Monty Python Conquers America (aka Monty Python: The Other British Invasion)

Monty Python Conquers America (2000?)
Directed by Somebody
Starring Monty Python, various comedy giants, This assy narrator dude

(Seriously, I can find almost no background information on this thing, probably because it was included in the MPFS boxed set.)

Synopsis Following Monty Python from the beginning of their popularity in Britain through their Hollywood Bowl performance, talking heads and archival footage (more of news stories, etc. than actual sketches) are woven together by extremely grating thread of the narration.

MOster
"In the way the Beatles changed music in America, Monty Python changed comedy forever."

The closing of the movie is a statement which I think many people take for granted, but I also believe it. I really learned a lot about the Pythons and who they influenced, from Carl Reiner talking about how their edginess shaped American television, to Hank Azaria who was inspired as a teen by the notion that grownups "could be so silly," to Trey Parker and Matt Stone lovingly admitting to ripping off Terry Gilliam all the time.  This discussion was great to hear but it only reinforced my opinions.  It was great to hear these (and many other) big names gush about the influence of the Pythons, but what this part did more than anything was to make me wish there were hours upon hours of extras on this DVD.

The part that really threw me and really pulled me in was the actual history.  From the number of attempts, through all the appearances they had to make, and peaking with a trial over the right to retain your artistic intent this part really kept me glued to the screen.  The pinnacle of their direct involvement in the US was the Hollywood Bowl show, where they sold out four nights.

The film astutely ends shortly after that bit of history, with a few of the most glowing compliments followed by the quote above.  But this is the first documentary I've seen--granted, my documentary experience isn't nearly as extensive as my woman's--which was both extremely interesting and not very good. It was really difficult to like this because of the way the narrator handled himself and the way the narration was actually written.  But I don't think you'd get the same impact from a Wikipedia page.  If you can make it through the first fifteen minutes then you can do the whole thing... and you probably won't be disappointed.

House of Suns (Book)

House of Suns (2009)
Written by Alastiar Reynolds

Synopsis
Purslane and Campion, two of a thousand "shatterlings," or clones, who were engineered to survive the millenia involved in interstellar travel are of a small number who survive an attack on their "line."  Working with the remaining survivors, they strive to uncover and punish the perpetrators but end up revealing something much deeper and more sinister.


MOster
I enjoyed this book very much.  The story was interesting and compelling, and the ways Reynolds has evolved humanity into different types of creatures are innovative and thorough.  The story kept me speculating, and while I figured out some of the high level points of the end before the characters, I did not expect the finale at all.  The writing works well to bring the reader into the minds of the characters.  I do have a small gripe with the structure of the book, but I think this is more of an editorial error than an authorial one.  The way the story flows in the prequels which act as prologues for each of eight sections doesn't quite match the way it flows in the "present."

"House of Suns" differs from Reynolds's past works in that it's a smaller scope of characters operating in a much larger area both time and space.  The approach allows for a self-contained novel rather than a four volume undertaking, and while he has only two main characters / narrators (who could be considered three... or one) rather than a dozen, each of the host of secondary players is given a distinct voice and personality.  While it helps to filter through the eyes of another character, this is more difficult in written fiction than filmed fiction; and I appreciate that attention to detail.

I've read Reynolds's work in the past, and was quite excited to see that he brought a new story from a new universe (though the way his things work it could just be the same universe at a different point in history).  Where he excelled in the past was in conveying the isolation and tedium of interstellar travel; and he does so to equal but different effect in this outing.  The underlying elements of the universe have matured in that he has pushed to the background the deus ex machina crutch of immensely powerful found objects.

Taking into account that there are unexplainable items, this work blurs the line between true science fiction and "hard SF."  The most important aspect here is in the rigid limit of the speed of light.  Reyonlds discusses using magnetic fields, stasis devices, and similar theoretical technologies--it's important that they are all based in scientific *theories* of our age--to allow for (e.g.) acceleration in excess of a thousand G, but at the end of the day the ships just keep tacking 9s onto the end of .9c, allowing him to leverage relativity in interesting ways rather than just having people travel hundreds of billions of miles in a day and a half.

Reynolds has expanded the main volumes of the "Revelation Space" series into substories and prequels.  I didn't read many of those because 1,500 pages of one universe is generally enough for me these days.  But I'd love it if he took a similar approach to this universe.  I would gladly pay another $9 to learn more about this newest world of his creation.

Humpday

Humpday (2009)

Director: Lynn Shelton
Writer:  Lynn Shelton
Starring: Mark Duplass, Joshua Leonard, Alycia Delmore

Synopsis
adventuring friend from college shows up at married guy's house. distracts married guy from married life. they decide to make a porno of the two of them. they play a sort of gay chicken with one another. awkardness ensues.

The Woman
this was ok. i wasn't on board until halfway through though. it seemed to me the marriage was really weird, and the guys were pretty homo-erotic before they decided to do a porno. the married couple seemed to reassure each other a lot, which to me indicates discomfort, and artificialness. but i think that was the point. because halfway through it started to get more honest. the whole making a porno of two straight guys together as a kind of arty porn sailed way over my head. but it was also admitted to be stupid towards the end. all the problems i had with this movie were pointed out and discussed by the end, which is why i kind of liked it. but only a comme ci, comme ca like. it was a typical indy movie with an indy ending. of course it's indy, it has mark duplass in it.

A Real Young Girl

A Real Young Girl (1976)

Director:Catharine Breillat
Writer: Catharine Breillat
Starring: Charlotte Alexandra

Synopsis
This girl comes home from school, having apparently discovered the orgasm.  She proceeds to try things out and fluster her parents as well as others.  There are a couple of guys she wants to screw her, but circumstances intervene.  There is explicit vagina and Alice has really nice boobies.

The Woman
this movie was entirely about what this chick would insert into her vagina. spoons, worms, a suntan lotion glass bottle. it became a game in our viewing. mom's slaughtering a chicken.....next stop....vagina! that's pretty much all this was good for. that, and the realization that french teenagers from the 70's were totally weird.

MOster
OK.  This kind of gets a "whatever" from me.  I've consumed more pornography than average by about ninety billion percent (and that's not hyperbole), but I've never seen a woman diddle herself with a spoon and then stir her soup with it, and I've never seen anything having to do with earthworms, in whole or in part.

I don't know anything about this writer/director; and I really don't have the inclination to look her up.  There was obviously some intent here, but again I think we're looking at student intent.  Strange cuts and close shots and weird music cues tried to evoke more than, "oh, is she rouging her pussy?"  But they failed.

Alice is dissatisfied, full of ennui, listless.  She does some dirty things to get reactions either from herself or from others.  Rinse, repeat.  She's still unhappy at the end.  Being a teenage girl (in France in the 70s or anywhere at any time) is not fun.  This movie was fun to watch, but it was not good.

Happiness Runs

Happiness Runs (2010)

Director: Adam Sherman
Writer: Adam Sherman
Starring: Hannah Hall, Mark L. Young
Synopsis
the children of a hippie commune are all grown up and totally messed up from lack of parenting. they're all drug addicts, nymphos, and/or cutters

The Woman

i didn't get it. if it was supposed to be shocking, it wasn't. all of these children, save one, were messed up asses. there was no character backstory, no growth. the parents were never explained. why is andy macdowell in bed all the time? was she sick? i don't know. nor was it explained. the main character, victor, whined throughout the whole movie about how he was going to leave, and it took him until the end of the movie to do it, even though he had no worthwhile  relationship. the only person he cared about was this chick who was sleeping with every other guy in the commune. eh. bad. at least most of them died before the movie was over.

Assault on Precinct 13

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Written by John Carpenter
Directed by John Carpenter
Starring Austin Stoker, Darwin Joston, Laurie Zimmer, Martin West

Synopsis
this gang kills this little girl because she's in the wrong place (the ice cream truck) at the wrong time. the father kills one of the gang members and runs to a police station that's 90% shut down. the gang assaults precinct 13.
MOster
I enjoyed most of these 90 minutes, though given the extended setup I think the movie comes from an era when there was a minimum time for such things.  Once the pieces were in place, Carpenter did a great job of building the tension and keeping it at a good pace.  I also really appreciated how the story ended.  That part rang true to me.  However, the motivation for the "bad guys" wasn't very clear to us or to many of the "good guy" characters on the screen.  It seems an awfully long way to go to kill one witness.

This was filled with bad-assery.  Carpenter's music set the tone really well and the tough guys all came off as tough.  Some of the supporters were a little weak, but that's OK.  The photography and the camera placement worked well with the other directorial elements to generate a good atmosphere.

While the movie could feel more like an exercise than a film, per se, I still think it was worty of an hour and a half of my existence; we've seen a lot worse recently.  In closing I must mention that the woman who decided to put the actresses (of which she was one) into those sweaters did an excellent, 1975 job.


The Woman
i thought this was pretty lame. there was a lot of set up for not much pay off, and the next time i looked up, it was over. i had to ask moster if was really over. lame. the actual assault on precinct 13 should have been longer, and more violent or suspenseful. the gang should have tortured the people inside the station a little more. i should have seen brains or something. intestines? i can always appreciate intestines. i like over the top better than underwhelming. boring. lame.

Battle in Heaven

Battle in Heaven (2005)
Written by Carlos Reygadas
Directed by Carlos Reygadas
Starring Marcos Hernández, Anapola Mushkadiz, Bertha Ruiz

Synopsis (such as it is)
Marcos, a Chauffer for a general's daughter, and his wife kidnap a baby and the baby dies.  The daughter works at least part time in a brothel, and Marcos is secretly (or, not so) in love with her.  Catholic guilt takes over, but to say much more about it would give things away.

Woooooman

i think that there are sometimes foreign movies that are made that should not be subtitled and sent out for the world to view. not because they are terrible, but because they are too culturally based and don't really make any sense to anyone from a different place. this was totally one of those movies. i din't understand any of it. maybe if i were a devout catholic it would have made a little bit more sense, but then i would probably be greatly offended by the extremely sexually explicit scenes. there wasn't a lot of dialog in this either. lots of  long silent panning shots, and an unemotional quiet mexican. no action taken in this movie was explained. there was no explanation why this guy and his hefty wife kidnapped their friends baby, or why the dude killed that chick or why he died. i know plot points like that sound exciting, but with no explanation... it was like wandering around someone else's dream. if i didn't read the description on the netflix sleeve i would have been even more lost, which is hard to grasp.

don't watch this unless you are mexican. if you are, then please tell me what the heck this movie was about. beside this dude's catholic immortal soul.

MOster
It's difficult to critique the plot of this, because I didn't really get the Catholic / Mexican undertones of the movie so I didn't understand the motivations of any of the primary characters.  I think I did get the very end, though.

Acting varied widely.  I think that Hernandez did a great job as Marcos, and I think that Mushkadiz was passable as the daughter.  But most of the rest of the cast was pretty weak to me.

The film was shot quite deliberately and with great care, though it wasn't always successful.  Slow, lingering shots on blowjobs can linger too long but I do give some points for effort.  I don't know if I can say quite the same thing for the camera work itself as I don't think the sloppiness was always intentional.  The sex was certainly real, though.

This one definitely doesn't get a recommendation to me.  Its components did not overcome the twin barriers of culture and language.