originating from the same primordial ooze as Jack, my experience and perception of the world is very different. Instead of a man who grew up in 1950s Texas, I’m a feminist, non-religious woman  who came of age in the very different world of the late 80s and early 90s.

From the very beginning, I disagreed with Jack’s heteronormative, simplified, almost hackneyed binary concept of humanity – tumultuous, unyielding, forceful Nature (as embodied by Jack’s father) vs. kind, gentle, beautiful Grace (as embodied by his mother). I find it impossible to separate this idea from its gender implications. Men and women as opposite sides of the coin. Contrasting,but complementary. The Masculine and the Feminine. The Yin and the Yang. While there is, admittedly, a certain poetry to this line of thought, I simply don’t see human nature (or gender) as so fixed, so black and white. I think all of us have those stereotypical “masculine” and “feminine” traits, to varying degrees.

However, I recognize that our memories are often exaggerated or embellished representations of what may have actually happened. An interesting point was made to me that we sometimes have a tendency to remember our past (especially our childhood) in extremes. We remember the very best and the very worst. There is often little room for nuance in the narrative of our personal history.

But again, while I recognize this is Jack’s story, my own differing perceptions keep me at arm’s length. I’m nagged by questions like, why is Mr. O’Brien allowed more complexity than Mrs. O’Brien? While we see his roughness and strictness, we also see a tender side emerge from time to time. We find out that he has unfulfilled dreams of becoming a musician, and indeed, has considerable musical talent. We see him at work in the world, away from hearth and home. Mrs. O’Brien is not allowed this degree of depth.

To be fair, this was pre-The Feminine Mystique, 1950s America. Generally speaking, a woman wasn’t allowed to harbor many dreams outside of becoming a wife and mother. She wouldn’t have corresponding scenes away from the home, without the children, because this was the limited world she lived in. She would exist pretty much only in relation to her husband and her children.

But even despite the acceptance of this fact, we still never see much nuance in Mrs. O”Brien’s personality. We really know nothing about this woman except that she is the embodiment of “grace” (which apparently involves such stereotypically feminine traits as warmth, nurturing, playfulness, and the ability to walk at all times like a dancer). Unlike Mr. O’Brien, who exists at times on his own, Mrs. O’Brien exists solely in relation to Jack. She is never anything but a good mother. She is saintly almost to the point of martyrdom. If this is how Jack remembers his mother, then I have to say that I feel sorry for his wife, who surely must find herself struggling against an impossible standard.

Read through the lens of this being one man’s remembrance of his childhood, and that childhood taking place in a culturally different time, it’s hard to criticize any of these things. I can’t say the movie is sexist, although mainstream Americain the 1950s certainly was. And to some extent, I can’t say its view of human nature is too simplistic, because it’s simply portraying one man’s interpretation. However, these are the very things that keep me feeling distanced from it. So perhaps the answer to my question of “how do you evaluate a film like this?” is that as a compelling, utterly believable portrayal of one man’s coming to terms with his childhood, his family and his place in the universe, it succeeds beautifully. But since this man’s experience and point of view is so different from my own, it lacks a lot of the emotional resonance for me that it seems to have had for others.