386. L'Eclisse/The Eclipse (1962)

Running Time: 125 minutes
Directed By: Michelangelo Antonioni
Written By: Michelangelo Antonioni, Elio Bartolini, Tonino Guerra, Ottiero Ottieri
Main Cast: Monica Vitti, Alain Delon, Francisco Rabal, Louis Seigner, Lilla Brignone

ANTONIONI WEEK: CHAPTER THREE

This is the final film in what is considered a loosely based trilogy of movies (including "L'Avventura" and "La Notte") by Michelangelo Antonioni. Having watched the entire trilogy, I'd have to definitively say that "L'Eclisse" was, by far, the worst one of the group.

The film is basically plot-less, but I'll do my best to recount the story that this film tried to tell. Vittoria (Vitti) and Riccardo (Rabal) begin the film and it is revealed that they've been up all night talking about the status of their relationship. Ultimately, when the morning comes, Vittoria makes it clear that she no longer wants to have a relationship with Riccardo and despite his protests, they break it off. Vittoria goes home and later that day visits her mother at the stock market to tell her the news. Her mother is addicted to the buying and selling on the stock exchange and in the heat of the day's trading, her mother could care less. While at the stock market she meets up with Piero (Delon), a stockbroker, whom she introduces herself to and then leaves. Later, as Piero and Vittoria continue to meet, Piero grows fonder of her and despite her hesitations and misgivings, she falls in love with him too.

I'm going to approach "L'Eclisse" a little differently in giving my opinions about it. When I received "L'Eclisse" in the mail from Netflix, almost by reflex, I read the slip cover that accompanies all DVD's that you get from Netflix...Here's what it said:

Michelangelo Antonioni's trilogy ends with this haunting, starkly modern meditation on love. Tracing the trajectory of one relationship, "L'Eclisse" (aka The Eclipse) follows the exploits of a woman (Monica Vitti) who craves deep and abiding affection. Convinced that the man she's with (Francisco Rabal) can't give her what she needs, she leaves him, only to begin an affair with another (Alain Delon). But their trysts threaten to engulf them all.

By reading that, I actually get really excited for this film. I've seen an Alain Delon film once before in "Le Samourai" and thought he was great, so I was excited to see him again. Monica Vitti has proved that she's not a terrible actress, so we're two for three in our leads and that's enough to make for some good acting. I'm thinking the film obviously doesn't sound like there's a whole lot going on, so my initial thoughts lead me to believe that there will be some real opportunity for some shining dialogue scenes, some opportunity for some really melancholic tones, as the film is about love and failed relationships. It's an Italian film, buy a supposed master, so some great camera work/beautiful images are surely a given. So, to say that least, I'm pretty stoked about this one...Boy was I mislead.

Now maybe I shouldn't be taking the word of Netflix slip covers to base my initial thoughts for a film, but I read them so that I can kind of get a picture for what the film is about, so I don't go in blind. I was wrong on pretty much every front. There were dialogue scenes, but I wouldn't call them great and a lot of the dialogue was really pretentious. There were two, what I would consider wasted scenes, taking place in the stock market, that totally seemed to stray away from the real purposes of the film, which to me the ultimate purpose of the film was Vittoria and her attempt to find that great affection that she'd been searching for, but couldn't seem to grasp. The images weren't necessarily beautiful and the acting was average at best.

Let me say that I was really excited for this whole trilogy of films. I really thought that I was going to get blown away on three separate occasions and when I DID find out that we were dealing with a trilogy of films, I thought, "Cool, this could be three films that could have all the potential in the world and for an extra kicker, they're loosely based around the same ideas/themes." I went to the IMDB message boards after I watched the film and tried to make a little sense of the ending. I'm not sure I figured out what Antonioni is trying to say, but I was literally jealous hearing everyone gush about how great these three films are. I wanted, for just a couple of hours, to borrow the eyes of the people who were experiencing greatness from Antonioni's work and re-watch the films so that I could get in on some of this greatness. But, in reality that's not possible and I'm left to suffer with the memories of watching "L'Eclisse", which was not only the worst Antonioni film thus far, but probably one of the worst films from the book thus far. I'll be honest guys, I really tuned myself out of this film at about the ninety minute mark, because by then it had been too much to handle. Every film deserves my full attention, but I could only muster enough attention to give this film what it deserved.

RATING: 2/10 Maybe someday, when I'm older, I'll rewatch this trilogy and find some of that greatness that I missed. As far as best film of the trilogy, "La Notte" gets that distinction, hands down. Here's hoping that the last three Antonioni films are A LOT better. Next up is "Red Desert".

MOVIES WATCHED: 248
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 753

April 8, 2011 11:16am

Read More

681. THE THING (1982)

Running Time: 109 minutes
Directed By: John Carpenter
Written By: Bill Lancaster, from the story Who Goes There? by John W. Campbell Jr.
Main Cast: Kurt Russell, Wilford Brimley, Keith David, Donald Moffat, Richard Dysart

THAT THANG' THEY CALL 'THE THING'

I took a small break from the "Antonioni Week" festivities today and me and the wife decided to check out "The Thing" via the streaming portion of Netflix. "The Thing" is a film that I've wanted to see for the longest time and today I finally saw it and proved that hyping a film in your own mind, will usually lead to disappointment.

The film starts with a lone canine running across the snow covered ground of Antarctica. A helicopter approaches in the distance and the passenger wields a rifle and begins to fire at the galloping dog. The dog eventually makes its way into an American Research station and the helicopter, which is later revealed to be carrying Norwegians, doesn't halter, but continues to fire. The crew from the American research station run out to see what the fuss is and one of them is shot in the confusion. Eventually the Norwegian shooter is taken down by one of the Americans and the dog is safe. Seems like a lot of hubbub for a dog, but later it is revealed that the dog is no ordinary pooch and that he's actually doubling as a vessel for an otherworldly being, one that aims to cause harm (as opposed to the E.T., friendly kind of otherworldly being). Led my MacReady (Russell), the group of Americans is ten strong and due to some investigations by Doctor Blair (Brimley), he deduces that if the "thing" that is living inside the dog makes its way into any of them, it could potentially spread to the rest of the world in a matter of hours. Now paranoia reigns supreme, as the rest of the group become increasingly suspicious that other members of the group have already been infected.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

Maybe "disappointment" was too harsh a word, as me and my wife actually did have a lot of fun playing guessing games as to who was infected and yelling things at the television in hopes of saving the Americans. I guess, in the end, I just really shouldn't have over-hyped it for myself and maybe it would have been a lot more enjoyable. Once the film gets into the whole "One or more of us may be infected...No one can be trusted" angle, then it gets pretty riveting and really intense and that's where this film really picks up some steam. However, that takes somewhere between forty five minutes to one hour to get going, meaning we have to make our way through a lot of groundwork that just doesn't make for very exciting movie time. Another MAJOR problem I had with the film was WAY too many characters. At the risk of exposing my lack of intelligence, all of the characters were just too hard to keep track of and I found myself pausing the film a lot to ask my wife "Who's Windows?" or "Which one is Fuchs?".

Another big problem for me was the predictability of the whole affair. At about the halfway mark I told my wife, "If Kurt Russell ends up being one of the ones infected, then I'll boost the rating of this film." Guess what? Of course, Kurt Russell doesn't get infected, because that would just be too off the wall. Another angle they could've went with is to borrow an idea from that old Twilight Zone episode "The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street", in which it's basically a character study dealing with the effects of paranoia on a group of people. After the threat was contained and the twelve are still intact, have them become increasingly paranoid of one another, even though none of them are infected. Eventually the wind up killing each other one by one, because their paranoia becomes too strong to ignore. But, again, way too off the wall, I'm sure. I get that it's a remake and you have a certain responsibility to maintain the plot of the original film, but we could've changed it up a little bit and went in a more risque direction.

RATING: 6.5/10 Despite my griping, "The Thing" still provided me and my wife with a fun afternoon of movie watching and that's worth something. Lesson for today, when you get the idea to see a certain film...SEE IT and don't wait forever, because your anticipation will only heighten and you'll probably end up disappointed.

MOVIES WATCHED: 247
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 754

April 7, 2011 5:07pm

Read More

374. La Notte/The Night (1961)

Running Time: 115 minutes
Directed By: Michelangelo Antonioni
Written By: Michelangelo Antonioni, Ennio Flaiano, Tonino Guerra
Main Cast: Marcello Mastroianni, Jeanne Moreau, Monica Vitti, Bernhard Wicki

ANTONIONI WEEK: CHAPTER TWO

For those of you that care, this is the 300th post of the "1001 Movies I (Apparently) Must See Before I Die" blog. When I first started this blog, back in September 2009, I really wasn't sure if it would last more than a handful of posts and now I'm positive that I'm going to see this project through to the very end. Anyway, on to the business at hand..."La Notte".

This is the second film in Antonioni's loosely based trilogy of alienation and it stars Marcello Mastroianni as Giovanni. Giovanni is a writer and is married to Lidia (Moreau). The film begins with the couple going to visit an ailing friend in the hospital. Upon their departure, Giovanni returns home, while Lidia wanders the streets of Milan. Eventually the couple find each other again at home, and Lidia makes it known that she's tired of staying in all the time. Giovanni suggests they go to a party that is taking place on that night, and Lidia agrees. Once in the car, however, Lidia decides she'd rather spend some time with Giovanni alone and they go to a small cafe, where they watch some expressionist artists act out some hypnotic movements. Lidia tries her best to strike conversation with her husband, but he seems disinterested and ultimately the two decide to attend the party. At the party, the two split up rather quickly and find themselves taken by others - Giovanni is entranced by Valentina (Vitti), while Lidia tries her best to ward off a mystery man that won't stop eying her.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

Without a doubt, I liked "La Notte" better than "L'Avventura", but I'm still not sold on the supposed greatness of Michelangelo Antonioni. My liking for "La Notte" seemed to come in small doses and there was a big chunk in the middle where the film really got slow and stale. I REALLY enjoyed the scene where Giovanni is seduced by an apparent mental patient, as he departs the hospital at the beginning of the film and this is possibly the best scene in the film. There are other key scenes that really seemed to suck me in and totally allow me to get lost in the film. The black male and female at the cafe where Giovanni and Lidia go, are absolutely hypnotic, as they sway around the middle of the floor to some sweet jazz accompaniment. I liked the ending too and how it was left open to interpretation...I'll get to my interpretations in a moment.

However, other than those particular scenes and maybe a few others, there was a lot of, what seemed like, wasted time. In my opinion, Antonioni and his collaborators on the film should've picked a location for the film and set the entire movie there. The better part of an hour is taken up when Giovanni and Lidia attend the party and the film doesn't end until they leave the party. It seems like the entire film is set in two or three locations and in the end, it just doesn't seem very balanced. Also I had a real problem with the dialogue. It just didn't seem very real and the conversations were full of intellect that just didn't seem to portray how people really carry themselves in conversation. In fact, the only scenes that seemed to really portray how people really talk was the entire scene in the hospital and the ending and the exchange between Giovanni and Lidia - the rest just seemed like a bunch of trumped up mumbo jumbo.

On the other hand (the hand that liked this film), I think the whole loneliness and alienation angle really came through more clearly in this one, as opposed to "L'Avventura". I also felt that the characters were more defined and that they really seemed to be shallow characters that didn't embrace the thought of feeling any emotions. It's not until the end that they really expose their souls and show that they are actually human. After writing that last line, I'm starting to think that all of that intellectual "mumbo jumbo" talk was intentional and maybe in the end, we're meant to really see this couple for who they really are.

In the end, Giovanni begs Lidia to continue loving him and Lidia pleads with Giovanni to tell her that "he doesn't love her". He pins her against the ground and the film pans away as Giovanni tries relentlessly to make-up with Lidia. It seems to me that, not until Lidia tells Giovanni that they are through as a married couple, does he truly realize the damage he's done to her and the pain he's really caused her. In my view, Giovanni truly regrets his actions in the end and it's my hope that Lidia sees this and ultimately takes him back.

RATING: 5.5/10 It was better than "L'Avventura", but still, I can only put it just above the average marker. Here's hoping "L'Eclisse is even better.

MOVIES WATCHED: 246
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 755

April 6, 2011 11:05pm

Read More

March 2011 Recap

You know the drill, so let's get rolling...

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in March 2011
1) The Bird with the Crystal Plumage (1970 - Dario Argento) 6/10 - Had all the potential in the world, but the twist at the end just didn't fly with me.
2) The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (1943 - Powell & Pressburger) 6.5/10
3) Ordinary People (1980 - Robert Redford) 5/10 - Didn't hold up in retrospect and the fact that it beat out "Raging Bull" for Best Picture is even more ridiculous in hindsight.
4) I Know Where I'm Going! (1945 - Powell & Pressburger) 2/10
5) A Matter of Life and Death (1946 - Powell & Pressburger) 6/10 - Maybe I overrated it the first time around, because I really was trying my best to like Powell & Pressburger.
6) Black Narcissus (1946 - Powell & Pressburger) 4/10 - I can still clearly see Sister Ruth's crazy eyes as she totally loses it and snaps. It gained a few points from my original rating.
7) The Lavender Hill Mob (1951 - Charles Crichton) 7/10
8) The Red Shoes (1948 - Powell & Pressburger) 7/10 The rating is more for the beauty and artistic value of the film, rather than my enjoyment. If I was rating it for pure enjoyment, it would probably be a bit lower.
9) Peeping Tom (1960 - Michael Powell) 3/10
10) The Ladykillers (1955 - Alexander Mackendrick) 6/10
11) Whisky Galore! (1949 - Alexander Mackendrick) 1.5/10 - I know...harsh. But I just didn't find anything appealing about this one and the extra '.5' is almost for pity's sake.
12) 12 Angry Men (1957 - Sidney Lumet) 10/10
13) To Kill a Mockingbird (1962 - Robert Mulligan) 6.5/10
14) Sweet Smell of Success (1957 - Alexander Mackendrick) 5/10
15) Woman in the Dunes (1964 - Hiroshi Teshigahara) 10/10 - Yeah...it's that good. Had to pump the rating up as high as it would go, because there's no denying the movie.
16) Giant (1956 - George Stevens) 7/10
17) The Jungle Book (1967 - Wolfgang Reitherman) 5.5/10
18) Die Hard (1988 - John McTiernan) 7/10
19) Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006 - Larry Charles) 4/10

NON-1001 Movies - As seen in March 2011
1) The Red Balloon (1956 - Albert Lamorisse) 7.5/10 - So there's a little story that goes along with why I watched "The Red Balloon" and I'd like to share it. For those of you that don't know, I work at Wal-Mart. On the big screen T.V.'s in "Electronics" they were playing a commercial for "TCM's 31 Days of Oscar" all February long. I kept passing it and seeing a scene of a boy being carried away by a handful of balloons and floating over, what looked to be a European city. I had to find out what that film was and when I found out that it was "The Red Balloon" and that it was streaming on Netflix, I had to watch it. For a film thirty minutes in length, "The Red Balloon" is a real treat and I'd urge any film lover to take a half hour out of their day and give it a watch, because I don't think you'll regret it. It portrays innocence like no other film I've ever seen and even reminded me a little bit of my own childhood. Great film - treat yourself...it won't take long.

2) 10 Things I Hate About You (1999 - Gil Junger) 5.5/10 - I watched this one for my new DVD review blog. Check out my DVD review (where I discuss the film) by clicking here.

3) Due Date (2010 - Todd Phillips) 6/10 - Much like "Borat...", this film did make me laugh, however I wasn't all that enthused with the final, overall picture. Is it just me or do all comedies that come out nowadays and star the likes of Vince Vaughn, Owen Wilson, Zack Galifinakis, Paul Rudd, Will Ferrell, Steve Carrell and Seth Rogen all seem like the same movie? They can be about completely different things, but somehow my mind wraps them all into one big wad and clumps them together. I did think that Galifinakis and Downey Jr. had some good chemistry and if all you're looking for is a good laugh, then by all means check out "Due Date".

4 - 14) Every Woody Allen film from "Don't Drink the Water" to "Melinda and Melinda" (1994 - 2004 - Woody Allen) various ratings - I'm still chugging along on my Woody Allen side project and it's all coming along nicely. I'm keeping notes on all of the films that I watch and keeping a ranked and rated list and in June I plan to present it right here on this blog...so hopefully you care enough to look forward to it.

Well that about wraps 'er all up for another month. I'll keep watching, you keep reading and I'll see you back here when April is over.

April 5, 2011 4:19pm

Read More

359. L'Avventura/The Adventure (1960)

Running Time: 145 minutes
Directed By: Michelangelo Antonioni
Written By: Michelangelo Antonioni, Elio Bartolini, Tonino Guerra
Main Cast: Gabriele Ferzetti, Monica Vitti, Lea Massari, Dominique Blanchar, Renzo Ricci

Note: For those who are having similar Blogger spacing problems, like I was, it may help you to know that downloading and using Firefox to make your blog posts will cure the problem. Thank God that's fixed...Now on to the business at hand.

ANTONIONI WEEK: CHAPTER ONE

Today we begin our small quest inside of a quest to watch all of the Michelangelo Antonioni films from the "1001..." book. Our first film was possibly his most popular and the one that got the full page, black and white photo in the "1001..." book. However, it's also one that I really, really didn't like.

The film starts out and seemingly introduces us to the female who will play our main character, Anna (Massari). She is headed out on a cruise with a group of her wealthy friends, including her boyfriend Sandro (Ferzetti), of whom her father doesn't approve. The group finally get on their merry way and seem to be having a good time, frolicking around on the vessel in their bathing suits and having a few laughs. When Anna gets a sudden impulse to jump overboard and go for a swim, the vessel is stopped and when all passengers re-aboard, the group decides to get out at a small island. Upon their arrival at the island, they all get out and Anna & Sandro have a small quarrel. It seems that their long distance relationship isn't quite working out as Anna had hoped. Before too long Anna goes missing and despite her friends screaming her name, she doesn't answer. Ultimately, after scouring the island and finding nothing, the group (with the exception of Claudia and Sandro) go to the next island to get help. Claudia (Vitti) and Sandro stay behind, hoping that Anna will show up, but winding up getting themselves into their own little mess...love.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I had a lot of problems with "L'Avventura", so let's not waste time. I think my biggest downfall, when it came to "L'Avventura" is that it was an Italian film, and when I think of Italian cinema, I think of beautiful pictures, sexy women and artistic film making. Antonioni had the "sexy women" part down pat, but when it came to the other elements, I just wasn't seeing a lot of beauty or artistry. Now I'm sure most of you will call "FOOL" and say that this film was loaded with artistic value, but it must've been lost on yours truly, because there was little to nothing artistic about "L'Avventura". I also found it quite amusing that at the beginning of the film a title card is flashed saying something to the effect of "L'Avventura" being recognized at the Cannes Film Festival for the beauty that it portrays. I'm sorry, but I found nothing beautiful about the images in "L'Avventura". I mean, maybe I was just really spoiled by Federico Fellini, but this film just looked very ordinary to me and please remember that is only an opinion...you don't have to share it.

In fact, speaking of ordinary film making, I'd say that a lot of the film fell very short of hitting that exceptional level, as I found the actors to linger in the average zone, the script to be poor, the artistic value to be non-existent and the movie as a whole very boring and way too long.

There was just nothing appealing going on as far as the story goes. Am I really supposed to believe that a woman disappears and her best friend and lover spend a few hours looking for her and then decide that they make a pretty good match, so they'll just be a couple now and forget the disappearing girl? That's another thing - I mentioned "a few hours", but was it really a few hours? I had a real problem figuring out how much time had passed in the whole film. At times I thought we had jumped forward weeks, or even months, but then the dialogue seemed to suggest that we were still days away from Anna's disappearance.

And speaking of "the disappearing girl", what happened to her? Did Antonioni forget to resolve that "little" issue, that just happened to be a major plot point in his film? Am I supposed to like or somehow relate to the characters of Sandro and Claudia, even though they prove what heinous people they are by totally forgetting their loved one and striking up a fling in her absence? I know, I'm asking a lot of questions, but that's fitting for a film that left me asking one MAJOR question and that's...How did this movie receive all the acclaim it has? I just don't get it. Maybe the whole film was just lost on me and I just didn't get it. Maybe there was a grand, underlying theme or message that just wasn't coming across to me. Maybe there was artistry in there and to my eyes it wasn't art at all. I don't know - what I do know is that I did not like "L'Avventura" and to those of you that do, I'm glad you've found something in a film, that just so happens to be lost on me...and I sincerely mean that.

RATING: 3/10 Well the average marker is '5' and this film wasn't average in my book, so a '3' is more than fitting, if you ask me. Next up "La Notte" and then "L'Eclisse", which together with "L'Avventura" are supposed to make up a trilogy...Hopefully the trilogy gets better.

MOVIES WATCHED: 245
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 756

April 5, 2011 1:09am

Read More

953. Meet the Parents (2000)

Running Time: 108 minutes

Directed By: Jay Roach

Written By: Jim Herzfeld, John Hamburg

Main Cast: Ben Stiller, Robert De Niro, Teri Polo, Owen Wilson, Blythe Danner

"YOU CAN MILK ANYTHING WITH NIPPLES"

It's clean-up week here on the 1001 Movies I (Apparently) Must See Before I Die, meaning I'm trying my best to take care of some of the easier films to get through, just to clear them out of the way. I had seen "Meet the Parents" several times prior to this viewing and have always considered it a guilty pleasure. After a re-watch, I'm not so guilty anymore.

Ben Stiller is Greg Focker, a male nurse who is head over heels in love with Pam Burns (Polo). Greg has everything in place to pop the big question, when he finds out that Pam's sister's new fiance went the route of asking the father's permission. Greg decides it would be proper for him to do the same, so Pam and Greg head out for a weekend with the Burns'. Everything starts out well enough for Greg as he meets Jack (De Niro) and Dina Burns (Danner). Greg is under the impression that Jack is a retired rare flower specialist - but in actuality Jack is an ex-CIA man, which Greg finds out when Jack hooks him up to a polygraph machine on his first night. From here everything that can go wrong, will go wrong, as Greg destroys the urn that holds Jack's mother's ashes, lets out the beloved family house cat, causes the septic tank to backup into the yard and starts a fire that ultimately burns down the newly built alter for Pam's sister Debbie's wedding. Greg also has the "pleasure" of meeting Pam's ex-fiance Kevin.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

The thing that I've always enjoyed about "Meet the Parents" is the awkwardness that Ben Stiller is able to portray. I think a lot of us have been in a situation where we've had to go and meet the parents of the girl or guy we'd fallen in love with and it's a very nervous situation for everyone. Therefore, I think we can all relate to the character of Greg Focker and furthermore it makes "Meet the Parents" a realistic comedy. I also give kudos to "Meet the Parents" for being a comedy made in the 21st century that didn't have an overload of profanity and was actually charming and clever, instead of cheap and classless.

Another great thing about "Meet the Parents" is the chemistry that De Niro and Stiller are able to conjure up and they really nailed their roles perfectly. Greg is as nervous around Jack, as I'm sure Stiller was as nervous working with De Niro. De Niro seemed like he was just having a lot of fun and maybe that was the secret to the success of De Niro in this film. He just went out there and let loose and knew that there wasn't going to be any seriousness and he was just gonna' be able to have some fun and I think it shows. As far as Stiller goes, I actually used to really dislike the guy for what seems like no reason at all, in retrospect. Today I really like the guy and think that it's a shame that he's gotten stuck with the stinkers of films he's been in. In my view, "Meet the Parents" is the shining achievement in acting for Stiller and probably his greatest comedy venture.

For those curious, I have seen "Meet the Fockers", but only once and I barely remember it, which means it probably wasn't that great. I have not seen "Little Fockers" and really have no desire to, because I suspect it would only be worse and I'd rather leave "Meet the Parents" as a good memory in my mind.

RATING: 7/10 Short and sweet. As I mentioned above, I'm just trying to clear out some of the riff raff, so that we can get to some "meat and potatoes" movies. However, Antonioni week is coming soon.

MOVIES WATCHED: 244

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 757

April 4, 2011 12:38pm

Read More

654. The Jerk (1979)

Running Time: 94 minutes

Directed By: Carl Reiner

Written By: Steve Martin, Carl Gottlieb, Michael Elias

Main Cast: Steve Martin, Bernadette Peters, M. Emmet Walsh, Jackie Mason, Mabel King

TWO DAYS REMOVED FROM APRIL FOOL'S DAY AND WE MEET THE BIGGEST FOOL OF THEM ALL

"The Jerk" will be departing the streaming portion of Netflix in a few days, so with a short running time, I decided to go ahead and knock it off of my list.

Navin R. Johnson (Martin) is a "poor black man" living in Mississippi with his black family. On his birthday, his mother feels that it's time to tell him that he's not her natural son, but rather he is adopted. Navin is shocked - "You mean I'm gonna' stay this color forever!!?", he exclaims. After an awakening of sorts, via the radio, Navin decides that it's time for him to break free of the nest and see the world and makes the decision to head to St. Louis. He puts up his thumb and eventually finds his way to a gas station in St. Louis, where he is hired on. Navin is a total imbecile, but manages to invent a nifty little gadget that keeps your eyeglasses from falling off the end of your nose - an idea that he tells to an inventor. From there, Navin moves on to work for a carnival, where he works as a weight guesser and ultimately meets Marie (Peters). The two fall in love, but she ends up leaving Navin and our hero is left to hopelessly wander the streets, without food or money. That is until the inventor finds Navin and awards him a check for $250,000 for the invention of the "Opti-Grab".

We'll try to keep this short, sweet and spoiler free. Believe it or not (my wife didn't), but I had never seen "The Jerk" before...ever. I had never really been to big on Steve Martin and he was only occasionally funny in things like "Father of the Bride" and "Saturday Night Live", so this was never something that I went out of my way to check out. "The Jerk" was definitely a funny film, as I found myself laughing out loud on more than one occasion and this film kind of seemed like the turning point for all comedies to follow. It seemed as though from this point on, comedies would be a little more crass and the whole thing reminded me of an earlier, more tame version of some of the comedies that we have today, from the likes of Judd Apatow and The Farrelly Brothers.

However, is it a must see? I don't think so. Sure it's funny, but in my opinion very few comedies are actually deserving of "must see" status. There were plenty of omissions from the book, that could have easily been given the spot that "The Jerk" was given. It is funny, don't get me wrong and I'm not knocking it or anything - I liked it. I just don't think that it deserved a spot in the book, but this certainly isn't the first time or even the most blatantly obvious time that this occurrence has come about. If you're in the right mood - ready for something very non-serious and funny, then by all means, check out "The Jerk".

RATING: 6/10 We'll call it a '6' and sink it right into that middle ground area. Nothing overly special, but nothing blatantly offensive either.

MOVIES WATCHED: 243

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 758

April 3, 2011 12:26pm

Read More