“Easy Rider” (1969) is a movie directed by the late Dennis Hopper. It stars Peter Fonda (Dirty Mary Crazy Larry, 3:10 to Yuma) and Dennis Hopper himself (Blue Velvet, Speed). Jack Nicholson (the shining, the departed) also makes an appearance as a fellow jail cellmate!

Here, the movie starts at the tail end of a lucrative drug deal. Wyatt (Fonda) and Billy (Hopper) next venture out onto the open road headed for Mardi Gras, then... to who knows where. Theirs is a life of “Freedom” and they, a breed amongst the multitude of others; some portrayed in this flick as being able to live and be at peace with the bikers, while others are stacked against em. Yes, their adventure leads them to meet all sorts of people, though those people are generally extreme if not almost stereotypical in personality. Beyond being philosophical, the journey is also drug laden and is almost as much a drug trip as it is a commentary on a breed of people amongst the backdrop of an (arguably) evolving society.

The acting is good with Fonda’s reflective Wyatt, played with subtle inner turmoil, stealing the show. Only to be eclipsed (at least for a while) by a quirky and crude Nicholson.

The movies transition sequences have a drug induced style. So too has (and more obviously so) the Marti Gras section of the movie. Coupled with the ladder case is a fusion of sex and religious symbolism – a show that holds less shock today than it likely had at the time of this movie’s release.

To be sure, the movie speaks more to those times then it can translate to today on a relevant and important level; with the exception of its potential as a springboard for discussion on the topic of “what is freedom?”

(**Spoiler alert for both “Easy Rider” and “Vanishing Point” (1971) **)

While its conclusion doesn’t pack the same resonating impact as does a similarly fiery finally as seen in vanishing point...

(**Spoiler alert over**)

... It’s still a good watch at 7/10 on scale.

“The Door in the Floor” (2004), directed by Todd Williams (Paranormal Activity 2 (try not to hold it against him), and starring Academy award winner Jeff Bridges (Crazy heart, the Big Lebowski) and Academy award winner Kim Basinger (L.A. Confidential). The movie is based on novel: “A Window for One Year” by John Irving.

This one actually came to me as a suggestion by my brother some time ago. I hadn’t heard of it but was happy to have watched it.

Here, Ted Cole (Bridges), a children’s book writer is post tragic loss, mid marital breakdown and on the verge of an important life change. So too is change an integral part of the lives of the story’s two other focus characters.

Enter Eddie O’Hare (John Foster), a young, hopeful writer who has landed himself a summer job working with Ted. As a result, Eddie finds himself in the middle of the transitional situation and becomes seemingly tangled in it due to his becoming romantically involved with Ted’s wife: Marion (Basinger). “Oh dear” indeed.

The Door in the Floor has an unusual mix of maturity, depth and light heartedness. It has its share of awkward but with the important added aftertaste of funny that in my opinion doesn’t necessarily undermine its preceding statements.

Sure, it deals with sexuality, and it’s mature suggestions has a hint of the off putting but that seems more like an attempt at honesty, which makes for a respectable reach. The depth will have you thinking to say the least and gives the movie some re-watch value.

The Door in the Floor gets 7.5/10.

Mean Creek (2004), written and directed by Jacob Aaron Estes (In his first full length feature) and starring Rory Culkin ( Scream 4, Signs), Scott Mechlowicz (Eurotrip, peaceful warrior ) and Josh Peck ( Bustin’ out from nickelodeon’s “Drake and Josh”)

Here, we are immersed in rough, name calling, beer drinking and drug smoking childhood/ adolescence. In particular we’re dropped into a school yard pounding by overweight bully: George (Josh Peck), administered to a considerably smaller Sam (Culkin). What follows is a scheme by Sam and friends to give ol Georgy a taste of his own medicine. Let me tell you, this movie is as serious as can be.

That isn’t to say that there aren’t a few laughs – because there is (The school type variety of course). They come early on and have more to do with the honesty, innocence and ignorance of the school aged characters. Hec, it’s even kinda hard not to get into the exchange of taunts between em. All this takes an ugly, tense and realistic turn when “Consequence of one’s action (or inaction)” is brought into play however.

I have found the funniest thing is that as adults, many of us forget the effects of bullying. Even some of us somehow forget that it exists and don’t believe it is still as big a problem– it is – if not in some ways worse because of bullying’s evolution (Think social networking).

While dated (with a release of 2004) this “official selection of the Sundance film festival” does begin to speak about the nastiness of bullying. But I would say that it suffers a little in the way of being broad. That is that, I felt the movie had difficulty to establish a proper buy in to really feel for the characters themselves on an individual level instead of as “Kids” ... Or Georgy as more than just a “Bully” with issues. That aside, the movie al’ remind you of all the grey and complexity of bullying AND ask: How much did the parents know throughout the movie? Here, there aren’t any answers, just a reminder that there’s a festering wound hidden below in the depths of childhood and adolescence that exists as much today as it did in the past.  That, despite our advancements and intellect, we can’t get enough people together to really make a big enough, important change in how we recognise, deal with,  and prevent bullying... if not decrease its likelihood and its effect.

Mean Creek gets a 7/10 on Scale in my books.

-Josh

13 Assassins (2010) is a bloody assassin/samurai type movie by director Takeshi Miike (sukiyaki Western Django, Ichi the killer, Audition).

Here, a Japanese Lord – Bloodthirsty, arrogant and without regard for those under him – Is about to rise to a position of power, one that, as we find out, could mean times of war ahead. A Samurai’s self sacrifice early on sets a wheel in motion that when teamed with the Japonese Lord: Naritsugu’s past evil deeds, forces an official of power to act against him. This means enlisting what becomes a team of 13 samurai to assassinate Naritsugu during his travels and while accompanied by many guards (we’re talking 200 or so).

Because the samurai prep a town and meet the enemy to do battle there, this movie does give off a “Seven Samurai” (Akira Kurosawa, 1954) vibe. This is especially so, because the movie takes it’s time heading into the bloodbath and spares some moments to recruit all 13 members. It’s easy to shrug that off however, because the movie engages you early on with beautiful and very shocking camera work, good acting and one hell of a buy in to hate the villain. I mean, I don’t know if it gets a whole lot nastier then what Naritsugu is. And this brings me to my first warning.

If blood if off-putting to you. It’s probably not your movie (I mean, the blood is not overly exaggerated (with the exception of a certain explosion) but they didn’t really use it sparingly). Also, there’s some shocking imagery.  Another point people might dislike is that English is available only through dubbing (Which I can’t really say was excellent as I decided I would rather the Japanese version with English subtitles early on). If you can handle both those things AND you would like to try out a samurai movie (They are not for everyone) then this might be your thing.

When there’s action, it’s awesome. The fights... gruesome. I mean... hey the samurai assassins pretty much ‘home aloned’ (set traps throughout) the entire village which results in quite a bit of bloodshed. AND... The ending’s good with a proper pay out for those who get into the black and white invitation to revenge this movie offers.

It has the ability to charge you like 300 (Gerard Butler 2006) did to some if you let it.  It gets an 8/10 on scale from me.

-Josh

Gone with the wind (1939) Directed by Victor Flemming is a motion picture classic unknown at least in name to very few. It’s a sprawling epic running at over 200 minutes and has garnered much accolade including multiple Oscars (Best Picture as well).

Here, we begin in the old south, romantically portrayed, and on the verge of war. The story revolves around Scarlett O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) who despite being beautiful enough to have any man she pleases, chooses to invest her heart into Mr. Ashley Wilkes(Leslie Howard) who himself is deeply in love with someone else.

Enter Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), an honest but rough around the edges type that doesn’t seem to make a good first impression. It turns out however that he has feelings for Scarlett. Love is complicated isn’t it?

The drama unfolds over a vast period of time through which the old south falls and a new era begins. As the times change, so to do the personages... but only a little. Still, at its core is a tangled and deepening unreturned love.

Though some would baulk at the picture quality, I must say that there is still some impressive aspects to it. In particularly the silhouette type shot against the sunset that time in the garden around the middle of the film where Scarlett swears, “...I’ll never be hungry again”. “Gone with the Winds” main theme song is as grand and sweeping as the movie. Clark Gable’s performance, though a little intense by today’s standards was excellent. As well, the sets are very lavish and quite impressive.

I would say that the classic does suffer being a little too poetic but is fairly deep and still appealing. I did find the end to be a little uneven, with it being a little heavy on the tragedy. All the same, it ends with a clever one two type punch with Clark Gable’s famous, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Followed shortly thereafter with Scarlett’s optimistic “After all... tomorrow is another day” which must have inspired more than just a viewer or two.

In all, I give it an 8/10 on scale. “Gone with the Wind” is a classic to watch, even if it’s just a rent or you are catching it on T.V.

Arthur (2011), directed by Jason Winer (modern family) and starring Russell Brand (Get him to the Greek) to be Frank, is mostly terrible.

Here we have rich, over the top, spoiled Arthur (Brand) who is so out of control and embarrassing that his mother (to whom he owes his wealth) has concocted a plan to have him wed and finally  leashed so as not to cause more damage to her empire. Enter Susan Johnson (Jennifer Garner), his mother’s associate and his wife to be. Of course, in typical Romance story fashion, as there is no love between the two, Arthur meets and falls in love with someone else... Are you rolling your eyes yet?

First the good, of which I can only name two points, one that Jennifer Garner though typical in performance, was semi effective. Secondly, I will give Brand that he did make me half smile at times during the movie... That’s all he gets. Thing is, I really wanted to get behind him, especially after my horrible experience with “Get him to the Greek”. It would appear that this flick suffers from the same type issues.

Here’s the thing. Brand’s Arthur is infused with such cartoon like character that it’s hard to be forgiving when we realize that he has all sorts of nasty hyper-real life struggles like being self loathing and having difficulties with alcoholism. Ugh. That distasteful mix of guilt free type fun and gritty drama is what put me off to “Get him to the Greek”.

At least it’s better than that other movie, but that isn’t saying much. Gimme Russell brand in either one genre movie or another, or at least let me see less of him as there was in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall”, now that, I enjoyed him in.

Arthur gets a 4/10 on scale.

-Josh