A friend of mine the other day kept saying, “I am Cahl Han-rat-e”.

I asked him what it was from.  When he reminded me it was from Catch Me If You Can, I wanted to kick myself. How could I forget that flick? I saw it in theaters and then watched it multiple times on DVD.  But for some reason, it went away for me. That being said, upon revisiting, I found what may be some of the better portions of cinema from 2002.

For one, how did Christopher Walken not get nominated for something? As the senior Frank Abagnale, Walken employs such subtly and nuance into a role that would have screamed cliche as the dad who taught his kid how to be.  The scenes where his back is up against the wall with the IRS and his conflict over his son’s actions are really heartbreaking and special.  For a guy who is usually type casted for an over the top personality, Walken shows masterful skill in restraint here.

Speaking of great preformances, Tom Hanks as the aforementioned Handratty, is spectacular as well.  It’s not often that an A-List Hollywood talent would take a second fiddle in a movie like this, but Hanks does so and at an alarmingly fun rate.  He becomes the perfect Sylvester to Leo’s Tweety Bird; clumsy, thinking he is ahead of the game and constantly stepping on his own toes.  It doesn’t help that he is really outmatched here, however, not unlike the cartoon.

Enter Leo.  I’m going out here and saying it: This is is his best role. He is great in the role of Frank Abagnale.  Upon multiple viewings and a critical eye, his preformance is so particularly nuanced and alarmingly credible, that he may just be giving off the best con; Charming, smart, thorough, slick and sophisticated in the same moment as naive,scared,confused. I actually forgot how old he was supposed to be, much like I think Abagnales own real life marks. It is a rare preformance of what is supposed accuracy but certainly full of character. Oh, Amy Adams and Jennifer Garner make good cameos too. How did I forget this?!

This is a beautiful looking movie. Under the stellar direction of Spielberg, Janusz Kaminski once again gently and starkly brings to the screen beautiful pictures of these characters.  He photographs the 70′s in a very specific way; glowy and soft but really vibrant of color and bright and it matches the mood. Couple that with a very effective score from John Williams, the film really takes off.

Another limb: This may be Steven Spielbergs most personal movie. Yes there is brutal truth and savage imagery in Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan. Yes, there is grit and anger in Munich. But knowing about Spielbergs past and how he made his start, his story isn’t unlike Abagnales: Brilliant young kid get’s his family pushed apart, strikes out and works for himself out of the eye’s of the bosses and makes it.  Obviously, Abagnale’s journey ends a bit differently. I think Spielberg is having a lot of fun walking with Frank through this story.  He see’s a lot of himself in the main character and he designs a film with the same kind of enthusiasm and excitement Abagnale has in running.

The movie does drag in certain areas.  It get’s a bit long and tedious toward the middle when it feels like “We-get-the-point” material being rehashed.  But these aren’t reasons why I forgot the movie so much. I honestly can’t explain why.  It may be because it’s just good enough to know about the movie, but not accessible and memorable enough to have key scenes memorized. Although, even then, I can’t think of why it wouldn’t have that effect.  Either way I’m glad I took another look at it as it has re-entered my pantheon of good movies and will be for years to come.

So click on either one of these.  It’s a movie that my buddy made and these link you straight to the myspace page.  Check out the trailer.  A review on this site exclusively will be available shortly.  Join the MySpace group.  Make this huge.

—————————————————————————————— 

Didn’t see it.  Don’t want to.  There; Answered your question.  At this point I’ll have had half the readers proclaiming themselves as marquee players in this conversation simply because they have spent 1 1/2 to 2 hours of their life watching Samuel L Jackson swear and kill snakes…on a plane.  I am not interested in this movies plot, the humor it may provide or what not: I have grown weary to these cult movies that seem to take off in other aspects of media before the movie does incredibly well, or recieves cult status.

I don’t presume myself to be a person who will like something until it get’s popular.  I still like Boondock Saints and Donnie Darko, two movies that happen to be part of what I’m discussing.  The point is, the reason why Snakes on a Plane failed at the box office is the same reason it was expected to soar; it didn’t take Hollywood seriously.  For every scene kid, every MySpace nerd that adored the very thought of this movie simply for it’s apparent “coolness” there were three people that were impressed with it’s stupidity of concept.  For every person that said to me how cool it could be, there were more who were skeptical about wasting their time.

Snakes on a Plane was this years Napoleon Dynamite.  Granted it wasn’t independent but it generated the same cross culture marketing buzz.  How many T-Shirts for Napoleon Dynamite have been made and sold?  How many posters? Magnets? Buttons?  Retro clothing? Liger drawings?  Now match that to the proceeds from Snakes money-making apparel.  Not only did it have the T-Shirts and posters, but it had an alt-rock CD following and personalized ring tones to name a few things.  What I’m saying is, when a movie becomes a “cult” following after it comes out, I’m skeptical.  When it’s a “cult” before it comes out, I’m damn right scared.

When a movie gathers a cult following, it’s almost not enough to like the movie anymore: It’s a living, breathing object for a group of people at only one moment in time.  How many people “owned” Donnie Darko? How many people relished in their Napoleon Dynamite fandom?  I felt like when I wasn’t wearing the T-Shirt I didn’t like the movie.  When I wasn’t plastering it on my life, I wasn’t worthy to just like a movie. How can you enjoy the simple nature of a decent movie, such as Donnie Darko or Boondock Saints when there is a blitz in alternative culture to have that movie as the “scene” or “it” movie of the moment?  Too much of a good thing can make it bad.

I’m all for making money off of something you create, whether it be action figures or novelty items.  But what Snakes on a Plane did, while being very creative in marketing, is mock what Hollywood has created as a scheme.  It seemed brilliant until opening weekend.  It became annoying all too fast.  It was all too much because maybe that’s the only play the movie had.  It’s like a losing hand in poker that they thought they could bluff their way out of by being so aggressive they move everyone else out.  Maybe blitzing everyone with the message is the only move they could make to make money.  And that’s why they failed.

I would feel bad for the film, but I can’t.  I already feel inundated with gripes from people who give me the “Oh-my-God!You-Haven’t-Seen-It-Yet?!You-Have-to-see-it!It’s-so-stupid!” treatment.  It must be good because it’s the “it” movie of the moment. 

But I’m open to ridicule on this one.  Change my mind loyal Bones Report readers.  If you think I should see it and perhaps eat my words, then comment this.

 “Think we’re different?”   ”Yeah we’re gay, remember?”

I watched Brokeback Mountain the other week with my roomate and his girlfriend.  Let me iron this out; I wasn’t giving it the 100% attention, but I like to call it a solid 80%.  Perhaps thats why I’m bitter…but I think I have a point.

For the most part, the movie was well made.  The filming and settings were very beautiful and definetely set a good tone.  The acting was superb, although I didn’t see the greatness of Ledger that everyone was talking about.  He did good, but I wasn’t blown away.  Ang Lee made a good movie regardless.

Now heres my problem with the movie…Every customer I talk to at Blockbuster about this movie has the discussion with me about how it’s so touching and sad and yada yada.  Albeit, the story is sad.  But let me pose this…IF you did the same movie with a male-female relationship, would it be the same movie?  Would everyone be making a big deal out of a female-male coincidental relationship that isn’t allowed?  I understand that the whole “gay” thing is what makes the tragedy, but should that be allowance for it’s popularity? Is it’s success just based on a cultural uncomfort?  Is that why this movie is so “great”?

There isn’t anything new about this movie.  Ang Lee uses the same cinematic methods in his earlier work, specifically The Ice Storm.  The whole gay-cowboy thing can be chalked up in Midnight Cowboy  and slightly Urban Cowboy.  What I’m posing is that the movie, albeit legitmately good and tragic, is blown into this huge deal because the main characters are gay.  Would I have liked it more if it was a heterosexual relationship? Probably not.  More relatable maybe, but still just kind of a dull narrative about lost loves who can never be together.  Been there, done that.

Yeah so the movie is “gay” and they “sleep together”.  It’s uncomfortable.  That’s the only reason it’s effective.  But if you strip it down (I swear to god no pun intended), it is a very done story.  This narrative isn’t new.  It’s a new spin on an old concept.  It isn’t original; it’s different in how it makes us feel uncomfortable about the relationship.

Look, go see it if you want, I’m not saying don’t do it.  But the movie isn’t that big of a deal.  The whole buzz was generated because it’s “gay”, not for any other reason. It’s an old story with this new twist; not a milestone of film-making regardless of its cultural context. Crash deservedly won Best Picture because of the originality of its vision; this was an untold story through the eyes of everyday events. Brokeback spurned itself off an old theme, and dragged it around because being “gay” made it suddenly original. The Academy got it right this year.

Brokeback Mountain is a solid movie.  For all aspects of film-making, this movie is good in almost all categories.  But it isn’t a milestone; it isn’t original; it’s an old story with new dressing.