Cam Bert

All right The Secret let's talk math. When Olivia Thirlby is coming on to David Duchovny she states "You've got a 36 year old wife in the perfect body of a 16 year old." Also at one point it is stated that Duchovny and Lili Taylor have been together for 20 years. Well quick math tells us that they got together when Lili Taylor was 16, and that means she had to have given birth to her while she was 20. This seems fine but it gets more odd when you think of the overall picture. Taylor and Duchovny's first date was to see the cure. The movie I don't think is a period piece which means they went to see a Cure concert in 1997 which is well past the prime of The Cure. They could have been fans but this seems more likely if they had grown up in the mid to late 80s than the late 90s. People can have different music tastes sure. Next, think about the fact David Duchovny is an optometrist. It takes roughly eight years to become an optometrist. So say he did this from 18, that means from 18 to 26 he was in school. Their daughter was born at the start this time. Raising a child is not cheap and neither is med school, so where is all the money coming from? This leads me to the more creepier thought. Is Duchovny suppose to be the same age as Lili Taylor? Is he 36 as well? If he's suppose to be just a year or two older, that means he was a high school graduate to a full grown adult taking an under aged high school girl to a Cure concert and making out with her all night. Major creep territory and yet somehow seems to fit the motif of the movie perfectly.

They'd be mutts to not take advantage of it.

Wait, that's not what happened? Next thing you'll be telling me that Air Bud isn't real and there is something in the rules about a dog playing basketball.

I think I tend to have a bit of a negative few of "true" stories because I know how often the truth is stretched thin. Some stories are interesting and important but they lack a typical story structure or easy entry point for the audience. So the writers start to move events around, put people where they weren't or even create false moments. People then watch the movie and take it as the truth. Most people don't become interested and then research, they saw the movie so they know what happened. As a result I think I always view a lot of "true" stories through a lens of healthy disbelief which ultimately sometimes hampers my enjoyment of a film. That said films like this, Zodiac, Dog Day Afternoon, etc. are all films I really love that are based on true events. Overall I would say I prefer fiction.

Again this movie says all you need to say and know about the characters it just doesn't "say" it. You get that they are young and hungry reporters. That much is said. What is not said you get from their attire, desks, apartments, mannerisms and actions. Going back to the old film adage of show don't tell, this movie shows us a lot about these characters and paints a very detailed picture of them. Just think about these facts: we know that they are young, Bernstein has long hair, he has a bike wheel at his desk, he has a picture of a cyclist at his desk as well, Woodward is the only one seen driving. Put that all together we get a young guy with liberal leanings, possible early environmentalist, that bikes in the city. Do we need him to tell us these things? Do we need a scene in which he tells why he chooses to bike? No. We have all the information we need to put those bits together ourselves. In the end does knowing more about him or why he chooses to bike enrich the story or tell us more about the Watergate scandal and its investigation? No, so why should we spend time with backstories?

It also works as a 15 minute short

I agree and I will defend the much hated Bradley Cooper voice and say that it was a choice on his part to try to sell their brotherhood. It worked for me.

I'm not sure how the love story would play in so well but this story of could be applied to a political drama very easily I think. Maybe this is a point for the original but it makes more sense in my mind that it is acting and not singing though. I don't know how to properly verbalize it but it seems the acting world is a bit harsher on has beens and washed up stars and does seems more likely that a young star bumps out a new star. The music world is much wider and larger, and people seem to be able to milk careers longer.

Also, if anyone could explain to me the no cowboys reference in the apartment ad I'd be very happy.

I too am not "A Star is Born" person. Not that there is anything wrong with the movie and I realize that this specific version is the original but it is just such a well worn trope of a story for the most part that "small town person wants to make it big" that I just kinda instinctively glaze over a bit. What I did find interesting is that this version the focus is very much on Vicki who makes it big while in the new one it seems more about Maine's struggle and she's kinda along for the ride. Rightfully so because both the focused characters are the more interesting ones. I'm going to be the contrarian and say I thought Bradly Cooper was much better than Gaga in the new one (singing aside because obviously) and yes that's largely in part to him writing himself the more complex character. Again the fact that I said I don't like the typical nobody becomes big type story is probably why I like the newer version more because it is more of a story about this guy's downfall which is a bit more interesting to me. Also new Star is Born I hated the third act, pissing the pants on was not good. Heck, maybe Chappelle on is not all that great. On the flip side I thought the original starts weak and gets better. I think the problem I have with the original is a bit like Taylor Anne that I didn't really feel the connection between the two as much as I did in the new one. They are two different relationships for sure, but I felt like more chemistry was had between Gaga and Cooper. Though for me one of the things I had a big problem in both films is the down turn for Maine were kinda sudden in both. The original handled it a bit better for me. Norman Maine seemed to be on the down turn for awhile, and the people were basically over him. Therefore his career finally washing up makes sense but is still a bit sudden. The new one it never really seems his career washed up or was faded. He got bumped for a newer artist at an awards show but that was about it. He was still selling out shows. So while him being jealous of Ally's rise does seem a bit odd but compound that with his hearing loss and that it kinda makes sense. Kinda.

As a kid I never really liked a lot of the early Disney films all that much and that is probably because I liked the newer stuff at the time more and I always preferred talking animals to boring people stuff. So when I watched this movie last night it was probably the first time I'd seen in about 30 years. My memory of the movie was being slow and boring and after watching it I was shocked to discover that when watching it I didn't find that to be the case at all. I was pleasantly surprised how the movie actually moved. I mean compared to a lot of movies of the time I was expecting long scenes and down moments but I found that even when it was having a "down" moment it was moving along pretty well. Also, the animation is so good. I mean there are some issues with the softness of the human faces but the stuff with the dwarfs looks just as good as it did when I was growing up in the 80s. If it wasn't for the sound the animation is truly timeless which is doubly impressive when you think about how old it is and that it was the first full length colour animated movie. I hate to sound like a broken record on the issue of whether or not this film belongs on the list. I mean there is the argument that pioneering films belong on the list because they blazed the trail and set so much else to follow that later better films would not exist without them. I think that is why this movie is on the list and if you need further proof of that being the case Toy Story is also on the list. Toy Story is arguably not the best Pixar movie, it is also arguably not even the best Toy Story movie. So why is it on the list when I'm sure most everybody else would choose another Pixar film? The exact same reason that Snow White it. It showed us what we could do and it was something up to that point had never been seen. On top of that it is a solid movie. If it was a shit show but the first then yes don't put it on the list. Despite it not being our favourite or what we think is the best of Disney I don't think anybody has said that it is a bad movie. So a solid, good maybe not great film, that is timeless in a sense and a first of its kind that changed the film landscape, why not put it on the list?

I'm curious with how many people are in line with Amy in thinking that she rejects him at the end. Maybe I am a hopeless romantic or something but I thought it was 100% clear that she accepts him for who he is. I think she does the mental math a bit in that moment as well. He's poor and penniless now, but he gave her a lot of money before going away for awhile. She might not have all the facts right, but she understands that whether he was rich or not before he gave up everything he had for her with no expectation of anything in return other than her happiness. Her pulling his hand in closer to her chest says it all. Again, the brilliance of little actions telling a story rather than words.

The museum in the city I grew up in had an entire section of one of the floors done up to recreate my hometown as it was in the 1920s. One of the things they had was an old fashion movie theater in which they would play the films of Charlie Chaplin. My earliest memories of this movie (although outside the 1920s time period) are sitting in the theater with my grandfather and watching the movies. That probably taints a little my ideas on this film but so be it. This film is absolutely charming. It is a delight in every which way. The fact that you can have such great and funny scenes as the ballroom and the boxing match and still deliver a story that is affecting is really telling as to the power of Chaplin. I think like Paul said it is that ability to weave a story and get real emotion while delivering on the laughs and set pieces that really drives this film over his others as being the top one. This is the guide to a comedy film.

Stay healthy and hurry back!

Sorry, the school year in Japan ends in March and starts in April so I've been a bit too busy to contribute to this film. As I said the was a book on tape we had my parents would put on for my sister and I when driving to our relatives. I was shocked by how much of this I didn't remember. Pretty much all I remember is the story DvD tells and I thought that was the movie. I had no idea that they weren't a coupes, those weren't her kids, and there is a whole story that does not involve the car in any way shape or form. Maybe it's just childhood memories making me a bit basis here, but if the story was simply a family on their day out and the father tells his kids a story about them and the car before they go home it would make it a lot tighter and better. Also, I thought it was a bit crazy the opening scene is just 10 minutes of car racing to explain how this one car, who is not in two of the three races, got to be in a junk yard. That said I did enjoy a lot of the musical numbers. I forget what a joy DvD is to actually watch and move around.

We had this book on tape when I was a kid and would listen to it on vacation in the car. As a result I never saw the movie as a kid. I guess better late than never.

I have a question about the number of balls in a snowman. So as the majority of us are from North America and if we were asked to draw a snowman we'd draw a three balled snowman. Head, body, and legs. However, as I soon discovered after moving to Japan, not every country does this. In fact Japan and Korea both do two ball snowmen, head and body. Throughout the film we see nothing but two ball snowmen. The killer even uses a two ball snowman as his calling card. Yet, if you look at the original Norwegian book cover and movie poster they use a three ball snowman. From what I gather Norway is a three ball snowman country. However, the director of the film and a lot of people involved in it are British and England is a two ball snowman country. Were they unaware of this fact? Did they see the original stuff and just ignore it? Or does Norway go both ways when it comes to snowman balls?

I know it's a bit early but the poll so far indicates that most of us think that one Marx Brother's is enough. Well, fun fact in 2000 AFI made a list of the best comedies. The top 10 were. 1. Some Like it Hot 2. Tootsie 3. Dr. Strangelove or How I Stopped Worrying and Learned to Love the Bomb 4. Annie Hall 5. Duck Soup 6. Blazing Saddles 7. MASH 8. It Happened One Night 9. The Graduate 10. Airplane! Of those only Airplane! and Blazing Saddles aren't in the Top 100. Now before I personally lobbied for Airplane! but seeing Blazing Saddles I think we would be remiss to not have a Mel Brooks movie on the list. So if we have to cut one of these out like Zeppo, would you pick either Airplane! or Blazing Saddles to replace it or something else entirely?

I wouldn't say nostalgia. I didn't mean to imply you can only enjoy them if you grew up with them, Just that a lot of the basis for what we find funny is cemented in childhood and our formative years. Now tastes do mature and change over time but as an example something like slapstick is not something you hear often about people falling in love with later in life. That's why I was curious if their style of humor speaks through to people that didn't grow up with it.

If anybody is interested in what a Norwegian novel turned into a good movie with an actual Norwegian cast (and one Dane) actual looks like then I highly recommend the 2011 film Headhunters (Hodejegerne). Also recommended if you are a Game of Thrones fan and can't wait another month to get your Jamie Lannister fix.

That sounds serious. I hope everything is okay with you

I' very curious to hear what people who didn't grow up with The Marx Brothers made of this movie. To me things like The Marx Brothers and Three Stooges are very formative in a lot of people's youths. When view outside of that, some of that joy I think is often lost. I myself never watched The Marx Brothers movies growing up. As far as "classic comedy" want I was more into Abbot and Costello and Chaplin, so these two movies were completely new to me. I knew Groucho from "You Bet Your Life" and knew of him and his quick wit and iconic look. That's about it. Also from cartoons and that I knew about Harpo being a silent clown. So I watch these movies now and I enjoy them enough but I don't love them. I recognize what makes them great and there are good bits but more than anything else I see their DNA in comedies I do love. For me I enjoyed A Night at the Opera more because there was a story. I liked having a break from the jokes. I liked having a breather. The highs might not have been as high but having a clear defined hero and villain made their antics less malicious seeming as well. Also, the piano bits were delightful and a nice change of pace. I said it in Duck Soup and I'll say it again now, Airplane! should get one of the Marx Brother's slots on the list. To me it is the perfect evolution of the Marx Brother's. It is wall to wall jokes that run the gambit of different styles. And from A Night at the Opera it has a story with beginning middle and end and a love story. However, rather it takes those elements and makes it part of the comedy rather than being separate from the comedy. All that said, I wouldn't not watch another Marx Brother's movie, but I don't think I'd ever seek them out.

Also, did anybody else get the feeling there was never any bus station to be dropped off at the start of the movie. I'm not from Texas and the Southwest but that didn't really look like a bus terminal and didn't really look to be open at all for anything.

Again this combined with some things said earlier about Richard's lack of character development is why the ending never fully landed for me. Like you said it wants to be this two hander but seemingly Richard gets the majority of focus and the fact that there are this moments where he could have growth or change he doesn't. Nat is the audience surrogate so I guess maybe it wants us by spending time with Richard to change like Nat does. Like you said we see very little of Nat separate from Richard. The two scenes are at Casey Wilson's house and when he's with Taissa Farmiga. The first does nothing to further his character and this second should but again because we know so little I'm not sure if it does. She's a fellow art student so she should have had some change on Nat. Either he realizes something about the path he's on and sees need to change or she cements his resolve in what he is doing. I don't feel either of those things come out of it. He remains a bit of blank character and a mystery. In a a few ways this movie reminds me a bit of Robert Altman's California Split. If you haven't seen the movie it's about a writer who is a small time gambler who meets this larger than life heavy duty gambler. They become friends and the writer starts falling into the world of gambling more and more and they go on a trip to Reno for a big score. However at the end of the movie they heavy duty gambler stays the same while the writer goes through and arc and learns about himself. In a way that's what this movie was going for the Richard character. It's okay if he doesn't change because he's suppose to be the catalyst for change for the other character. The difference being the main focus of California Split is the writer character. There is no doubt that this is his journey and story. While most of the movie is them together it is the writer who gets scenes alone and a family and backstory. So at the end when Elliot Gould is still Elliot Gould that's fine because there was never any exception or hint of him being more. Again I don't think this is a bad movie, but I just wish a bit more care was done to balance out the characters or story to match the ending they wanted.

This was a debate I was having with myself after the movie, should we have seen more of Nat before he met Richard? I think that's where the problem was coming from for me. Richard was so out there and such a wild card that most any person would shrink back a little. Who's to say that Nat when talking with the Taissa Farmiga isn't who he was before the trip. Was that him being himself without Richard being around or was that him actually growing a bit? I couldn't tell. I also agree about the ending.