Category Archives: Romance

Day 09 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

Favorite Movie Soundtrack

Growing up, I remember getting to go to work with my dad from time to time. My dad has worked for several different companies, from pest control to shoe repair, but I will never forget the day that he took me to work with him at the radio station. He sold airtime to businesses that wanted to advertise on the station. I got to sit in the booth with the Djs, I even recorded a little radio spot when I was probably no older than 4 or 5 for the station that used to be GC-101.

My dad and I always connected with music. We agreed that the oldies were goodies, and I developed a love of music that sometimes surprises people. I can’t stand most modern music but the anthems and ballads of the 1960s struck a chord with me. Because of that, my choice for favorite movie soundtrack popped immediately into my head. Just look at this list of songs from Forrest Gump. Entertainment Weekly published a list of the top 100 soundtracks of all time, and this was a gigantic glaring omission from that list. I will be silent and let the music speak for itself.

  • “Hound Dog” by Elvis Presley
  • “Blowin’ in the Wind” – Joan Baez
  • “Fortunate Son” – Creedence Clearwater Revival
  • “I Can’t Help Myself (Sugar Pie Honey Bunch)” – The Four Tops
  • “Respect” – Aretha Franklin
  • “Rainy Day Women” – Bob Dylan
  • “Sloop John B”- Beach Boys
  • “California Dreamin'” – The Mamas & the Papas
  • “For What It’s Worth” – Buffalo Springfield
  • “What the World Needs Now Is Love” – Jackie DeShannon
  • “Break on Through (To the Other Side)” – The Doors
  • “Mrs. Robinson” – Simon & Garfunkel
  • “Turn! Turn! Turn!” – The Byrds
  • “Joy to the World” – Three Dog Night
  • “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on My Head” – B. J. Thomas
  • “Sweet Home Alabama” – Lynyrd Skynyrd
  • “On the Road Again” – Willie Nelson
  • “Hanky Panky” – Tommy James and The Shondells
  • “All Along the Watchtower” – The Jimi Hendrix Experience
  • “Hello, I Love You” – The Doors
  • “People Are Strange” – The Doors
  • “Love Her Madly” – The Doors
  • “Hey Joe” – The Jimi Hendrix Experience
  • “Where Have All the Flowers Gone?” – Pete Seeger
  • “Let’s Work Together” – Canned Heat
  • “Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Ole Oak Tree” – Tony Orlando & Dawn
  • “Get Down Tonight” – KC & The Sunshine Band
  • “Free Bird” – Lynyrd Skynyrd
  • “Go Your Own Way” – Fleetwood Mac

How about your pick for best soundtrack? Is there one that you find particularly moving or have a personal connection to in some way? Let me know in the comments below or on Twitter or Facebook.

Day 08 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

A Movie You’ve Seen Countless Times

This one was a fairly easy choice. I don’t tend to re-watch many movies, only those that I really enjoy. But I remember seeing Braveheart in theaters three times when I was only 12. That means that begged my parents or friends parents to take me because I was too young to go by myself. This was the first DVD I ever bought. I watched it so many times in High School that I now have the movie memorized. I’m not sure of my heritage, I’ve never done the ancestral digging to find out where my origins truly lie, but because of this movie, I tell people I’m Scottish. And I am proud to be a Scotsman.

I completely understand that this movie is not an accurate depiction of the real story of Scotland’s fight for independence. Wallace was a towering figure, charismatic and powerful. But this is a movie, not a history book. I would wager that if this movie wasn’t made, with all its embellishments, then most of the Western world would have never known the name, William Wallace. I’m not exactly sure what made it my go to film as a young man (my favorite until just a few years ago). It probably had something to do with the gory violence, and the comedic writing probably helped as well. But what really got me, I think, was the fact that I was able to lose myself in the film and become William, joining him on his journey.

We first meet him as a boy, no older than 10. And we see the heart-crushing loss that he suffers and delight in the beauty of a love so pure as a child comforting another child. We see that love grow and mature as William returns to rebuild his home and family years later. Then there is the wedding that I dreamed of having when I was a teenager; hidden in the woods, completely private, joined as one, and consummated in the moonlight. It is absolutely beautiful and so it is completely gut-wrenching when we see her abused and murdered. From this point on we are on the side of the liquid blue eyed vigilante, even though he is a savage and a brutal killing machine, he is our protagonist. I bet if the queen of England watched this film, she would cheer for William. Why? Because he fights for freedom and for justice. These are two desires for which all people’s hearts beat.

Looking back, it has been a while since I sat down and critically watched this film. It does suffer a bit from it’s length as it tends to drag a bit in the 2nd and 4th acts. That would be the background story of Robert the Bruce (little known fact: the title Braveheart was historically attributed to him, not Wallace.), and the love affair with the princess, which is total historical rubbish (she would have been in France at the time and only about 13 years old) and completely unnecessary, and contrary, to the heart of the film. That being said, this is still a film which I plan on showing to my sons and daughter when they are on the brink of the teenage wasteland. I hope that it can teach them what it taught me. That a life that is lived without purpose is not lived at all.

What about you? What movie have you watched until the disc wore out? What special connection does that film hold for you? Please leave your choices in the comments below, or let me know on Twitter or Facebook. Also, if you pluck up the courage to blog through your 30 Day Movie Challenge, leave me a link. I’d love to follow along with you.

Day 05 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

Favorite Love Story In A Movie

I can’t say that I’m an expert on romantic novels or films. I’ve seen my fair share, but I am not as fond of this genre as some others may be. That being said, I believe that When Harry Met Sally is, the wittiest and most funny romantic comedy out there in film land. The movie came out in 1989, but for some reason, I think this is one that will stand the test of time and entertain audiences for decades to come.

Like all good romantic comedies, this film thrives on its witty dialogue and cleverness and isn’t overly sentimental. In other words, there is that perfect equilibrium between scenes of sheer poignancy and scenes of brutal comic relief. The actors, of course, have a lot to do with the film’s success and appeal. Meg Ryan and Billy Crystal are perfect for the roles assigned. They are truly an odd couple, but each one of them brings their charisma and charm to the screen. Harry is the character we all find obnoxious but can’t help but loving and Ryan is just quirky and adorable.

Their love story is one that we’ve seen play out on the screen dozens of times since, but I don’t think any film has ever or will ever portray the issue better. The question it poses is one of universal importance, namely, can women and men ever be friends? It appears so, but what happens when you introduce sex to the equation? Does it negate the friendship or does the intimacy make it too awkward to continue just being friends? I’ll leave that for you and your friends (male or female) to discuss over a nice cup of coffee. If you haven’t seen the film, go now and watch it. Seriously, I will wait right here. If you won’t go watch it, I’ll just say that with heaps of quirky, funny dialogue, a script that Nora Ephron will forever attempt to duplicate, and clean directing from the extremely talented Rob Reiner, When Harry Met Sally is a highly enjoyable film that has held strong over two decades after its creation.

In contrast to many of the weeping romantic comedies and melodramas that I mentioned in yesterday’s sad movies post, this one is not a weeper. Instead, it takes a clear-eyed, almost cynical view of love and companionship, and creates around it a charming tapestry of bracing wit and crunching dialogue. So save the violins and the handkerchiefs for romantic comedies less sure on their feet – whose deficiency in wit must be made up for by a wave of melodrama and manipulation. This movie is manipulative too, but it’s the laughs along the way we remember here, not the big kiss or the grand embrace. This film is put together so well, that we just know that Harry and Sally were meant for each other. They have been unlikely friends for years. They share all the details of their love lives, but have never been together. They fear it will change their relationship. But in a moment of weakness, they find themselves in bed together and it does change everything. Not sure how to handle the situation, Harry and Sally have a fight and grow apart. But eventually, Harry comes to his senses and realizes that there is a woman with whom he can be friends. She is the same woman that he has known, we could even say loved, for years. In the end, we have a beautiful love story of two friends who overcome the obstacles in their path and find love.

Day 03 – 30 Day Movie Challenge

A Movie That Makes You Really Happy

I didn’t want to cheat on this one like I did on day one, so I was struggling between two films that really make me happy. The Princess Bride and Blazing Saddles. However in my wrestling between these two choices, I realized that each of these films makes me happy for a different reason. Looking deeper, I found that I have at least two categories that I use to classify happy movies, those that are ridiculously funny and those that are heartwarming. Therefore, I’m not cheating by putting forward a selection for each of these types.

If we’re going off of pure funniness, then the winner would be Blazing Saddles. I must admit that I saw this movie at much too young an age. I was a latch-key kid, spending several hours alone at home every night after school before my Mom and Dad got home from work. That gave me time to explore my parent’s collection of films. I probably saw this before I turned 12, but growing up in a town that is still to this day visibly divided by the railroad tracks, I understood the racial dynamic. I probably shouldn’t have been allowed to see it till High School, but I don’t think I was irreparably damaged. This is one of those films that has entered my vocabulary, one that my dad and I quote back and forth… “What’s a dashing urbanite like you doing in a rustic setting like this?”… “They darker than us!”… “Oh, lordy, lord, he’s desperate! Do what he sayyyy, do what he sayyyy!” Even though this film contains innumerable racial slurs, I think the point (if it has a point) is really about racial equality. The film is also quick to make references to other films and actors to make some of its gags. And since this was one of the few comedies in that home video library, I would watch it over and over again and was forced to do research on some of the jokes (Hedy Lamar, Randolph Scott, Cecil B. DeMille). Because of that, I owe a great deal of my love for film to this movie because it started me digging into the film industry.

Standing in stark distinction to Blazing Saddles, I didn’t see The Princess Bride until I was in college. It is a movie that my kids have already seen and is also tremendously quotable. It has everything; action, adventure, humor, pirates, torture, and of course, true love. Cary Elwes delivers the most outstanding performance of his career as Westley, the love-struck servant to Buttercup (Robin Wright), a beautiful woman living in a misty romantic fantasy world. She also gives one of the best performances of her career in her film debut here as Princess Buttercup. The thing that makes this movie so great is the quality of comedy relief of the entire supporting cast. Wallace Shawn is absolutely hilarious as Vizzini, the bonehead villain who is completely convinced that he has the whole world figured out, Andre the Giant delivers a lumbering but highly impressive performance as Vizzini’s enormous, idiot sidekick, and my personal favorite, Mandy Patinkin creates one of the most entertaining and likeable characters to ever see the screen. “My name is Inigo Montoya! You killed my father! Prepare to die!”

What movies make you happy, however you define that? What do you think is the funniest movie you’ve seen? Leave me some comment love below, or on Facebook or Twitter. This is all more fun when you join the discussion. And if you decide to take the challenge, let me know so I can follow your choices.

Three Colors: White (1994)

There is almost too much to say about these three films. In fact, only one film in the trilogy actually made it onto the IMDB Top 250 list, that being the final film, Red. Although these are each excellent as stand-alone works, they are best when seen as a whole. For that reason, I am going to review each of them separately. For the unfamiliar, Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski’s last work, “Three Colors Trilogy” takes its name from the colors of the French flag and its themes from the ideals represented by those colors: blue (liberty), white (equality), and red (friendship).

White is the second film in Kieslowski’s Trilogy, and it deals with the idea of equality. In my opinion, it may not be the strongest “film” of the three, but it is the one that I enjoyed the most. It maintains a balancing act between comedy and tragedy. The tone and feel of White was different, almost to the point of feeling out of sync, from the entire trilogy. The lead character is male unlike the other two films, even though Julie Delphy technically gets top billing, she only appears in about 15-20 minutes of the film. Polish actor, Zbigniew Zamachowski (Now you know why Delphy’s name was on all the promotional material!), puts in a powerful performance that goes from comedic pantomime to heartbreaking despair. Finally, White is told in a very plain way when you consider the imagery of Blue or the wonder of Red. White is simply less artsy, which is probably why I enjoyed it so much. Sometimes, forcing myself to sit through artsy films is like making my kids eat their vegetables, they don’t really want to do it, but they are good for them. I think most moviegoers could use a good dose of eating their cinematic vegetables and cut back on some of the “junk food,” but that is a post for another day.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc8RZ7QgWZA]

White follows the journey of a very misfortunate Polish hairdresser named Karol Karol. I have to wonder if Kieslowski didn’t make this film as an ode to the great Charlie Chaplin because Karol means “Charlie” in Polish. We see Karol approaching a courthouse in Paris, as he looks up seemingly hopefully at a bird flying in the air, his hopes come crashing down as the bird uses him as a toilet. This brief scene sets the tone for the rest of the film in which we will see Karol being used and abused repeatedly. He is at the courthouse because his wife, Dominique, who is a Paris native, wants to divorce him because the marriage has never been consummated. He is impotent. He is forced, in the courtroom, to use a translator because his French is weak, this only adds to the feeling of his impotence, he can barely even stand up for himself. She testifies that she no longer loves him, and he pleads with her to come back to Poland with him. But after we see Juliette Binoche poke her head in the courtroom (a tie-in from Blue). The divorce is granted, and Karol is on the streets with all his possessions in a big suitcase. His bank account is frozen and Karol can do nothing but watch as a bank employee cuts up his card. And as if that weren’t enough, she also frames him for arson. Unfortunately, there is no background given to Dominique’s character to reveal why she has such hatred for Karol. We see images of her smiling face at their wedding, but besides that, she is merely painted as an evil character.

Now homeless and penniless, he takes to playing “music” on a comb in the train station in hopes for a handout. While playing a Polish folk song, he catches the ear of one of his countrymen named Mikolaj. They strike up a conversation about how he got in that situation and Mikolaj offers to pay his way back to Poland, but he cannot leave the country in such a public way because the authorities are still looking for him. So they come up with the plan that he should stow away in the suitcase, and leave behind the alienation and isolation of France. This seems like a strange way for a French financed movie, in a series about the French national colors, on the topic of equality to begin. I wonder if Kieslowski didn’t harbor some feeling of alienation against his adopted country, himself being Polish like the lead character. Mikolaj agrees to this plan and hopes that his new friend can survive the four-hour flight crammed inside a suitcase with a few personal belongings and a stolen bust that reminds him of Dominique, who he still loves.

However, once the plane lands in Warsaw, in an unsurprising but hilarious twist, Mikolaj learns that the luggage has gone missing. We then catch up to Karol in a garbage dump outside Warsaw, where some luggage thieves have inadvertently taken him, probably thinking the weight of the bag was a good indicator of the value of its contents. Of course, they try to rob him, but besides the stolen bust (which they break) and two francs which he fights for, he has nothing for them to steal. Perhaps out of pity, they beat him, but do not kill him, and then leave him lying in the snow. Karol struggles to lift his now bloodied face and looks out to see the white snow swept garbage dump and says, “home at last!”

After staying with his brother and working at the family hairdressing salon at which he is extremely popular. Karol decides that if he can’t get Dominique back, then the very least he can do is balance the scales and get back at her. Using his ingenuity and taking advantage of the new free market economy of post-communist Poland, Karol amasses a fortune. Then with the help of Mikolaj and a trusted employee of his new company, Karol fakes his own death and leaves his fortune to Dominique. When she comes to Warsaw for the funeral, he sneaks into her hotel room and, after the initial shock, they make love, finally consummating their relationship. However, in the morning, Dominique awakes to the police at her hotel room door, but Karol is gone and despite her pleading in French that he is alive, Dominique is arrested for Karol’s murder. At the end, we see Dominique signing to Karol through the window of the prison in which she is being held. She tells him that she still loves him and is willing to marry him again, if she can get out of prison. Karol begins to cry. He has succeeded in achieving equality with his ex-wife, but it is a bittersweet victory. This film is not uplifting like Blue or Red it is a dark comedic tragedy.

The idea of resurrection is a strong theme in this film. Karol metaphorically dies in order to leave Paris, throwing away all his diplomas in the train station, and being buried in the suitcase, and he arises in his homeland and begins his life over again as a businessman. In Machiavellian fashion, Karol fakes his own death as a bid to lure Dominique to Warsaw to exact his revenge. Mikolaj is also resurrected. Being suicidal, he pays Karol to shoot him, but since he is his friend, he loads the gun with a blank. After pretending to kill him, Karol warns him, “The next one is real.” Karol gave Mikolaj some perspective and a new lease on life.

If you remember in Blue, Julie is so absorbed in her own emotions that she doesn’t even notice the old woman and the recycling bin. But she also shows up in White while Karol is shivering on the streets of Paris. Karol notices her but only grins as she tries to put her bottle in the bin. I tend to think that Karol is happy to see someone to whom he finally feels equal. Finally, this is the odd man out of Kieslowski’s trilogy, because it is less artsy and more straight-forward it makes a good introductory film to get into Kieslowski’s work. But even though the ending seems like a hopeless tragedy, the true ending of White is actually revealed at the end of Red, where we see Karol and Dominique have reconciled and are re-married.

Three Colors: Blue (1993)

There is almost too much to say about these three films. In fact, only one film in the trilogy actually made it onto the IMDB Top 250 list, that being the final film, Red. Although these are each excellent as stand-alone works, they are best when seen as a whole. For that reason, I am going to review each of them separately. For the unfamiliar, Polish director Krzysztof Kieslowski’s last work, “Three Colors Trilogy” takes its name from the colors of the French flag and its themes from the ideals represented by those colors: blue (liberty), white (equality), and red (friendship).

Blue, the first of the trilogy, takes place in Paris. It stars Juliette Binoche (Unbearable Lightness of Being, The English Patient, Chocolat) as Julie, the wife of a famous composer. She has to deal with a great deal of unwanted freedom when a car accident claims the lives of her husband and her daughter. At first, while recovering in the hospital, she tries to kill herself by swallowing a handful of pills stolen from the hospital, but she cannot. From that point on, she seems to devote her energy to disassociating herself from the memories of her past, a sort of emotional suicide. She sells the family home and all the furniture, moves into a small apartment in Paris, and even destroys her late husband’s last and highly anticipated composition. Along the way, she befriends Lucille, her downstairs neighbor; falls in love with Olivier, her late husband’s aid; and helps Sandrine, her late husband’s mistress who is carrying his child.

Because of its name, Blue, you can’t help but look for that color in the film’s carefully crafted images. With his expert usage of color, Kieslowski has forced the audience to pay attention to the slow-moving story that is unraveling on the screen. The most noticeable visual technique would be the odd fade-out/fade-ins that occur four times in the film. At each of the four points, Julie is at a crossroads, having to decide whether to push back the memories of her life before the accident, or to acknowledge them.

For a large part of the film, Julie is in a trance, trying to shut out the world around her. This could be a very boring role in a less capable actress’ hands, but Binoche turns in the best performance of her career. We frequently see Julie swimming completely immersed in a pool, bathed in a blue light, which symbolizes her past life. At one point, she immerses herself completely and stays underwater for as long as possible. But soon, she has to come up for air. In the same way, Julie can’t help but re-establish the connections with her past, and like the continent upon which she resides, she shifts from a state of liberty into a state of union. She gives the family home to her husband’s mistress’, completes her husband’s unfinished composition, and even builds a relationship with Olivier.

Being a trilogy, of seemingly unrelated films, there are little Easter eggs that will become prominent as you view all three films. Pay particular attention to the scene where Julie is at the courthouse. She walks into a courtroom where a trial is in session, and the audience is briefly given a glimpse of a divorce trial. The significance of this odd scene is revealed in White, where Julie walks in on the trial in the background. I am not in agreement with the IMDB list. I think that this is the best of the films when viewed separately. I believe that Red received a higher ranking because people use it to refer to the trilogy as a whole. Kieslowski did an amazing job of using film as a form of literature, combining the cinematography, music, lighting, and dialogue all to bring emphasis to the overall thesis of the film. I’m not a huge fan of foreign films, but this is one that can be viewed again and again.

Shadow of a Doubt (1943)

I’m really glad I decided to tackle this mountain of film called the IMDb Top 250. In this post, I want to take a closer look at#248, Shadow of a Doubt. I consider myself a Hitchcock fan, but this is one of his masterpieces that I had never seen before. I’m not sure why I avoided it for so long, perhaps it was simply lack of opportunity. But no one has an excuse to not see this film. Heck, you don’t even have to pay for it. You can watch the whole thing right now on YouTube. In fact, Alfred Hitchcock on The Dick Cavett Show in 1972 said that Shadow of a Doubt was his favorite of all his films. Being familiar with his films and sharing his dry and bleak sense of humor, I can see why.

The actors were superb, famous in their time, but not superstars. Teresa Wright, who remains the only performer ever to be nominated for Oscars for her first three films (The Little Foxes, Mrs. Miniver, The Pride of the Yankees), stars as young Charlie (Charlotte) who is tired of being a ordinary girl in an ordinary family. She believes that inviting her Uncle Charlie from Philadelphia will invite some much needed happiness to her depressing surroundings. But Uncle Charlie, portrayed superbly by Joseph Cotten who had a role in Citizen Kane and starred in The Magnificent Ambersons, has his own secret reasons for leaving Philadelphia to stay with his sister in Santa Rosa for an undetermined amount of time.

Hitchcock collaborated with Thornton Wilder, author of Our Town, to portray Santa Rosa, California as Hometown U.S.A. With warm lighting and a friendly atmosphere, they deliberately makes us prefer the small Santa Rosa to the cold and industrial backdrop of Philadelphia. Hitchcock wanted to slowly introduce some darkness to these bright and cheerful surroundings. This was a social commentary in his day. While this film was produced and released in 1943, it is set in 1941. Many people my age wouldn’t even blink at the simple two year difference, but anyone who lived during those two years knows that they weren’t ordinary years. The bombing that occurred on December 7, 1941 irreparably changed the world the same way that the arrival of Uncle Charlie did that peaceful family and especially his admiring niece Charlotte.

Critics were quick to call this film cynical or morally vague, words that would come to characterize Hitchcock’s style of film-making, but in the wake of the great depression, a gruesome war, and the ever-present fear of nuclear holocaust the world itself became much more cynical and morally vague.  Much like Uncle Charlie, Hitchcock entered our country in a time of peace, as a welcomed guest, and he forever changed our whole way of thinking about movies.

As we get closer to Christmas, I know that I will inevitably see at least a scene or two from Frank Capra’s It’s a Wonderful Life. If you think about it, Hitchcock is like the anti-Capra. Another classic-film lover named Bill Wren said on his blog Piddleville, “Shadow of a Doubt presents us with an almost quintessential American town of the 1940′s. It’s almost Capra-esque. In a way, Shadow of a Doubt is George Bailey’s Bedford Falls from It’s a Wonderful Life except where Capra brings an angel to it, Hitchcock brings the devil.”

The singular flaw that prevents Shadow of a Doubt from being one of Hitchcock’s elite is the completely formulaic and totally unnecessary romance. It feels totally contrived and out of place. Perhaps this was Hitchcock’s way of showing that although young Charlie has grown through her ordeal, she hasn’t yet grown enough to see that the addition of others to your life will not make you happy if you cannot first be happy alone. If this was his aim, he was very subtle. Today, they would make a sequel in which we find out that her love interest is in fact a serial killer himself.

So what happens when young Charlie realizes the truth about her beloved Uncle? Will she get a chance to reveal his secret, or will he choke her into silent submission? I won’t ruin that ending of the movie for you. Take an hour and a half off and watch it yourself. By the end, you will be humming the Merry Widow Waltz and contemplating the state of the world. What do you think of Uncle Charlie’s assessment of our lives? “You live in a dream. You’re a sleepwalker, blind. How do you know what the world is like? Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you rip off the fronts of houses, you’d find swine? The world’s a hell. What does it matter what happens in it? Wake up, Charlie.”

Thanks for watching with me. Next week provides a jump from pre-television wartime to fun loving computer animation and offers a much more lighthearted film, Toy Story 2. I hope you’ll join me.

My Sassy Girl (2008) – Review

After watching the Korean version of My Sassy Girl, I was doing some research and found out that, because of the popularity of the film in Korea, a remake was made in 2008. It was originally slated for a full theatrical release, but the negative response after the trailer below came out, was enough to force it into a bare-bones direct to DVD release.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=apYlFNr8au4&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3]

I totally agree that the trailer was less than satisfactory. But the problem was that no one even gave the movie a chance. They immediately began to compare it to the Korean version; and in doing so they lost the ability to view the remake on its own merits. While it is a remake of the basic plot and story, many of the social and cultural ideas present in the original simply don’t translate well across the gap. In some ways I would have liked to see the remake depart even more than it already does from the original script and story.

The remake stars Elisha Cuthbert. She is probably best known for her role as a former porn star in The Girl Next Door, but Jack Bauer might have to kill you for thinking of her that way since she also plays his daughter on the hit TV show 24. Cuthbert revisits the role made famous by Jeon Ji-hyun. In the original, this character was nameless; but in the remake, she was given the name of Jordan Roark. Jeon Ji-hyun was more than simply sassy, she was insane. She didn’t playfully slap, she delivered full right hooks. And all of that physical comedy just made me dislike her more. I personally preferred Cuthbert’s performance. Her physicality was more flirtatious, although she was more verbally abusive than her nameless counterpart.

I couldn’t place the lead actor until I searched for him on IMDb. His name is Jesse Bradford, and he’s best known for his role in Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers and Bring It On. But I remember him best in Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo + Juliet where he played the very small role of Romeo’s manservant Balthasar. Bradford plays our leading man, Charlie Bellow. Charlie is almost nothing like the original’s Kyun-woo. He was a slacker engineering student and a womanizer, but Charlie is a business student who wishes to get a management job at the tractor company who had employed his father for decades. Charlie is also whitewashed to become the typical lovable yet naive guy-next-door, and all of the characters more carnal tendencies have been forced off on a completely useless best friend character.

I loved the cinematography of this film, it was a delight to look at. Yann Samuel the young French director behind Jeux D’enfants (Love Me If You Dare) filmed in the rich colors of the fall to signify the transition of our characters. These two meet in the general “opposites attract” pattern,, and the audience is led to believe that Charlie through his calculated work ethic will add some much needed structure to the unbridled enthusiasm of Jordan. While Jordan in turn will provide Charlie with a passion for life and the ability to think outside the box his parents have created for him. These two would have had some kind of obstacle to overcome, then one or both of them would realize that they are made for each other and would reveal it to the other in a grand fashion. Oh wait, that is exactly what happens in this movie. In fact, this is a purely according to formula romantic comedy if you stop watching after one hour. But as the couple is dancing the night away, reunited in their love, the story keeps going. And it’s not showing the happily ever aftermath of their romance. This film is more like real life, our couple has more obstacles to overcome.

I was entertained, but thoroughly unsurprised for the first hour. Though, because I knew the original, I wasn’t surprised by the ending either. I knew that unless those responsible for the remake were completely inept, this was going to get a lot deeper before the curtain closed. And it did. I can’t ruin the ending for you; you’ll have to splurge and pick this one out of the $3 bin at Wal-Mart. It is very entertaining and touching. And it was refreshing to watch a romance that was more than physical. In fact, in the original, they never even kiss. While the American version was not that conservative, all they add in this version is a kiss. My only complaint about the last thirty minutes of the film was that it only lasted thirty minutes. As in the original the couple agrees to part ways for a certain time, but the American version shortens this time to one year instead of two and in another case shortens a year to only one day. The time of their relationship was shortened as well. I don’t understand the reasoning behind this condensation. Perhaps a long relationship without sex is anti-American.

I think the producers and distributors of this film made a big mistake by listening to the opinions of the elitists who saw the original and thought that American audiences would have been better served by a dubbed version. I don’t think that most Americans have an issue with foreign film, most just can’t relate to foreign issues. The original film was edgy because of the role reversal of the male and female in a male-dominated Korean society. But in a country that preaches gender neutrality and equality, seeing yet another woman walk all over a weaker male character wasn’t edgy or even entertaining. But I don’t think that people gave this a chance, it is a better romantic comedy than most of the mindless drivel filling the theater. Oh well, what can you do?

If you’re watching the IMDb 250 along with me, the film for this next week is one off the few Alfred Hitchcock movies that I haven’t seen, Shadow of a Doubt (1943).

My Sassy Girl (2001)

With a little spare time on my hands, I got to watch #249 on my list. It is a wonderful little Korean romantic-comedy called, My Sassy Girl. And at 137 minutes I needed all the spare time I could get. That’s right 2 hours and 17 minutes! In all fairness, I did watch the director’s cut which was about 20 minutes longer than the theatrical release, but I can see the guys cringing now. A rom-com with the same running time as Mystic River and Dune. But despite its length, it was actually quite good.

First Half

Let me be the first to say that I am not a fan of the contemporary romantic comedy. They are overly-formulaic, cliched, mindless, and saccharine. The plot structure of all romantic comedies follows the same basic structure. Boy meets girl (or vice versa), then there is some sort of spark. Either they hate each other, or they instantly fall deeply in love. But either way, they have a conflict. Some sort of roadblock to their blissful romance. And usually, through a series of generally funny (sometimes touching) events, one or more of the characters goes through a personal change. This change dissolves the roadblock and the couple can live happily ever after. If it doesn’t end happily ever after there is still a message of the power of love to conquer all. This structure isn’t inherently bad, it has just been overplayed.

So what makes My Sassy Girl different from the sea of pabulum that floods theaters every year? I’m talking about movies like: Monster-in-Law, Must Love Dogs, Failure to Launch, My Super Ex-Girlfriend, Music and Lyrics, Good Luck Chuck, 27 Dresses, Fool’s Gold, Made of Honor, The Proposal, It’s Complicated, Leap Year, and Valentine’s Day. I’ve seen all of those, and most are watchable and some are even entertaining, but none of them rise above mediocrity. It’s like eating a turkey sandwich on Thanksgiving when you really want a feast.

To examine why this film is better than the rest I must examine what makes a movie great in the first place. In other words, what is it that most people are looking for when they watch a movie? The easy answer to that is entertainment, but I believe that a larger goal is escapism. We watch movies to be transported from the monotony of our lives for a couple of hours. A great film is written and acted well, and successfully creates an engaging experience that captures the viewers’ imagination and sustains their interest. The best films do this with skill and artistry and will emotionally move the viewers and give them something to think about. These movies stay with you, long after you leave the theater.

Is My Sassy Girl one of these movies? At the risk of sounding blasphemous, I don’t really think so. I am tempted to sing the praises of this film because it was well received in Korea when it was released, and nearly every critic loves it. But I personally think that foreign films are up there with modern art, jazz music, and anything French on the “I pretend to enjoy this because it makes me feel superior to you” list.

Second Half

Let me introduce you to Kyun-woo. He is our slightly perverted, mostly innocent, slacker leading man (think Seth Rogen in Knocked Up). This film (based upon a series of supposedly true stories posted on the internet) tells the story of the first and last time that he falls in love. One day, on the way to pay his grieving aunt a visit he saves a beautiful drunken girl (whose name we never learn) from being hit by a subway train. She stumbles about and after vomiting on a fellow passenger she points at Kyun-woo calling him “Honey,” then passes out on the floor. Unable to leave her in this state, he picks her up and carries her to a motel where instead of receiving a thank you, he gets a large hotel bill and a night in jail. This unnamed sassy girl calls him after he gets out and tells him to meet her at a coffee shop. There she orders for him and forces him to pay then calls him a liar. Later, after confessing that her boyfriend has just broken up with her, she passes out again. Being a gentleman, he takes her back to the same hotel. And as he takes care of her, he vows to heal her sorrow.

I don’t want to spoil the film, though I doubt many of you will ever watch it anyway, but these two grow closer through some funny, touching, and painful moments. This girl is not just sassy, she is downright violent. But despite her inability to handle her liquor and her love of beating him, his affections for her grow. That is until she has him write a letter expressing his feelings for her. She writes a letter as well, and they meet to bury these letters under a tree where they will meet in exactly two years to see if they are meant to be together. And just as they met in a train station they part ways in a train station, their destiny hanging in the balance of two years time.

As in most romantic comedies there is a element of personal change. During these two years our slacker becomes a success. He improves himself in almost every way and he arrives at the tree exactly two years later to reunite with his lost love. I refuse to tell you whether she comes or not. You’ll have to watch it for yourself, but remember this movie is not your average romantic comedy. Expect the unexpected.

Overtime

I enjoyed My Sassy Girl because it was deeper than your average romantic comedy dealing with issues of grief, destiny, and time travel (seriously). But that being said, I disliked the overall tone of the film. I’m no male-chauvinist, but if I had a girl that treated me as badly and humiliated me as much as she does him, I would leave her, forget about destiny. That was one of several cultural roadblocks that made this movie hard to watch (especially the first half). Also, I’m sure this is a cultural thing too, but I didn’t feel like the film flowed very well. It was choppy in portions, and dragged on in others. I appreciated the length of time that was represented in the film as it made everything more plausible. I’m not one of those, “If its got subtitles, it ain’t fit to watch!” types, but the film itself was just too long.

This one is worth a watch, it is a beautiful and moving love story. But I’m still not sure why it did so well in Korea, outselling Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter which were playing at the same time. Perhaps what the film’s leading man says is true, “Koreans like melodramas.” It’s still pretty hard to find this film in American markets, so many will settle for the American version which was released direct to DVD in 2008. I’ve seen them both and I’ll tell you what I think about that version and how it stacks up against the original in my next post.

The Nightmare Before Christmas (1993)

Well, it is time to get my countdown underway. Let me remind you that I am working my way through the IMDb Top 250 list as it appeared on November 15, 2010. I had to do this because of the flexible nature of this online user generated list. In fact, even after only one week, The Nightmare Before Christmas has moved up to #249, and if you look at it today, the list (particularly here at the bottom) may look much different.  So, I will do my best to add other films that jump on and off the list while I am on this journey and we can watch them together once my journey is through.

This movie was released when I was ten years-old, and I remember wanting to see it not so much because of the animation technique or the big names attached to it, but because I thought the Burger King watches that my friends had were cool. I was not allowed to watch it at that time, because my parents thought that it was too dark and frightening for kids to watch (the same reason Disney pushed its release off to Touchstone Pictures). It wasn’t until I was well into high-school and my goth phase that this movie once again caught my eye.

Burton’s Batman was one of my favorite movies in Middle School. I remember coming home from school popping Batman in the VCR and being thrilled by Michael Keaton and Jack Nicholson. When I later found out that the same mastermind who directed Batman, Beetlejuice, and Edward Scissorhands, was the man who dreamed up this film, I had to see it. I remember getting wrapped up in the gorgeously dark scenery so skillfully and painstakingly created through the use of stop-motion animation. I remember tapping my toes to the addictive music of Danny Elfman. I simply enjoyed it, filed it away as a pleasant holiday movie, and went on with my life.

As I watched this magical film again today, I was struck by a few observations.

First, it was NOT directed by Tim Burton. Everyone ties The Nightmare Before Christmas to Tim Burton. While he wrote it and produced it, it was directed by a man whose name isn’t even in most movie fan’s vocabulary. Henry Selick. Do a quick IMDb search, and you will see that Henry Selick had just as much to do with the look and feel of Nightmare as Tim Burton did. He adapted Roald Dahl’s James and The Giant Peach long before Burton tried his hand at Dahl’s Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. And he skillfullly directed the wonderfully rich and dark Coraline. Clearly this film is great because of its collaboration. Tim Burton’s concept and characters, the lyrics and music of Danny Elfman, and the hard work and dedication of hundreds of artists are held together and made better by the creative glue of Henry Selick’s direction.

Also, watching this film again, I had all sorts of thoughts about the nature of Halloween vs. Christmas, the commercialization of Christmas, and the feelings of longing for something more fulfilling than the amusement of fright. But the biggest thing that caught my attention was the wordplay in the title. It is a cute and clever twist on the first line of the well known 1823 poem “A Visit from St. Nicholas.” But it got me thinking if there was something deeper in the title. What is the nightmare before Christmas? Is it referring to Halloween? Jack? Perhaps the nightmare is that sense of longing that Jack and Sally feel. But because I have Movies on the Brain, my mind cross-referenced to a scene in the 1997 Steven Spielberg movie Amistad where one of the slaves is looking through a Bible illustrated with drawings of biblical events. One slave says to the other that he is beginning to understand this book. As he shows the other slave a picture of Christians being attacked by lions in the Roman Coliseum, He says, “Their lives were full of suffering. Then he was born (pointing to a picture of baby Jesus in the manger), and everything changed.”

Do you see the connection? Jack Skellington (The Pumpkin King) is revered in his native Halloweentown, but he has grown tired of the same old routine. While wandering through the forest, he stumbles across and opens a portal to Christmastown. He is intrigued and impressed by what he feels in this magical place. Although devoid of any reference to the Christian origins of Christmas, besides a quote from the kidnapped “Sandy Claws” who shouts, “Haven’t you ever heard of peace on earth, good will towards men?” Jack’s feelings aren’t totally dissimilar to the emotions that accompany the new birth. Much like Jack Skellington, our lives are empty and we continually search for something more until we stumble across the meaning of Christmas. Sadly, the true meaning of Christmas is never unearthed but it still raises all sorts of ideas about the comparison of the death symbolized in Halloween to the life that is found in Christmas. Our lives before Jesus are the real nightmare before Christmas. Our lives were filled with suffering then Jesus was born and everything really did change.

Not all of my posts will be this religious in their thrust. That is just what came to my mind. Join me next time for #249 the Korean Romantic Comedy, My Sassy Girl. I’ll probably watch the American adaptation of the same title as well to compare them. See you then and remember, there is no cure for movies on the brain.