It Started With An Elephant...

So it's been 31 days since this project began. It was a journey to say the least - and it lived up to my expectations. Some days it felt like a chore, and others it was a thrill. I broke the project down according to my movie calendar - here are the results:

Movies Watched in the Month of May: 31 (Plus 10 other non-project related movies)

Number of Minutes Spent Watching the 31 M.M.O.M. Films: 3,778

Average Movie Length: 122 Minutes

Highest Rated Movie (1-10 Scale, 10 being the best): 9.5 (The Silence of the Lambs)

Lowest Rated Movie: 3 (Yi Yi)

Here are the "My Month Of Movies" Awards:

Best Picture: The Silence of the Lambs (Runner Up: L.A. Confidential)

Best Director: Kevin Costner, Dances with Wolves (Runner Up: Steven Soderbergh, Bubble)

Best Actor: Anthony Hopkins, The Silence of the Lambs (Runner Up: Al Pacino, Scarface)

Best Actress: Frances McDormand, Fargo (Runner Up: Jodie Foster, The Silence of the Lambs)

Best Supporting Actor: Gene Hackman, Unforgiven (Runner Up: Guy Pearce, L.A. Confidential)

Best Supporting Actress: Patricia Clarkson, The Station Agent (Runner Up: Kim Basinger L.A. Confidential)

Best Screenplay: Magnolia by Paul Thomas Anderson (Runner Up: The Silence of the Lambs by Ted Tally)

And here are the disses:

Movie That Made Me Mad: Me, You, And Everyone We Know

Movie That Bored the Living Heck Out of Me: YiYi

Movie That I Was Most Let Down By: The Messenger

Movie That Contained the Worst "Acting": Me, You, And Everyone We Know

So that about does it. May 2010 is about to end, and with it so does M.M.O.M. I've seen some movies that I have absolutely loved...and others that I have hated. It's been fun. I'm going to keep this blog going as a movie review place - and who knows, down the road, maybe there will be another month that looks like it needs some excitement. For right now though, I don't know. Eh, I guess I'll go watch a movie. Peace!

DAY THIRTY-ONE - MAY 31 - 2010 - PRINCE OF PERSIA: THE SANDS OF TIME

With a title as annoying as "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time", I should have known trouble was ahead. The warning signs were all there. Video game adaptation. Ben Kingsley (sorry, but his track record of late is terrible.). And the fact that the movie media has covered more about Jake Gyllenhaal's physical transformation to play the role of Dastan opposed to any sort of plot point or positive review. So when the bright sun illuminated the movie screen, two long hours of sword-clashing, clunky dialog, and British accents (did they really speak that way....eh, that's the least of my worries) commenced.

I didn't expect this to be a good movie. For this project, my goal for the final day (gasp of relief) was to see the newest movie possible - my choices were either this, or "Sex in the City 2", and there was no way in h-e-double hockey sticks you'd catch me there. What I did expect however was to enjoy some of it. And well, I did. Just not as much as I had hoped for. Some of the stunt work is incredible. The sets were impressive. You know, this whole movie was like sitting at one of those Disney theme park shows - they are entertaining for a bit, but ultimately hollow. I mean, there is really no major story here. It boils down to this: there is this sword that has great power. Many people want it. Some will kill for it. It's basically like "Lord of the Rings" without any of the cool sets, smart dialog, and a whole lot more sand.

So with this being the very last review of this cycle of M.M.O.M. (more to come?!), this 'Prince' gets a not so royal score of 4 out of 10.

Stay tuned to this blog for the upcoming awards ceremony!

DAY THIRTY - MAY 30 - 2009 - THE MESSENGER

2009 was a great year for Woody Harrelson. He starred in the extremely fun zombie flick "Zombieland", which I loved. That however was not my selection for 2009 (I had seen it already - which would violate the rules) - I chose Harrelson's other movie - "The Messenger." The simple little film follows two military men who have the job of informing those that are next of kin upon the death of a soldier.

Going into this movie, I expected to love it. Rave reviews, Oscar nominations, an interesting topic - what could go wrong? Quite a bit, unfortunately. First though, the positives. I think why so many people loved this movie is due to a few very powerful scenes. The moments of grief when family members learn of their loved ones death is hard to watch - it's so real and well done. Since you cannot just watch a movie where that happens over and over again, you have to develop a story around that - and that's where the problems come in. Ben Foster plays a soldier who is recovering from massive combat injuries. He is given the "safe" job of accompanying a more experienced notification officer (Harrelson) as an apprentice of sorts.

Where the movie veers into "are you kidding me" territory is when the young soldier starts to develop a relationship with one of the women he notifies of the loss of her husband. I won't spoil anything, but if you think the movie is going to justify both of their actions, you may be let down. A lot of the film is just an uncomfortable mess. Maybe that's the message we're supposed to be getting - war is messy - but well, I get that. I don't need my intelligence to be insulted in the process. So while a few scenes are definitely extraordinary, this movie is bogged down by ludicrousness to the point that I cannot recommend it as a whole. 4.5 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-NINE - MAY 29 - 2008 - MAN ON WIRE

Overall, I would rate documentaries as my least favorite movie genre. Now, there are a couple of huge exceptions - "Food, Inc.", "Sicko", and the recent "Exit Through the Gift Shop" are some of the best I've seen. Most of the time though, what would serve as an interesting human interest piece on a news broadcast is overblown into a full length film, with the makers of the film adding so much extra, often boring, material, that the story becomes so bogged down and the viewer impatient. My selection for today, "Man on Wire", falls somewhere in the middle of those two extremes.

First, the "Man on Wire", Frenchman Phillipe Petit, comes across in this movie as an egomaniac. The film centers around him and some buddies pulling off a prank of sorts - and extraordinary prank - but a prank none the less. The prank is sneaking into both towers of the World Trade Center, stringing up a line between the two buildings, and crossing over as in a circus act. Because of this "feat" they feel they should be revered as heroes. I find their disobedience more annoying than impressive. They strike me as the type of group the guys on Jackass will end up being in ten years or so.

The movie does drag in spots (91 minutes of planning to cross from one building to the next...yeah), and we all know the outcome as the hero in question is sitting there narrating the thing. I hate movies where there is no element of suspense in situations that obviously should generate some. On the positive side, the archival footage of the event and of the World Trade Center was very interesting. This isn't a bad movie by any means, more-so just an annoying one. I think some people are bound to love this, and others will hate it. As I said, I'm somewhere in the middle. I would give it a 6 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-EIGHT - MAY 28 - 2007 - THE LOOKOUT

"The Lookout" is one of those heist movies where all of the pieces of a great movie are there, but something just doesn't connect. I don't know exactly what it was missing - maybe it was originality, maybe it was more compelling characters, maybe it was a good editor - I cannot really put my finger on it. What I do know however is that I would never watch it again.

The opening sequence is like so many in films - teens carelessly driving at night which leads to a car accident. The driver, a hockey star, ends up costing at least one of his friends their life, and injuries to himself and another. These careless actions manifest demons that haunt him as he moves on with his life, working overnight at a bank doing the cleaning for a rural branch. Suffering from a massive head injury of his own, he relies on a pad of step-by-step things to do to guide him through his days. His problems make him an easy target when a group of bank robbers are planning a heist and think they can use him as their way in.

I have complained before about the lack of likable characters in some of my movie selections, and this one suffers from that as well. Some of the fun in movies like "Oceans 11" or the classic "The Sting" is that viewers root for the bank robbers. In this film, I wanted them all to end up dead (I won't say how that ends up). I also didn't care if the "heroes" ended up dead either - they just didn't make an impression on me. The end of the film also tries to wrap things up way too quickly. So for these errors, I will rob "The Lookout" of six stars, and leave it with my rating of 4.

GUEST REVIEWER LORI BERKEY ON HER 2007 SELECTION

Lori Berkey, a local reporter and friend, submitted this review for this project. My review for this day is coming soon!

Darius Goes West: The Roll of His Life (DGW) is a must-see documentary. The film details a trip that fifteen-year-old Darius Weems takes across the country with eleven close buddies in an effort to get his wheelchair super-modified on MTV's Pimp My Ride.

The team of chums also has an ulterior motive of educating the public about Weem's condition, duchenne muscular dystrophy. They further aim to heighten awareness of accessibility issues and to let people know about the Americans with Disabilities Act. TO READ HER FULL REVIEW, CLICK HERE.

DAY TWENTY-SEVEN - MAY 27 - 2006 - BUBBLE

Starting on January 27th, 2006, for four days director Steven Soderbergh unveiled "Bubble" to everyone that was willing to watch on cable, on DVD, or in theaters. It was an experiment of sorts that is not done often, and was not a money-making success. Known for his more high profile films, the Oscar-winning director of "Traffic" and "Ocean's 11" may have flopped in the eyes of box office gurus, but in the eyes of many critics...and now myself, we applaud this little experimental film.

Shot on the border of Ohio and West Virginia, "Bubble" is a layered story that revolves mostly around two very different individuals who lead very similar lives. Martha is well into her 50s, and Kyle is just out of his teens. They both work in a doll factory and that is how they become friends. When a new employee begins work at the factory, things get interesting. This movie is only 73 minutes long. When it debuted at the Toronto Film Festival the year before, it was 90. Before it's official release, he trimmed it down, but I can say for a short movie, some people will still find it mind-numbingly boring. I don't know, but I found it fascinating.

Soderbergh truly captures the feeling of being trapped in a job that's sole purpose is to pay the bills. He also captures all to realistically the relationship between coworkers - both the good and the bad. The actors don't feel like actors to me - and I mean that as the highest of compliments. (**I just looked it up - they were real people!! **) While this isn't a documentary, it sure felt like one...until a crazy twist.

Being as short as it is, I would highly recommend this movie. While it's not as experimental as a "Memento" or a "Run Lola Run", it's still so offbeat and original in a good way that I think any true cinema freak should get outside of their movie watching "Bubble" and watch it. Pun intended. 9 out of 10.

**NEW NOTE** - Okay, it's been a little while since I posted this review. For the past couple of hours, I cannot get this movie out of my mind. Only "The Silence of the Lambs" has stuck with me like this. It's phenomenal in a very odd, hypnotic way. I cannot describe it, but you really should watch it.

DAY TWENTY-SIX - MAY 26 - 2005 - ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW

Have you ever been with a group of people and there is that one person who uses big words and tells stories about countries you don't give a bleep about and they use more than ten words to order their coffee and they talk about being affiliated with some up and coming political party? Well, if movies were people, "Me and You and Everyone We Know" would be that obnoxious son of a bleep.

First, this movie tries to be more important than it is - like "Rent" but without the rousing musical numbers. It's the most pretentious thing I've seen since "I Heart Huckabees", another movie that I wasn't worthy of watching. The kids are downright disgusting, and if that is supposed to prove some point about tainted adolescence, you could have stopped it after the first ten minutes and point would have been noted. The female lead, Christine, was like a walking/talking cardboard cutout who couldn't convince me to answer census questions let alone sell the part she is supposed to be playing. I looked her up on IMDB and found she also wrote and directed this dreadful little movie. She should find a new profession.

So in short, I think I pretty much hated this movie. I've compared it to a bunch of things already, but my last comparison is that it's "Ghost World" without the heart. I need to shower. I would give this a 3.5 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-FIVE - MAY 25 - 2004 - THE SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS MOVIE

Yes. I watched "The Spongebob Squarepants Movie." Don't make fun of me. For this project, I wanted to watch movies of all different genres, and animated has every right to be here. So I selected this as I had never seen it before and thought it might be funny. Oh my word.

I cannot bring logic to this movie. I mean, how can an underwater restaurant have a fire break out? How can these odd sea creatures fall off a cliff that's submerged by water? How can a bucket hat contain a mind-control device? What the heck is a sponge doing living in a pineapple under the sea? Gosh, the questions are endless.

So putting all of that aside, I decided to take the ten year-old version of me and review this movie. In that right, it's a hilarious laugh-a-minute ride that I want to take over and over. I would quote it to friends. I would put it on over and over again. I wouldn't understand who David Hasselhoff was, but I would laugh as he seemed funny I guess.

Now for the 26 year old review - terrible! I cannot believe how dumb this movie was. In an age of Pixar movies and Miyazaki movies, this crap has no place! But wait, maybe it does. Maybe it does exactly what it's supposed to and I have no business watching it in the first place. I mean, it's called "The Spongebob Squarepants Movie" - it's not trying to trick viewers into what it is. I don't know, it's a tough call as far as a review goes. I guess I'll take the 8 I would give it as a 10 year old, and the 2 I would give it now, and meet it in the middle at 5. Which may be way too generous, but I need to consider who they made this for, and it definitely wasn't me. 5 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-FOUR - MAY 24 - 2003 - THE STATION AGENT

"Little Miss Sunshine", "Pieces of April", and most recently "City Island", are all films that I consider sweet. I hate that term, but I think it describes these indie films well. My selection for today was "The Station Agent", and it proudly joins that list of simple yet sweet films.

This is a very straight-foward relationship story about some very "boring" people. We meet a dwarf who hates people, a tall Latino who loves people, and a woman who is grieving and doesn't know if she should curl up into a ball or try and love people again. Their lives in a small town intersect so perfectly, this movie is a joy to watch. It made me think about my life and a whole lot of stuff I'm not getting into on this blog. That's sort of the small, quiet power of this little film.

I highly recommend this movie. For one, finally I chose a movie that was only 86 minutes! Two, it's really sweet. And three, it's only rated R for some scattered profanity - so if you can look past that there is no other distracting content from a cautious film-goers standpoint. I would give this movie an 8 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-THREE - MAY 23 - 2002 - TALK TO HER

Pedro Almodovar is one of my favorite modern directors, yet one of his most popular movies is one I had not gotten around to. "Talk to Her' is a story about some of the weirdest relationships put to film, all of which are trumped by one of the weirdest segments of a movie that I have ever seen - but that's getting ahead of myself.

Two men meet when both of the women they love are put in the same hospital after both falling into comas for different reasons. One man is obsessive - having watched the woman he loved for a long time before her tragic car accident. The other man was in a relationship with his object of affection - but she didn't love him as much as he thought. It sounds like a very boring movie - but if it's anything, it's not boring.

Almodovar makes colorful films. He makes character studies. This was both. Personally, I liked "Volver" and "All About My Mother" more - so if you've never seen any of his films, start with one of those. That being said, I applaud this movie for it's originality. I won't ever forget it actually, due to one very disturbing scene. **CONTENT WARNING** The following is rated hard R - There is a scene where one of the two men talk about a silent film he has seen. It cuts away to black and white (which is odd for Almodovar in general) to depict the short film. Here is what happens in this film within a film. REMEMBER, I WARNED YOU. A scientist thinks he discovers a potion for great health, and takes it to the dismay of his assistant, a woman he loves. The potion actually causes him to shrink and shrink. He gets so small, that he is about an inch high. His assistant cares for him. She falls asleep, naked. The little guy pulls off her cover, and plays on her breasts. WARNING WARNING WARNING. This doesn't satisfy him, so he makes his way down south. They show EVERYTHING. He looks into, well, places, and decides he wants to crawl in. It's so disturbing. I cannot even begin to explain it in detail, but I was squinting in horror. Don't laugh, because it isn't funny.

That being said, I would give this movie a 7 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-TWO - MAY 22 - 2001 - FROM HELL

First let me say that "From Hell" was not my original selection for the day. I didn't switch to this to avoid another foreign film (originally it was the Asian cinema hit "In the Mood for Love), but because I discovered my original selection was released in Asia in 2000 - NOT 2001 (like Yahoo! Movies listed). So that explanation out of the way, it's time to get to my thoughts on this Jack the Ripper movie.

Johnny Depp stars as Inspector Abberline, a detective in London who gets visions when he is under the influence of drugs and alcohol. These visions often are graphic depictions of murders that will occur in the near future, so he is a valuable asset to the local law enforcement. When Jack the Ripper begins his work killing prostitutes, the visions become the only tool in solving the case.

I enjoyed this movie somewhat, but let me warn that it's extremely graphic. I actually felt a little sick to my stomach at times. At first things start out just semi-graphic, but by the end they leave little to the imagination. For this story though, the violence was needed, so I won't deduct points for it. One funny sidenote is that John Merrick, aka The Elephant Man, makes an appearance in this movie - you may remember him from my first selection of this project, which was the movie "The Elephant Man", so it brought things full circle.

What I didn't care for in "From Hell" was how much Depp's character became attached to one of the prostitutes. They share little time together, and yet he seems devastated by the way things turn out. And the ending is annoying. All the other things I didn't like about this movie - if I was to justify it here - are things that would spoil plot points. So take my word for it, this movie gets a 6.5 out of 10.

DAY TWENTY-ONE - MAY 21 - 2000 - Yi Yi (A One and a Two)

I have a very important question. How many points do you award a movie for having one cute kid? The only reason to watch "Yi Yi", a Taiwanese film, is for this one really cute kid actor who does a really nice job being cute. Other than that, "Yi Yi" is quite possibly not only the most boring movie I've watched thus far in this project, but arguably the most boring movie ever made. And it's loooooooong. 173 minutes to be exact.

Every summer, I look forward to the show "Big Brother." Maybe that says something about my intelligence level, maybe it's just my guilty pleasure. Basically, the premise of that show is to observe what people do when they are forced to live with each other. Every summer, they also offer a live feed of the contestants living in the house. I did a free 7 day trial of this once and found it to be the most boring thing ever - it was just people sitting around talking about everyday stuff. I love the show for the edited good parts - not this drivel. Needless to say I didn't subscribe. That is what "Yi Yi" felt like. It felt like being a fly on the wall in the lives of boring people.

The movie opens with a wedding, and ends with a death - I guess this is supposed to be meaningful. If any of the characters (minus cute kid of course) had any personality, maybe I would care. A couple of times a few of them start to get half-way interesting and then the scene changes. One character utters the line, no lie, "Who needs movies? Just stay at home and live life." No kidding. No one needs this type of movie. So cute kid, you're carrying "Yi Yi" on your shoulders. You get 3 stars out of 10. Yes, this is the worst review of any movie yet. And while it may be profound to some, I think the critical acclaim (96% postive, gasp!) comes mostly from stiff suited critics who fear not liking it will mean they didn't get something meaningful. I got where they were going - I just didn't want to go there. 3 stars out of 10.

DAY TWENTY - MAY 20 - 1999 - MAGNOLIA

I was just complaining about a movie (yesterday's "The Thin Red Line") that was too long and slow for my taste. So imagine how I felt when I looked at the running time for "Magnolia" and discovered it was a whopping three hours and eight minutes long. I almost swapped it out for another 1999 pick, but decided to give it a shot. Imagine my surprise then when I got through the movie in one sitting...awake. Not only did I get through it, I absolutely LOVED (almost) every one of the 188 totally necessary minutes.

This movie is like two of my other favorites mashed together - "Crash" and "Mulholland Drive". Basically it's a warped drama about a bunch of messed up people that are all interconnected in some normal and some unconventional ways. It's hard to explain more than that. William H. Macy, Julianne Moore, John C. Reilly, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and best of all (believe it or not) Tom Cruise - in a performance that is so bizarre any movie fan should check it out. Near the end the movie goes out of control...complete with an odd musical moment and one other twist that's really popular but if you haven't heard about it, don't try and find out before/if you watch.

My only complaint it that the movie goes a little over the top in it's vulgarity - even for me. I had to put the volume way down during some scenes as I didn't want the neighbors who were sitting outside to wonder what the heck was going on in my apartment! Other than that though, this movie is a trip! 9 out of 10.

DAY NINETEEN - MAY 19 - 1998 - THE THIN RED LINE

"The Thin Red Line" is the movie I blame for causing me to fall behind in this project. It's nearly three hours, but it felt like it was ten. It's a war movie that tries to put you in the position and in the mindset of the soldiers during WW2. General Sherman famously said "War is hell" - and so is this movie.

To be fair, this is one of the best shot movies I've seen during this project. For being 1998, it could easily live up to the standards of today. It felt like a new movie. The cast is top notch - which leads to another flaw. When you have so many great actors...USE THEM!! With the exception of Nick Nolte, most of the actors are just props moving through the jungle.

I found myself so bored that I was falling asleep over and over again. I had to put it on five different times just to get through it. Maybe if you were confined to a movie theater, you'd get a whole different experience, but I just didn't get the hype around it.

I really don't have too much more to say, other than I would give this movie a 4.5 out of 10.

Rule Reminder

Hi all! So there was no review yesterday. I know. I'd like to remind you of the catch up rule - you just have to watch 31 movies in 31 days from 31 years...but if you fall behind on watching one a day, you can play catch up when you need to! By the end of this weekend, I'll be back on track. Life happens. That's all I have to say!

Happy May 19th!

Today's movie selection is "The Thin Red Line." I've been a little under the weather, so I may have to use the catch-up rule for this. I guarantee a review will come, but it might not be tonight. Peace.

DAY EIGHTEEN - MAY 18 - 1997 - L.A. CONFIDENTIAL

"L.A. Confidential" was robbed for best picture of the year - and it lost to "Titanic." Many of you may know that I am a big "Titantic" fan - but even that was not as good as this riveting crime thriller set in 1950s LA.

When a by the books cop discovers that an open and shut murder investigation may not be as open and shut as it seemed, it sparks a fascinating whodunit. It is a fast moving thrill ride that earns the R rating for graphic violence, sexuality, and some profanity.

The performances in the movie are incredible. Kim Basinger won best supporting actress for playing a movie-star look-a-like prostitute, but equally as strong are Russell Crowe, Kevin Spacey (who I am not normally a fan of), and "Memento"'s Guy Pearce. Danny DeVito, James Cromwell, and David Strathiarn round out the strong supporting cast.

My only complaint about this near perfect film is that near the conclusion/climax, when one character is putting everything together he or she starts rattling off a million names and I had a hard time following it - but fortunately it's all made clear right after that scene.....so watch this movie! I would give it a 9.5 out of 10 - the second best film in this project, behind only "The Silence of the Lambs."

Happy May 18th!!

I'm really busy, and am going to see "Iron Man 2" tonight in theaters, but I will be watching "L.A. Confidential" later when I get home. The review will be posted really late. I love film noir, and I've heard LAC is that...done brilliantly. Peace!

DAY SEVENTEEN - MAY 17 - 1996 - FARGO

"Fargo" is best summed up as an odd little movie. It's an extremely violent 90 minutes, but also an extremely entertaining one. When a car salesman (William H. Macy) gets the idea to hire thugs to kidnap his wife to collect a ransom from her rich father, things don't go according to plan. I won't spoil anything, but a whole lot of blood is shed.

One of my biggest complaints with many Cohen Brothers movies is that they don't give us any likable characters, thus we don't care what happens to them. In this movie however, they give us the charming, if not over the top, Marge Gunderson, a pregnant police officer played by the excellent Frances McDormand (who won an Oscar for the role.) It's a good thing this character was introduced, or I probably would have hated the movie. She isn't even introduced until the a third of the movie has passed, but when she comes into play, it's a breath of fresh air.

I didn't love this movie, however I didn't hate it. It gets major props for being original, and even more props for the excellent acting - with the likes of Macy, McDormand, Steve Buscemi, and Peter Stormare leading the way. If you like bizarre deaths in movies, this one has a real treat in store for you. Story-wise though, I would rank it below "No Country for Old Men" and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?", but way above "Burn After Reading" and "A Serious Man". It's a short movie, which makes it better as it doesn't suffer from many pacing issues. Be warned: If you're squeamish in the least, you should avoid this movie at all costs. I would give it a 7 out of 10.

Happy May 17th!

Today is "Fargo" day! I have heard great things about this movie, despite my totally mixed bag of feelings towards the Cohen Brothers. I loved "No Country for Old Men" and "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" but did not like "Burn After Reading" and completely HATED "A Serious Man." So we'll see which camp "Fargo" ends up in. Review will be posted soon. Peace!

DAY SIXTEEN - MAY 16 - 1995 - 12 MONKEYS

Okay. It's a rule of mine not to give away spoilers when reviewing a film. So with that being said, this may be a cohesive mess of a review, but do know, it's that way because I respect you. "12 Monkeys" is a time travel film - thus meaning logic should be forgiven for the sake of entertainment. It's the same forgiveness extended to "The Terminator" movies (one and two at least) and even the original "The Time Machine" - three films I really love. The story, simply put, is about a criminal in the future who is experimented on in the form of a time travel program that might save civilization, which has been forced to move underground due to a deadly virus.

The movie is interesting. It is fast paced. But sadly, it's completely stupid. Where great action and solid writing made the other previously mentioned time travel films work, this one was a clunky mess that ended with a conclusion that I completely hated. The characters were completely ill-conceived and defined characteristics of the more irrational levels. The more recent "Shutter Island", a movie I wasn't crazy about, at least captured well the prison aspect this film seemed to want to have - but didn't. So while I kept watching, in the end it wasn't a worthwhile way to spend two hours and four minutes. If I could go back in time, I would chose something else for this project. Brad Pitt's performance was great, and seeing animals run amok is always awesome, but this film still only earns a 4 out of 10 from me.

SPOILER WARNING: One big reason I hated much of it was that the title was completely stupid as it really had nothing to do with things. I really feel whoever wrote this film had great things planned for the ending, but couldn't work them out so they resorted to the cheap Hollywood ending. And the amazing Christopher Plummer was completely underused. Pity.

Happy May 16th!!

Hey all! My choice for today is "12 Monkeys". I love time travel movies, and I've never seen this one which stars Bruce Willis. I really don't know much about it, which is fun. I highly recommend watching movies sometime when you have NO IDEA what they are going to be about. I mean, I know this one has time travel in it, so it doesn't really apply. Once I went to a movie theater showing a foreign film, and I just bought a ticket without having any idea what I was going to watch other than a coworker had liked it. It didn't end up being a great movie, but it was still a fun experience. All right, review to come later!

DAY 15 - MAY 15 - 1994 - CLERKS

Okay, what the heck did I just watch? I am all about independent films and experimental films, but this was just odd. The movie chronicles one day in the life of Dante - a clerk at a second rate convenient shop. We meet a cast of colorful characters (actually, black and white characters - the whole movie is shot in B&W), who are both annoying and offensive - and for all but one of them, unlikable. The odd thing is though, for a good part of the movie, I was actually entertained. For the other part, I was bored to death.

This is a really hard film to review. It's plotless. I guess if you like to be a fly on the wall as lower class citizens talk about sex, porn, dating, and a variety of other topics, this will be the best film you've ever seen. For me, the movie's hight point came early on when a customer brings a lung to the counter to dissuade people from buying cigarettes. It's kind of hilarious. Mostly though, the encounters with the customers are so over the top, Kevin Smith (the director) loses the point of making it seem like a real day in the life. Maybe that wasn't his goal, but then what was?

For it's 90 aimless minutes, about 30 of them were good, 5 were great, so I honestly cannot recommend this movie outright. That being said, it's the type of thing you might catch on TV while flipping around and stop to see what it's about. I would give "Clerks" a 5 out of 10.

Happy May 15th!

So just about at the half way point!! Today my selection is "Clerks" - a Kevin Smith film that I've heard great things about. One of my friends said he wouldn't be surprised if I turn it off out of being offended, but I like a challenge! Review will be posted in a couple of hours.

DAY FOURTEEN - MAY 14 - 1993 - PHILADELPHIA

Sports movies and courtroom movies are very similar in that audiences wait for one of two things - a big win, or a big loss. Around those conclusions, these films try and create compelling stories and memorable characters to make taking the all too conventional journey worth taking in the first place. In short, "Philadelphia" is a touching - if not overly sentimental - journey worth taking.

Having never seen this movie before, I already felt like I knew all it was about as it's impact on the film world is so great. I got exactly what I was expecting - no more, no less - and since I was expecting a well acted, interesting story, I was pleased. Telling the story of two very different lawyers (Washington and Hanks) dealing with a wrongful termination suit, the topic of homosexuality is front and center, but done so in a way that seemed far less preachy than most films that have that topic at the forefront. No matter where you stand on the issue, this movie might not change your opinion, but it will engage you.

A couple of problems I had with the film come back down to the "P" word - pacing. While the film is not overly long, it could have been a good bit shorter if it eliminated a couple of personal life scenes that didn't forward the story - including a dinner party, anniversary party, and an overlong love for opera scene. Also, during the trial there is a "mirror argument" brought up by the defense that is so easy to trump (and the prosecution does) that a five year old would be able to pick out how silly it was.

Those complaints aside, the film has top notch acting and a memorable, if not conventional story. I would rate it a 7 out of 10.

Happy May 14th!!

I'm going to say it right now - I am probably going to have to watch today's movie tomorrow - as part of the catch up rule. Remember when I mentioned at the beginning of this process that there are 24 hours in the day - all you need to succeed in this was about two of them? Well, today, I work all day, and then have a party at night (which I am very happy about; my social life is going from life support to just urgent care) and from there I'm going to a charity walk, The Relay for Life. The film I chose for today is one that so many people have told me to see. I think it's going to be good but really sad - that's just the vibe I get from it. The selection: "Philadelphia". I do like Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington, so hopefully I will be able to at least appreciate it. Peace!

DAY THIRTEEN - MAY 13 - 1992 - UNFORGIVEN

"Unforgiven" is a very good movie - not a great one. Great movies should be the only ones to win best picture, but in the tradition of "A Beautiful Mind", "Gladiator", and most recently "The Hurt Locker", this western tale is worthy of plenty of acclaim, but not worthy of the top prize.

I am convinced that there are two types of people in this world; those that love Clint Eastwood, and those that don't get what all the fuss is about. After this movie, I am certainly in the latter. While he is talented to a point, don't get me wrong, he's a one (maybe two) trick pony whose western swagger and shoot'em up "charm" wear on my patience - that's probably why the only Eastwood starring vehicle I've loved is "Million Dollar Baby" where he played slightly out of character.

The story deals with a mishap at a whorehouse which leaves one whore brutally attacked, and two cowboys guilty of the heinous crime. When the local law enforcement, led by Little Bill (more on him later), decides proper punishment is simply giving up some livestock, the whorehouse owner (is that called like a lazy she-pimp or something?) wants better justice and that justice might just come in the form of Mr. Clint Eastwood, a conflicted and tormented cowboy trying to do good, but fighting off his past indiscretions..

While I am not raving about Eastwood, Gene Hackman's Little Bill villain character is the best part of this movie - and he deservedly won an Oscar for the role. I actually found myself rooting for him - and I won't tell you how pulling for that team worked out. After coming off such a brilliant villain in yesterday's movie (Dr. Hannibal Lector), I was impressed how good a villain could come in the next year's crop of films.

Boiling it down though, my real problem with this movie is it tried to do way too much. They threw everything but the kitchen sink at this thing, and so of course some of it was great, but other parts just weren't. I kept saying 'woah, is that Morgan Freeman?', 'woah who is that British guy supposed to be and why do we need him?', 'wait a minute, I thought I liked Eastwood but now is he the villian?' - it was just a lot to process.

Another positive however was the first 60 seconds and the last 60 seconds - they do something so clever and touching, I wouldn't be surprised if that alone is why the movie won so much. I do hate when movies have a great ending and critics/viewers forget the flaws prior and just fall head over heels for the thing. So that being said, I would give "Unforgiven" a 7 out of 10 - (four of those points go directly to Hackman alone.).

Happy May 13th!

I didn't intend to put two westerns so closely together on my list, but that's how it worked out. Today I will be watching Clint "the most overrated man in Hollywood" Eastwood's "Unforgiven." In my mind he's still unforgiven for making me sit through the horrid "Gran Torino" but we'll see. I do love a good western, and "Unforgiven" won best picture! Back with the review later.

DAY TWELVE - MAY 12 - 1991 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS

Wow. That's really the most fitting word to describe the last two hours of my movie-watching life. "The Silence of the Lambs", winner of "the big 5" Academy Awards (best picture, actor, actress, director, and screenplay), is a film I knew far less about than I thought. Going into it, I thought it was about a guy who ate people. It is so much more, and it's truly genius.

I've heard some people say they refuse to see this movie as they think it is unhealthy to put this type of thing into their mind. Frankly, I don't blame them. This movie, while very tastefully done (oh gosh, no pun intended), is more psychologically terrifying than graphic. The story seems quite simple - a young FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is brought in to help extract information from a sadistic psychopath by the name of Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) who may or may not have information on another pivotal case. Through tense meetings and odd clues, Starling faces personal demons as well as real life evils.

Movies are often called "edge-of-your-seat" - and this film epitomizes that phrase. Based on the book by the late Thomas Harris, I would highly recommend this movie to those looking for a good thriller. The film did suffer from the one problem I have with many movies involving law enforcement - when one "hero" goes it alone to face off against an evil without calling in backup. With that sole flaw, this near-perfect thrill ride gets a 9.5 out of 10. Brilliant.

Happy May 12!!

I work at night on Wednesdays, meaning I have the morning off. My original plan was to watch my movie this morning - but as the selection is "The Silence of the Lambs", I really feel I need to watch it at night as to get the full creep-outed-ness of the thing. So I will try to watch it when I get home from work, meaning the review will be posted really late tonight if I can stay awake. Peace!

DAY ELEVEN - MAY 11 - 1990 - DANCES WITH WOLVES

This morning, I was dreading coming home from a long work day and trying to force myself to watch a three hour and one minute movie about Native Americans and Kevin Costner. I was regretting my pick of the film, wishing I had chosen something far lighter and far shorter. But, being totally committed to this project, I put in the DVD. Well, three hours and one minute later, I sit here writing my review - which is in short: "Dances with Wolves" is the best movie I've watched yet in this project.

The film is set back during the Civil War. Kevin Costner, who starred and directed, portrays Lt. Dunbar/Dances with Wolves, a man who starts the film trying to kill himself, but through a small miracle, ends up getting a second chance at life when he accidentally leads his fellow Union troops to a victory on the battlefield. Getting to choose his assignment, he opts to take a position as far away as he can. Alone on this new post, he meets a wolf, Native Americans, and a strange white woman.

This movie is an odyssey of sorts - with lots of strange and wonderful characters thrown into the path of our hero. In the end though, this is a film about dedication, morality, and sacrifice. While I by no means hate Americans, it does raise some questions about our shaky heritage and treatment of those that were here before us. This is a journey/epic that everyone should take. I completely understand why it won seven Oscars including best picture. I would rate this movie a 9 out of 10.

Happy May 11th!

Well, we're in the 90's now! My first pick of this decade is the best picture winner - "Dances with Wolves". I'm not going to lie - I'm not really looking forward to this one. I really need to see it though - I mean, it got great reviews. It's super long, so hopefully I can finish it before falling asleep later after work. I don't know, I should want to see it more as it deals with Native Americans and I love casinos. Maybe I'm still just a little turned off from "Bull Durham" and don't want to see Costner anything anymore, haha. Well, it was my original choice and I'm sticking with it! Peace!

DAY TEN - MAY 10 - 1989 - SAY ANYTHING...

My favorite movie critic, Roger Ebert, called "Say Anything..." the best romantic comedy of all time. I would disagree ("When Harry Met Sally" tops my list) ...but frankly, he's not that far off. "Say Anything..." is a smart, touching, layered romance that is far less comedy than I was expecting. It's every bit as much a parent/child relationship story as it is a boy/girl one, and both stories are woven together so well.

One part of the movie features Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) - a caring, kind nobody. He has a crush on Diane Court (Ione Skye) - a smart, attractive somebody. Going out on a limb, Lloyd calls up Diane one day to see if she wants to go to a party. She accepts because Lloyd can make her laugh, and a relationship begins. In another storyline, Diane's father, played by John Mahoney, is a loving, devoted father with a big secret, but I won't spoil it for those that haven't seen the movie.

One of my biggest complaints about my film from yesterday, "Bull Durham", was that the characters weren't likable. In "Say Anything...", I really was rooting for a happy ending as I really liked all the characters. And while the ending was one I didn't expect, I loved it. And I loved this movie. On a sidenote, I thought seeing a very young Jeremy Piven (from one of my favorite shows, Entourage) was hilarious. Funny enough, I bought a bunch of the movies for this project during a great used DVD sale, but this was one I didn't buy - and it's one of the ones that I have liked the best. I would give "Say Anything..." 8.5 out of 10.

Happy May 10th!!

Today is "Say Anything..." day - a movie I cannot believe I haven't seen as my favorite critic, Roger Ebert, has declared it the best romantic comedy of all time. I will be honest though, I think John Cusack is terribly overrated - he's in Nicholas Cage territory for me. I can name more Cusack movies that I've hated than ones I've liked. That's probably why I have never rushed to get to it. We'll see though, hopefully the 'anything' I'll 'say' after seeing this movie will be great things.

DAY NINE - MAY 09 - 1988 - BULL DURHAM

"Bull Durham" is a weird movie that tries to mix fantasy, baseball, and romance for an end result that's just plain odd. When a movie is filled with downright unlikable characters, it has to execute everything perfectly for me to like said movie...."Bull Durham" misses the mark.

The film is narrated by Susan Sarandon, who plays this mystical baseball whore who sleeps with one different player every year, which in turn launches that player into super-stardom. When she falls for someone in addition to her player of choice, things get tricky. Kevin Costner and Tim Robbins round out the cast as two very unlikable people. Costner plays a washed up mope of a catcher who is seeing the spark of a comeback, and Robbins plays a womanizing boozer who just happens to have all the ingredients of a great pitcher.

I didn't like this movie. For one, everyone takes themselves way too seriously for such a stupid storyline. Two, this movie continuously bashes Christianity throughout - from the opening monologue to right near the end, there are shots taken that are just not needed. Finally, the ending is far from satisfying - it felt as if they didn't know what to do so they just said "Heck with it" and started credits rolling. Those three major annoyances, or "strikes", serve up what I would call a 4 stars out of 10 film. There are a couple of laughs, but they aren't good enough to make this a worthwhile way to spend your time.

Happy May 9th! (Mother's Day)

Hey everyone! A quick shout out to all the mothers out there - including mine (the best in the world.) So later today I'll be watching "Bull Durham" - the only Kevin Costner baseball movie I haven't seen. I have always thought "Field of Dreams" is an okay movie - just okay thanks to my dad's constant overplaying/overhyping of it growing up. I've always really liked "For Love of the Game", and the last one in the trio is "Bull Durham." My review will be posted later tonight again as I'm going to lunch and a movie with my mom. We're seeing a free screening of "Letters to Juliet" - now trust me, I would much rather be at "Iron Man 2", but it is mother's day after all, so I will see if there is some part of it I can enjoy. We'll see. Peace!

DAY EIGHT - MAY 08 - 1987 - BROADCAST NEWS

"Broadcast News" is a hard movie to peg down - it's a comedy, drama, and romance, all set against the backdrop of a moderately successful news station. Albert Brooks, Holly Hunter, William Hurt, and even Jack Nicholson are all excellent developing their very different characters. Again, for this movie project, I chose a movie that was very long - 132 minutes. That being said, the time flew by as the characters were compelling, the story was moving, and the writing was incredible.

One line that hit me, and this is a paraphrase, was "What if you have lived the best part of your life, and now you have to start the worst part?" The movie is full of lines that are smart - and tough. The movie kind of had the same feel as the recent "Up in the Air" - a film I loved. It's not an overall "happy movie" like I was thinking it was before I watched it. I also didn't realize the movie was written and directed by James L. Brooks - the guy behind "As Good As It Gets" and "The Mary Tyler Moore Show." I actually cannot believe I haven't seen this sooner - but I have now, and I would give it a score of 8 out of 10. This won't be a film for everyone, but for me, it was great!

Happy May 8th!!

Okay, I'm writing this on my lunch break, and I'm really worried about getting a movie in today. I will try. I work today, and have tickets to see Jimmy Fallon tonight (which I am so excited about!). I chose the movie "Broadcast News" as it's one I've always wanted to see due to the subject matter. I have a bachelor's degree in broadcasting, and love movies that deal with the TV world. From "The Truman Show", to embarrassingly enough, "Up Close & Personal" - I love the genre of television movies. Hopefully I will love this movie which many consider a classic. Peace!

DAY SEVEN - MAY 07 - 1986 - PLATOON

Director Oliver Stone is known as many things in the Hollywood circles, and preachy is certainly one of them. "Platoon" is a powerful look at a group of men called to protect and serve in Vietnam, with the end message being "war is bad." Based on Oliver Stone's personal experience serving his country, the film for modern audiences is both a piece of pop culture, but more-so a commentary on war itself.

There is no real plot. The film is narrated by one soldier (played by Charlie Sheen) through letters home as he makes his way with the titled platoon through Vietnam. I was struck with how the film just begins - there is no need for a back story or a lead up - Stone just wants to put you front and center for all of the horror. There is one sequence in particular where the platoon comes upon a village and some soldiers begin murdering innocent farmers out of some sick, sheer need to kill. It's sickening, it's preachy, it's effective.

The casting was excellent - it was made up of many men who now are on some of the most popular TV shows out there. I don't know all of their names off the top of my head, but it was funny to see these actors before their careers took off in many different directions.

I cannot bring myself to say I "love" any war movie. These films aren't made to be loved, they are made to be experienced. That being said, I am very thankful I chose this film for today, and I would give it a score of 8 out of 10.

Happy May 7th!

I've had some internet problems but today's selection is "Platoon" - an Oliver Stone film about Vietnam that won best picture in 1986. I will hopefully post the review late tonight. Peace!

DAY SIX - MAY 06 - 1985 - OUT OF AFRICA

In this process of M.M.O.M., I have encountered one problem more than anything - pacing. The pacing in a couple of the films to this point has been so slow it literally put me to sleep. "Out of Africa" is a slowly paced film - and I really enjoyed it. I guess it's not about the pacing as much as it's about the story and the right pace in which to tell it.

"Out of Africa" tells the story of a real life woman, Karen Blixen, portrayed by the always excellent Meryl Streep. In a way the movie is a soap opera set against the most breathtaking views of Africa. I've always wanted to go on a safari, and this movie intensified that desire. The film is also a lesson in loneliness, and the moral that says money isn't everything. A recent movie, "Australia" with Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman, obviously either paid homage or stole many elements of "OOA" - but their end product was nowhere near as good.

The movie however does have a couple of "it doesn't spoil the movie but I have to mention it" moments. Robert Redford's Denys character was good - but slightly underused. This film won a lot of Oscars, including best picture, but he wasn't even nominated, and I can understand that. He's a great actor, don't get me wrong, but he was definitely a distant second to Streep. Also, in a couple of scenes Streep's character seems to be a bit erratic in nature to the point she doesn't seem completely believable. One moment she's Annie Oakley of Africa, the next moment she's a refined socialite. Maybe that's supposed to be charming - but for me it contributed to the weaker moments of the film. Those minor complaints aside, this is easily the best looking film so far, and I would give it 7.5 out of 10.

Happy May 6th!!

Hey everyone - my greeting is a little later today - it's been a crazy day. That's the one hard thing about two updates a day. I am about to start "Out of Africa", and the review will be up late this evening. I have wanted to go to Africa ever since I was little, and since this movie, released in 1985, won the Best Picture Oscar (among others), it seemed to be the perfect choice. It is really long - almost as long as "Scarface", so hopefully I'll stay awake. Peace!

DAY FIVE - MAY 05 - 1984 - SPLASH

Okay, I'm going to just state a question that might be silly; am I asking a little too much to require some amount of logic in a movie about a man falling in love with a mystery woman who just happens to be a mermaid? "Splash" was not for me, plain and simple.

It starts out where we meet a fruit vendor (Tom Hanks) who thinks he is going to grow old and be alone. So far, I could identify. He travels to Cape Cod, a favorite childhood spot of his, to just think and be happy. Upon having a boating accident, he is rescued by a mermaid (Daryl Hannah) - but he doesn't know it (the audience does - I am not spoiling anything). Instead, he just thinks this creature is a woman (no fins when legs are dry! so fortunate!) from another country. I'm not going to spend another five paragraphs describing their many antics, but I just wasn't all that impressed.

On the positive side, there was one subplot with Eugene Levy's scientist character that I did find quite funny - how he goes around getting women wet by mistake in an attempt to prove that the mystery woman is in fact a mermaid. The chemistry between Hanks and Hannah was also very believable - it was just the story that didn't click. It's almost like the studio that made the film had all the right elements except for the script. I really wish they would have done something to set the story up more. I mean, why was this mermaid the only one walking on earth? Or was she? Where did she come from? How could the weird ending even happen?

I guess I'm a sucker for a story that makes some sense, even when we're talking about a fantasy/romantic comedy. I am a big Tom Hanks fan, and while this film wasn't a total waste, it just wasn't for me. 4 stars out of 10.

Happy May 5th!

For 1984, my selection is "Splash." I don't think I could have chosen a more different movie than yesterday's "Scarface"! I wanted to see this one for the movie triple threat - Tom Hanks (actor), Ron Howard (director), Brian Grazer(creator). I didn't want to see this for a while because frankly mermaids are not my thing. But as John Candy and Eugene Levy are in it (big pluses) and I like Daryl Hannah minus "Blade Runner", that's what I'll be watching today. Review posted in a little bit as I work tonight and have the morning off. Peace.

DAY FOUR - MAY 04 - 1983 - SCARFACE

After the first three days of this movie project, my only accomplishment was watching three movies I thought I would like. I could not however say I really enjoyed any of them. Today, thankfully, that changes. "Scarface" was one of the best gangster-style movies I've ever seen. Al Pacino was incredible - it really was his movie despite the strong supporting cast.

This hard R film tells the story of Tony Montana (Pacino) - from bum to drug kingpin. I must say, when I saw the film was two hours and fifty minutes, I was worried it would drag. The pacing wasn't perfect, but when it moved, it moved - and the time did fly by once the film hit it's stride. The funny thing I observed with the movie was that there was nobody to root for - nobody was worthy enough to care about. Usually I hate movies with that problem, but for some reason, "Scarface" was so interesting, I just enjoyed being a fly on the wall watching this man's life spiral out of control.

Funny observation: I didn't take off much in my criticism of the film as I realize that it was made in 1983, but the music was SO eighties that it annoyed the heck out of me. And it wasn't just the songs themselves, but the style during certain situations. It would be like playing "Tik Tok" by Ke$ha during the creepy tree healing scene in "Avatar."

That being said, the last half hour is incredible - the rest is very good. So I can happily rate "Scarface" a project high 8.5 out of 10.

Happy May 4th!!

Today's movie, from the year I was born, is Scarface. I've owned this one on DVD for over a year, but just haven't gotten around to watching it. Today is the day! I want to watch this movie for a few reasons - and none of them have anything to do with Al Pacino. I have nothing against him (aside from the movie Simone), but he's never been one of those "must-see" actors for me. I really enjoy a good gangster flick now and then (The Departed being my favorite), so for May 4th, when I realized Scarface was from 1983, it was an easy pick. The movie also has one of the most popular lines ever uttered in a movie -"Say hello to my little friend!" - so I really need to see it. I hope I like it more than the last three movies I've watched! Review will be posted later!

DAY THREE - MAY 03 - 1982 - BLADE RUNNER

Many years from now, there will be a lonely, single guy, sitting in his apartment thinking "Hey, what if I try and watch 31 movies in 31 days?!" He'll search the best movies of the past thirty-one years and for the year 2009 he'll stumble upon "Avatar." When he watches it, he'll say to himself "What was all the fuss about?" That is how I felt about my selection for today - "Blade Runner." I'm sure for it's time, it broke ground. The sets were often impressive, even for today's standards. That being said, while it was nice to look at, for a movie with the word "runner" in it's title, it sure seemed to crawl.

A young Harrison Ford works as a Blade Runner - one tasked to hunt and "kill" robot humans that have made their way to earth from an experiment gone wrong on another planet (I think!.) Seriously, to be completely honest, I fell asleep and had to rewind this movie three times. I cannot believe how little happened in such a long two hours. I feel like I could have edited this down to twenty or thirty very good minutes.

A major con for me: As slow as the movie went, it didn't seem to develop the enemies well at all. They weren't scary and they weren't even that interesting - they were just there filling a role. The movie seemed to begin well, leading me to believe good things were ahead, but alas, it was too much to ask. It is funny this movie is from the same guy who now produces "The Good Wife" on CBS (which is actually really good - maybe trading political scandal for spaceships was a good move!).

So it's with dismay that I rate today's movie, out of a possible 10, a whopping 4.5.

Happy May 3rd!

So my selection for today is "Blade Runner" - which is one of those movies specifically that people have said to me "I cannot believe you haven't seen it!" - which is part of the point of this whole process. There is a side of sci-fi movies I love, and another side I run from. I am not into all the nasally geekdom of analyzing elements of a space movie to apply them to reality, but I do like an out there story now and then - so I am hoping. I really expected to love most of the movies on my list, by having not even cracked seven out of ten for the first two days has me worried. One thing I am doing AFTER I see the movies is seeing how my assessment of the films I watch compares to my favorite critic of all time - Mr. Roger Ebert. On day one, I gave "The Elephant Man" 6.5 out of 10 - Ebert gave it 2 out of 4 (stars). Yesterday, I rated "The Cannonball Run" a far less than impressive 4 out of 10 - whereas Ebert went one step further and awarded it half, yes .5 out of 4. It really wasn't good! All right, I work today, so my review of "Blade Runner" won't be posted until later this evening. Peace!

DAY TWO - MAY 02 - 1981 - THE CANNONBALL RUN

"The Cannonball Run" (rated PG) looks like it would be a movie I would love. A racing competition. A slew of popular people. Campy humor. My verdict however is far from complementary. I have a real problem and it's simple - this movie lost the race to make this type of movie first, and that superior film was "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." I didn't hate the movie - it does have some likable moments and some quirky characters. An additional problem is that not a single character seemed real. Now I know it's a comedy, and I should be forgiving, and I will be in my rating somewhat, but they really just needed to tone down the stupid. And the ending is completely flawed, but if I discussed it, it would spoil the movie. Let me just say the wrong team is declared the winner, and if you have half a brain you'll figure out what I'm talking about.

So on this second day, I give "The Cannonball Run" a score of 4 out of 10, with the biggest reward of watching the movie is that I can say I finally saw what many call a classic. Hopefully tomorrow will bode better. Peace!

Happy May 2nd!!

Now that it's underway, I want to remind newbies of one of the rules - you can catch up if you fall behind so long as you watch the movies in year-to-year order!! So get going if you haven't already. Today is 1981, and my selection is "The Cannonball Run". Now, I've never been a big Burt Reynolds fan - although I did like the cheesy-awesome poker movie "Deal." What I have always liked though is "The Amazing Race" television show, and the movie "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World." This movie looks like a campy cross between those things, and I've always wanted to see it. Today I shall....but after I'm done walking twenty miles. I am taking part in the Walk for Hunger, a charity walk in Boston, Massachusetts, and while I WILL watch my movie today, it won't be until later this evening.

Peace!

DAY ONE - MAY 01 - 1980 - THE ELEPHANT MAN

Wow! What a choice for my first pick. Basically, M.M.O.M. for me began with a scene where a elephant raped a woman - thus spawning the title character in the film from 1980, "The Elephant Man." David Lynch, who is a master, told the based-on-a-true-story (yes, I will be doing some research) of a man so disfigured he is considered a "freak" by many. Rescued from the grasp of an evil showman, this disfigured man transforms from laughable show feature to an admired social figure. (REVIEW CONTINUES BELOW PICTURE)

Okay, my thoughts in a nut shell - way too long! The movie moved at a pace that had me break once in between as I had to get away. Now that doesn't mean I didn't respect the technical elements of the film, and the ending was very well done. One of the biggest pluses for me with the film was that it was in black and white - it made the movie feel much older than 31 years. To be completely honest, had the film been in color, the PG rating (which didn't mean as much back then as it does today, refer back to the elephant rape for example) would have surely been an R. The acting was excellent as well - it really was just the pacing I had a problem with. So, as I will do for the entire month, I am rating these movies on a scale from 1-10, with 10 being the best. "The Elephant Man" gets a 6.5 from me. And now I can check it off my movie bucket list!

Happy May 1st!

It starts today! If you're just finding this blog now, read the very first post in this blog to learn about this project. Today I will be watching "The Elephant Man" - a film directed by one of the most messed up, creative, and unique directors out there - David Lynch.

Why do I want to see this movie? I chose this movie for today because another one of Lynch's movies, "Mulholland Drive", is one of my favorite movies of all time. I want to see what the director was like years before he created the movie I already love. Also, "The Elephant Man" was nominated for eight Academy Awards, so it sounds like it should be good. In addition to those reasons, it's based on a true story and Anthony Hopkins is in it - always a plus. I will post my review on this blog later - and I hope you post your 1980 selection reviews here too!

Peace!