It's been a while since I wrote one of my crappy movie reviews, but I'm pretty you never really forget; sure it's just like riding a horse. No wait, that's if I fall, I'm supposed to get right back in the saddle. It's a bike that you never forget out to ride. I certainly wouldn't forget; my first bike riding experience ended with 4 stitches in my bottom lip and a couple of freaked out nurses wondering where a small kid can summon such strength trying to escape the man with the needle and thread.

I had been hearing some chatter about this movie Brick, which was said to be a novel take on the classic American detective story. I've read most of everything Dashielle Hammet ever wrote, and Raymond Chandler ain't too shabby, either, so this sounded right up my alley. Some of the best movies of the 40's, hell, of all time, were detective movies. I've watched The Maltese Falcon almost as many times as I've watched the Millennium Falcon. Han Solo wishes he was as bad ass and cold hearted as Sam Spade. Spouting lines like "When you're slapped, you'll take it and like it"and "People lose teeth talking like that. If you want to hang around, you'll be polite," you know he doesn't give a crap. The cynical tough guy with reflexes almost as quick as his witty banter are a staple in these types of movies, and when done right, are a joy to watch. The only problem is, the era of a fedora wearing gumshoe with a bottle of bourbon in his desk are as dead and buried as the WWII generation. You're much more likely to see a fuzzed face, doe eyed, male model that needs a huge shot of testosterone up on the movie screen than you are to see a man that actually looks and acts like a man. With this being the facts of the new millennium, a change of scenery seems fairly appropriate for a modern day detective story.

Brick is your standard murder mystery set within the dark, underbelly of a world infested with violence and drugs. However, in what is actually a fairly clever twist, the world is an average high school. The hero is a cagey loner, who makes it is personal mission to solve the murder of the ex-girlfriend that he still pines for, but had entered a different, more dangerous, high school clique. The setting works for the story; just glancing at the headlines, you can tell high schools are far more dangerous than past generations. With children losing their innocence much earlier and a society that tries to pretend they're little adults, it's certainly believable.

What isn't believable and where the movie makes a serious error, is transporting the machine gun patter and slang of the 40s and putting it into the mouths of these high school kids. Everyone in this film talks and acts as though they're actually in some film noir, black and white drama instead of standing around the parking lot of a generic, suburban, grocery store. Had the screenplay done an actual updating, such as was done with Jane Austen's Emma and placing it in a modern day high school in the film Clueless, this one feels as though the writer originally wrote a standard 40's detective yarn after reading The Long Goodbye, but as an experiment decided to just shoehorn it into the mouths of teens instead. While the dialogue is actually quite good, it feels completely wrong in the setting. This was the same reaction I had to the remake of Romeo and Juliet with DiCaprio where they kept the original Shakespearean dialogue in modern day Miami. It's gimmicky and it makes you aware of it the entire time you're watching. I can't lose myself in the fantasy of a movie if it's always yelling at me, "Look how clever I am!"

It might have worked better if it was more tongue in cheek like Clueless, but the movie seems to be played straight. This sometimes leads to absurd dialogue like when our hardboiled detective senior says to his principal, "No more of these informal chats! If you have a disciplinary issue with me, write me up or suspend me and I'll see you at the Parent-Teacher conference."

The protagonist, Brendan Frye, played by the long haired kid from the obnoxious sitcom Third Rock from the Sun, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, is well cast in the movie. He still looks young enough to be a teenager, but he's got enough acting chops to pull off the type of ridiculous dialogue they have him spouting off in every scene. In fact, his performance is the one thing that keeps this movie from completely falling apart from it's own inherent silliness.

This movie is reminiscent of another experiment at film noir detective stories made a few years ago, Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang, starring Robert Downey, Jr. That one attempted to transport the whole gumshoe concept into the modern day, but with far more self awareness. That movie fell apart once it stopped taking it self seriously at all and devolved into a surreal parody where they gave up even trying to make sense. These two movies are at two different ends of the spectrum; one took itself way too seriously, the other, not seriously enough. While both were entertaining, they're both failures as far as producing a good movie. Still, you have to appreciate when a movie tries to tell a unique story. I can only watch so many movies about superhero origins or workaholic beautiful women who haven't met the right guy with hilarity ensuing.

Unless you're a fan of detective films, I wouldn't recommend Brick. But, as I am a fan, I have to say I was entertained. I just spent too much of the movie thinking of ways to change it than actually enjoying the story.

6.5/10

*Go ahead....pull my finger!*


I'm taking a look at whether or not most of Scorsese's movies live up to his reputation as a great director as well as being films that I'd want to watch again. We'll take a brief look at my experiences with his oeuvre. (Oeuvre used correctly in a sentence? 100 points!)

Taxi Driver (1976): A haunting performance by Robert DeNiro playing a mental case who feels like an outsider to the world he hates and his grasp on reality is tenuous at best. It's a good movie with ambiguous ending perfect for film students to endlessly debate until you want to punch them in the mouth, but the mind of Travis Bickle is definitely not something you want to revisit. You might find yourself start to agree with him.

Raging Bull (1980): Robert DeNiro again playing a paranoid mental case, this time a championship boxer, that cannot adjust to the world and slowly destroys his family and friends until he's alone. DeNiro is a repulsive character whose only redeeming quality is his drive to win. Definitely not something I want to experience again; an ugly movie full of ugly people. Pass.

King of Comedy (1982): Robert DeNiro (Jeez, doesn't he know anybody else?) plays an obsessive mental case, this time an aspiring stand-up comedian, who will do anything to succeed and not be the loser he currently is in a life he hates. Incidentally, it also has an ambiguous ending that may be a paranoid fantasy of the main character, just like Taxi Driver. Wow...anyone seeing a pattern here? The movie was...okay. I think I'd rather rewatch Taxi Driver, and I really, really don't want to see that again.

After Hours (1985): Griffin Dunne, who is best known for not being Robert DeNiro (Well, he really didn't do much, unless you count An American Werewolf in London), a relatively normal office worker, experiences a bunch of random, Kafkaesque encounters over the course of one night. Our protagonist isn't the insane one this time; it's the world he inhabits that's completely crazy. This one is actually quite fun; rather light fare compared to the previous movies. I would watch it again. I mean, Cheech and Chong are in it. Sold!

Color of Money (1986): This one's interesting; it's a needless sequel to a great film, The Hustler, picking up years after the first one. The main character from the first, Paul Newman as fast Eddie Felson, a great pool player, acts as a mentor to a ridiculous, overacting caricature played by Tom Cruise. People love this movie and I'm not sure why, other than the fact that Paul Newman is awesome and could make a commercial about life insurance entertaining. It's your standard old man getting his mojo back through working with a youthful mirror of himself story; somehow, there isn't any real insanity, other than Tom Cruise being Tom Cruise. It's rewatchable, but in my opinion, unnecessary in the first place. I think the writer needed the money.

Bad (1987): Okay, this isn't a movie, but it's easily the funniest thing Scorsese ever made, featuring Michael Jackson as a bad ass gangster. I could watch this on loop forever; some of the finest unintentional comedy ever made. I'm not sure if Scorsese was being straight here, or has a better sense of humor than I usually give him credit for.

Last Temptation of Christ (1988): Story of Jesus' last moments on the cross, showing him to be a paranoid mental case who believes the world is out to get him, and I suppose if anyone deserves to feel that, it's him. Now we're back in crazytown; the only thing missing is DeNiro. Despite the fact this is supposed to be taking place in Judea 2,000 years ago, have the characters have a New York accent. You couldn't pay me to see this again.

Goodfellas (1990): Here is Scorsese's masterpiece on life in the mafia through the eyes of a low level gangster. This is right up there with the Godfather as greatest mafia film, and depending on the day you ask me, the best. Do we have paranoid mental cases? Check. Do we have self destructive characters that can't exist in the real world? Check. Do we have DeNiro smirking his way through the film? Double check. The only thing we're missing is a dream sequence/fantasy ending, although I suppose you could make a case for it if you're desperate. Rewatchable? Hell, I'm watching it right now.

Cape Fear (1991): A remake of a fun little thriller made more, uh, Scorsese-like and 100 percent more Robert DeNiro. I think he directed this while he was counting the money that they paid him to do this commercial thriller. It's certainly one of the laziest films he's made, with unnecessary plot holes. Although, I'll give DeNiro props; even playing a paranoid mental case murderer for the umpteenth time in a Scorsese film doesn't cause him to mail in his performance. Yet, at least. I wouldn't want to watch this again. I'd rather watch the original with Gregory Peck and my favorite pothead, Robert Mitchum, or better yet, the Simpson's spoof with Sideshow Bob.

Age of Innocence (1993): Haha...just kidding. I haven't gotten around to seeing this period piece, and well, it's not even on my Netflix queue. It does have Daniel Day Lewis in it, so I'll put it on the maybe list.

Casino (1995): I liked it better when it was in New York and called Goodfellas. Ummm...on the plus side, it has DeNiro in it. Yeah...it's on my no rewatch list.

Kundun (1997): I think he must have lost a bet or something...most likely after someone got him rip roaring drunk. A movie about the Dalai Lama? Really? I haven't seen it, no intention of seeing it, hope to forget it was ever made right after this. Unless Robert DeNiro plays old Dalai Lama...Nope, no such luck.

Bringing out the Dead (1999): Unfortunately, it's not related to Monty Python and the Holy Grail. Instead, it's about Nicholas Cage and Nick Cage's giant forehead, who plays an ambulance driver with insomnia slowly turning into a mental case who can't adjust to the world and all it's evil and violence. This movie sucks donkey balls, but I'll admit I'm a little biased. I turned off the Monday Night Football game of Dolphins-Jets since the Dolphins were up big going into the second half. Little did I know it was about to become a legendary overtime comeback from Mr. Greenballs, himself. Screw you, Cage! Pop a goddamn Ambien and take a nap! You work at a fucking hospital! How hard is this? Seriously?

Gangs of New York (2002): This is the beginning of the Leo connection with Scorsese, where he takes the place of DeNiro in pretty much all his films. It's not a very good start. This is a revenge tale set mostly during the Civil War in New York (big shocker there, I know) about a young man out to avenge his father's murder at the hands of a criminal boss called Bill the Butcher, played by Daniel Day Lewis. The story is pretty much by the numbers and is only saved from being a total turkey with Lewis' hilariously over the top performance and nifty mustache. Seriously, his mustache is awesome. It's performance might be even more impressive than the man it's attached to. No crazies or hallucinations in this one; just one seriously tweeked out criminal and Leo playing an angsty tough with daddy issues. I wanted to walk out of this in the theater; no way in hell I'm sitting through the whole thing again. I can be talked into watching scenes starring Lewis' mustache, though.

The Aviator (2004): Starring Leo DiCaprio as Howard Hughes, the delusional mental case/richest man in the world, it's a pretty straight forward biopic. The insanity of Hughes is mostly seen from without as opposed to letting the audience experience the madness as is Scorsese's usual style. It's not a bad movie, but aside from the great costumes and Cate Blanchett's perfect impersonation of Katherine Hepburn, it's largely forgettable. Leo once again looks like a high school kid dressing up like his dad for much of the movie, but his performance is decent. I wouldn't actively watch it again, but if it was on cable, I might leave it on in the background.

The Departed (2006): I absolutely loathe this movie and cannot understand how anyone even liked it, let alone how it won the Academy Award for best picture. Based on a Hong Kong crime flick, Infernal Affairs, it stars Leo as an undercover cop infiltrating the worst disguised criminal organization ever put on film. Jack Nicholson mugs his way through the movie in a way that makes me think the drug dealers in New York had a very good year during the filming of this movie. With plot holes you could fly a 747 through, logical inconsistencies that are laughable at first but quickly become angering, this film is just plain bad. Much like the Matrix and the Star wars sequels, I like to pretend this movie never happened. Let's move on.

I've probably left out a couple of things, but this is most of what he's known for. Let's tally them up and see what we find. Well, 11 out of 16 of his movies I wouldn't want to watch again with 2 being a maybe. That means he's only made 3 movies that I would happily sit through today. That's a pretty poor showing on the re watchable scale. However, 9 of these 16 movies I would rate as good-great. For me, it seems that most of his movies fit into the category of try once for the experience, but never go back, like traveling to India.

This brings us back to Shutter Island. I can't imagine it being great like Goodfellas, but I doubt it'll be as terrible as the Departed. I'm betting it'll fit somewhere between The Aviator and King of Comedy.

Verdict? Wait for the dvd.

I've been bombarded with advertisements for that new Scorsese movie, Shutter Island, all month long. It might be the shows I watch and the fact that I'm lazy with the fast forward button on my DVR, but it's also because I'm utterly fascinated by Leonardo DiCaprio's goofy Bawston accent, fleshy yet youthful face, and 50s getup complete with fedora that makes him look like a high school kid playing dress up for a school play. Don't get me wrong; I like Leo in most everything I've seen him in. I just think people overrate his abilities to pull off certain roles, such as any role that requires you to take him seriously as an adult. He always pulls me out of the illusion of the movie's world with his adolescent face and his overly intense stares. Well, that and his generally questionable accents, i.e. Blood Diamond, the Departed... I suppose he's starting to age into his face; but much like Robert Downey, Jr., he needs to really wait until he's around 40 before I'll ever take him seriously as a lead hero type.

This new movie, Shutter Island, looks like a generic mind-fuck thriller set in the 50s because, well, the outfits were cool. Just from watching the previews, I can tell the movie is going to either end in a massive conspiracy outed, or Leo's character is crazy and hallucinated everything. Since I already know the only two possible outcomes, will the movie still be enjoyable? If you love movies, you know that is a resounding yes. Movies are enjoyable because they have unique cinematography, contain entertaining performances, and are well written; usually in that order. There are plenty of mindless movies with wooden performances and stilted dialogue that remain fun and entertaining the watch; most of Schwarzenegger's movies of the 80s come to mind. Still, if a movie contains those three elements, it is generally going to be a great movie that you can watch over and over again.

While those three elements will make a great movie, they do not make a rewatchable movie. Often, this is where the theme of the movie comes into play. For example, the recent George Clooney film, Up in the Air, contained all three of those elements. The framing of the scenes added much to the feel and success to the audience's investment in the story, Clooney is better than he's probably ever been in anything, not to mention Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick's amazing performances, and the script is at turns, funny, sad, and poignant. I would say it's one of the better movies I saw this year, but I have no desire to ever watch it again. Why, you ask? Okay, I asked myself, but I enjoy talking to myself. Bear with me. The theme of the movie was extraordinarily depressing, and the main character was a shallow, failure of a man. Much of the movie revolves around people being fired and having their entire lives upended and potentially destroyed. Unless you have an acute case of schadenfreude, I can't imagine wanting to see this again. Great tragedies are usually warning calls to not get caught up in hubris and arrogance and are demonstrated using interesting, deep, and powerful characters who have something to lose. Clooney's character is lacking all these things. Hence, he has nothing to lose. In fact, every other character in the movie is far more interesting, which I suppose was the point the director was trying to make. It's probably why Clooney was so good at pulling off a shallow existence; it seems to mirror his own. While the film was entirely successful at getting across what it wanted, it was in no way an experience people would want to revisit.

What does this have to do with Leo and his Shuttah Ahhhland movie? I'm wondering if it's worth it. Scorsese has a history of making movies in that fashion I've described. Well filmed, great performances by outstanding actors, tight scripting and dialogue, as well as being a movie you'd rather do most anything else than sit through again. While I'm hardly a Scorsese expert, I've seen a good chunk of movies that he's made. I'll go through them tomorrow and see which ones were good to greatas well as which ones are rewatchable, and we'll see if my theory matches the reality of my experiences with his movies.