November Home Video Roundup

Dot the I (dir. Matthew Parkhill, wr. Matthew Parkhill) - Spoiler warning (if you've already seen this movie, don't think you'll ever see this movie, or simply don't care about being spoiled, copy the following tiny text into your favorite text editing program and increase font to read): If there's anything more tired than "reality" TV, it's comedians, TV shows, and movies that attempt to discuss the "phenomenon" (fad, more like) of "reality" TV.

I swear, it's like when someone makes a Springer joke. They think they're being all funny and smart and insightful and crap, when really all they're saying is that they've just found out about Springer. (Is Springer still on? Do the kids these days even know who Springer is?)

Despite the presence of Gael Garcia Bernal, I think not worth the rental.


Reefer Madness: The Movie Musical (dir. Andy Fickman, wr. Kevin Murphy and Dan Studney) - Brilliant in concept and execution. Basically, it's a snarky music-and-dance version of the classic '30s exploitation flick Reefer Madness that actually manages to incorporate all the characters, major plot points, many minor details, and even quite a bit of dialogue from the original movie. If that description sounds even remotely humorous to you, go rent this thing right now.

It stars Kristen Bell, Christian Campbell, Steven Weber, Ana Gesteyer, Alan Cumming, Neve Campbell, and several dozen others, and they all sing and dance and sing and dance some more. If that description sounds even remotely humorous to you, go rent this thing right now.

They even throw in as a bonus on the DVD the entirety of the original film which, ironically enough, rumor has it, is only even remotely watchable when you're really, really high.


Land of the Dead (dir. George A. Romero, wr. George A. Romero) - When I first heard the news that new Romero zombie movie was coming out, I thought, Awesome! Anyone who knows me can tell you that his Dead movies are among my favorite movies of all time, zombie or otherwise. But then I had to stop and think, okay, is he going to do it right, or is he going to follow this weird and completely nonsensical fad of, you know, the running zombie?

When I first heard the (very) general plot of the story -- the zombies get smarter and form societies and learn to cooperate and use tools and stuff, while humanity fiddles their last decadent days away in some "last human stronghold", oh and Dennis Hopper's gonna be in it -- I thought, gag. So, I skipped it in the theaters, and months later rented it out of obligation only.

I started the movie, and yeah, not bad. The zombies don't run, for one thing. And the whole thing about them starting to develop a rudimentary intelligence, I can see, is simply an extrapolation of the end of Day of the Dead, wherein zombie Bud definitely starts displaying not only a sort of "intelligence", but a rudimentary moral code and definite management potential as well. As for the "last human stronghold" idea -- how is that radically different from the underground lab of Day of the Dead, or even in concept from the mall of Dawn or the house of Night? It's just a matter of scale, and in any large group you'll have your haves and your have nots. Just imagine all the scientists of Day either giving up, getting killed, or left behind when it was time to move on to the next fortress (that certainly was the direction things were headed in Day). So anyway, my point is, it all made sense, once I gave it a chance, and actually sat down and tried to reason it out.

Let that be a lesson to all of you.

Solid zombie stuff, with a surprisingly good performance from John Leguizamo, whom I usually cannot stand. A good addition to the Romero zombie canon, though I really don't know where (or if) he's gonna go with it from here.


Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (dir. Tim Burton, wr. Roald Dahl (book), John August) - A lot has been made of this new Tim Burton remake of the Willy Wonka movie (more on this in a moment). Supposedly much closer in content and tone to the original novel by Roald Dahl (who apparently hated Mel Stuart/Gene Wilder's Willy Wonka), even though the trailers really did make it look like one of those near short-for-shot remakes, even in terms of costumes and makeup and dialogue.

I love both Dahl's novel and the Stuart/Wilder movie. Grew up with both of them. Yes, they were quite different from each other, but I still liked them, and they were just different enough that I could separate them in my head. Like Gerry Anderson's Thunderbirds vs. Jonathan Frakes' Thunderbirds, or the old Battlestar Galactica vs. the new Battlestar Galactica (which, if you're not watching yet, hop to). Some of the character names are the same, and the basic premise is the same, and even some of the ship designs are the same, but they are still different and enjoyable enough that I can like both, without necessarily having to compare which version does what better than the other. Not quite apples v. oranges, more like Gala v. Braeburn. Both are apples, both are good, and both are enjoyable on their own merits but not quite justifiably open to the which-is-better-than-which discussion, even though they're both apples. (The answer, by the way, is Gala).

Which sort of brings me back to the first line of this review. Just because Burton took out the geese and put in the squirrels, just because Burton put in a scene with Willy in the jungle, just because Charlie now has a father doesn't mean (to me) that Burton has made a movie closer in content and tone to the original novel. Make no mistake, Burton's film (to me) is a remake of the Stuart/Wilder Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.

And a quite inferior one at that. Burton's added content does nothing for the film. So what that the Oompa-Loompas now play drums and electric guitars and keyboards and stuff, and can sing in four different styles of music? Pointless. And the thing about Willy Wonka's dad, frankly, is the sort of hackneyed family-values moralizing that one would expect from Steven Spielberg, not from a filmmaker as (once) original as Burton. With this film and Big Fish (a film I actually enjoy a great deal, by the way), is Burton becoming the new Spielberg? And I mean that in the worst possible sense.


Mad Hot Ballroom (dir. Marilyn Agrelo, wr. Amy Sewell) - I saw this movie laying in bed with my coat still on, bundled under two blankets, shivering and waiting for a fever to break, as T. sat seven feet away on the couch, laughing at me. Considering, I was in a fairly good mood because we'd just had Thanksgiving dinner at Les Halles (although it wasn't as good as I remembered last year's to be) and I had the next day off work (a fairly recent development in my office). Mad Hot Ballroom talks about a public school program apparently currently going on in New York City wherein children take a once-a-week ballroom dancing class, and then compete. Not as intense as Spellbound (however pointless knowing how to spell can be, it at least, however marginally, can help you with your SATs and get you into a good college, and the families taking part certainly take it seriously; dance, expecially as portrayed here, is seen as something that people have just fallen into, and honestly couldn't give a damn) and the film seems to focus more on the instructors than the kids themselves (ugh, remember Rock School?), but it's still a cute movie, worth a rental. Even if you're shivering away a fever under a coat and two blankets and one of your best friends is just sitting there laughing at you.