7 Excellent Films You May or May Not Have Known Existed That I Think You Should All Have Some Knowledge About and, In Turn, Will, Hopefully, Have Some Interest in Seeing

I am never entirely sure what movies my friends and acquaintances have heard of. Many of my friends are quite knowledgeable when it comes to film. They usually have heard of most of the obscure movies I reference, however, I would like to make those who do not follow film as closely aware of some very good films of which they may or may not be aware.


Oleanna—William H. Macy and Debra Eisenstadt are the only two actors in this film. Watching “Oleanna” is like watching a filmed play. That is not an insult to this film. The play, in this instance, is so riveting, the dialogue is so fluid. David Mamet’s dialogue in this 1994 film is like a wonderfully harmonious piece of music. “Oleanna” is not a comfortable film. It is about a female university student who has an issue with a grade in one of her classes, a class taught by a professor played by Macy. The conversation begins civilly enough, however, throughout the course of the film, the visits to the professor’s office become more and more uncomfortable as the student grows more unreasonable and the professor becomes more distracted my other events in his life. “Oleanna” is one of those films that invites great conversation after having viewed it.


Jim, the World’s Greatest—I have never seen a better film, or many films at all, about the relationship between two brothers. Gregory Harrison as Jim and Robbie Wolcott as his younger brother, Kelly, are outstanding in Don Coscarelli’s 1976 film debut. Coscarelli would go on to direct another great film about young people entitled “Kenny and Company” in 1977, the “Phantasm” films and “Bubba Ho-Tep.” Jim and Kelly’s father, played by Angus Scrimm (billed in this film as Rory Guy), is an alcoholic widower who cannot his temper. Scrimm’s performance is also exemplary in this film. It’s a shame that he is pretty much only known for playing “The Tall Man” in the “Phantasm” films, films in which he does a great job (especially in “Phantasm: Oblivion,” the fifth film in the series and the one in which he gets an opportunity to add some range to the character. Really, he does. Don’t laugh. I can hear you. Scrimm’s performance in “Jim, the World’s Greatest” is outstanding as are those by the rest of the cast. This is a great film, which, hopefully, at some point, will get more exposure.


My Son, My Son, What Have Ye Done—the opening credits announce this as “David Lynch Presents, A Werner Herzog Film.” This is pretty much all you need to know. Your tolerance for Lynch and Herzog will dictate whether or not you have any interest in this 2010 film. Michael Shannon stars as a man who has committed a crime. Willem Dafoe stars as the detective trying to piece together clues. The great Grace Zabriskie plays Michael Shannon’s mother in an unforgettably and wonderfully bizarre performance. If you like David Lynch or Werner Herzog, you will likely enjoy this.

Anguish—Just see it.


The Music of Chance—Mandy Patinkin and James Spader play two guys who go to the mansion of two other guys (Charles Durning and Joel Grey) to play a high-stakes poker game. This description of the film would not have appealed to me at all, however, luckily, back in 1994, I watched the Siskel and Ebert episode on which they told me that this was a very good film. As was almost always the case, they were correct. It’s not just about a poker game. This would be lame. All the performances are great. Look for it.


The Corporation—a documentary which compares a corporation to a psychopath. A more correct analogy has never been made. This is a thorough examination of how companies manipulate and deceive so as to make money. Liberals unite!


The Times of Harvey Milk—a fantastic 1984 documentary about San Francisco city supervisor, Harvey Milk, who was killed in 1978. Sean Penn played Harvey Milk in the very good 2008 film, “Milk.”

The "Paa" That Refreshes

If you have ever said to yourself, “Man, I would love to find an Indian film about a boy with progeria in which the boy is played by a 67-year old man and it would be great if it had a little singing it in too,” I have the film for you! The 2009 Indian film, “Paa,” is about Auro, a 12-year old boy born with a condition known as progeria. Progeria is rapid aging in which a 12-year old boy looks like he is elderly, yet still has the mental state of his proper age. Auro was born to Vidya (the exceptionally attractive Vidya Balan) a medical student studying in England at the time of her pregnancy. The father is Amol (Abhishek Bachchan), a young man who is chasing a career in politics. Vidya decides that she is better off raising her son without Amol in the picture so she returns to India to live with her mother (Arundathi Nag).

Auro, the young boy with progeria, is played by Indian superstar actor, Amitabh Bachchan. According to IMDB, Bachchan has been in 188 films since 1969. Auro being played by Mr. Bachchan would be akin to the same character being played by Al Pacino, Jack Nicholson, or Robert DeNiro. For the first thirty minutes of the film, I could not tell if Auro was being played by an adult or a child actor. I finally gave in and looked it up on IMDB and found that he was being played by this superstar actor. Bachchan is quite good as Auro and even though I am not terribly familiar with his body of work, I could still not tell that it was an adult actor underneath all the makeup. Auro is played by Bachchan with the right amount of childlikeness and only a few times does the character seem like he is approaching leaning towards slapstick. Thankfully, Bachchan and the script reign in any tendencies for taking the character of Auro to such an unfortunate extreme. The film has a mostly dramatic tone as it should. There is some humor in the film, however, the film, overall, is not played for laughs.

“Paa” does contain some social statements as the character of Amol (Auro’s father) does become an important politician and is fighting to turn some of India’s worst slums into nicer areas in which to live for the people who are already living there. It is his goal to make the wealthy people of India aware of the fact that the people living in slums should be able to live in a cleaner, more hospitable environment. Most reading this may already know that it seems to be a mandate that all Indian films contain a certain amount of singing and dancing scenes. Fortunately, “Paa” contains what must be the bare minimum amount of such scenes. This is not a film that lends itself to the song and dance numbers that populate many Indian films. In some films, it works very well. In “Paa,” though few, such scenes in the film slow down the action to a complete halt and seem added in just because that is what is expected in Indian films. I do understand the fact that Indian films tend to contain many song and dance numbers that extend the running times of films so as to give the audience more movie for their money. Many people in India do not have a lot of money so they appreciate being able to get a lot out of the money they spend on going to the movies. The following explanation of why Bollywood films are long is from www.thebollywoodticket.com:

“For starters, Indians are used to longer forms of entertainment. Cricket matches last for days. So do Indian weddings. A three-hour movie isn’t long at all in comparison. Also, Indians tend to be value-conscious. They expect a full afternoon or evening of entertainment for the price of a ticket. But the biggest reason Bollywood films are long is artistic. The time commitment required of the audience heightens their emotional investment in the story. (The same is true of operas, which are often as long or even longer than Hindi films.) The effect can be powerfully moving, even for Americans accustomed to shorter films. Bollywood movies are getting shorter, though, mostly because there are fewer musical numbers than there used to be. While three and a half hours was once typical, three hours or less is now the norm.”

While all of this is true, it does not take away the fact that the extended song and dance scenes in many Indian films are superfluous. This is the main reason why I have not gravitated towards Indian films. I do enjoy long films, however, if the subject matter of such films does not peak my interest, I will not watch them. “Paa” happened to peak my interest as I have not encountered any film from any country about a boy with progeria, much less a film in which said boy is played by an adult. “Paa” is a comparatively brief 135 minutes, thanks largely to the fact that it seems to contain the minimum amount of song and dance scenes.

The way in which the film is edited is a bit of a hindrance. In most films, if the director or editor wanted to show a character moving from one end of a room to the other, the camera would simply follow that character walking from one side to the other, or, perhaps cut from one character to another or cut from the character that is moving to another object in the room, then back to the character that has moved. In our more impatient world of quick edits, the way in which some scenes in “Paa” are edited may appeal to some audiences. In some scenes, the way in which a character is shown moving from one place to another is done with quick edits, and even quick fade-ins, that do not show us anything different onscreen other than the fact that the character has moved a few steps. Though I did notice all this, it is distracting in a negative way. The story in “Paa” is interesting enough, though, so that my annoyance at this editing style did not distract me too much from the action of the film. Despite the unnecessarily annoying editing contained within, I recommend you check out “Paa” and experience something a bit different than the average, ordinary Hollywood film. It is available on Netflix Instant Streaming.

"42" Is the Answer to the Question, "What is a Good Baseball Movie?"

The new film, “42,” has nothing to do with Douglas Adams’ series of books about a particular hitchhiker’s guide. As well, fortunately, it was not necessary for me to have seen “8 ½,” “10,” or “The Number 23” prior to seeing this film about Jackie Robinson. Brain Helgeland’s film, which he wrote and directed, is an outstanding depiction of Robinson’s rise from the Negro League Kansas City Monarchs to being brought to the major league Brooklyn Dodgers by Branch Rickey, president of the Dodgers organization. Jackie Robinson, the first black player in major league baseball, is portrayed wonderfully by Chadwick Boseman. Boseman has a great screen presence as does Nicole Beharie who portrays Rachel, Jackie’s wife. Harrison Ford is great as Dodgers owner, Branch Rickey, a man who wanted to win and it did not matter to him if a good player was white, black, or anything else.
The look of the film is authentic. It feels as though we are dropped into 1946 America as we watch Robinson play in Kansas City, at spring training in Florida, and at impressive representations of actual major league stadiums of the day. The wardrobe and set design add to the film’s representative look and feel. The baseball details in “42” are spot-on. It is evident that Helgeland either is a baseball fan or he educated himself as to the intricacies of the sport. There are not any glaring baseball technical errors. There is even a scene in which a young boy explains to his mother the balk rule as Jackie Robinson scores in a game on a balk committed by the pitcher. Apparently, Major League Baseball gave the producers of the film permission to use replica uniforms of real teams. In some baseball films, one will not clearly see players’ uniforms so it is evident that permission was not granted by MLB. Sometimes fake teams will be used such as the Des Moines Cornshuckers or the Albany Dragons or something silly like that. The fact that Robinson is seen playing in games versus real teams such as the Philadelphia Phillies, Pittsburgh Pirates, and Cincinnati Reds adds to the authentic feel of the film.
It was a joy to see Alan Tudyk from “Firefly” in the film, however, his character is easily the least likeable in the film. Tudyk plays Ben Chapman, the absolute jerk of a racist manager of the Philadelphia Phillies. In Robinson’s first game against the Phillies, Chapman shouts racial slurs and insults at Jackie from the Phillies’ dugout in an attempt to rattle Jackie. In a film that easily could have hammered home the fact that Robinson was playing in a difficult time of racial inequality, the character of Chapman is one of the few sources of this fact as the film does not offer a sermon about the ugliness of racism as it appears to understand that the audience already is aware of this fact. I appreciated the fact the “42” does not dwell on an obvious problem of the time, but, rather focuses on the man and his achievements and the fact that Robinson was able to achieve his goals during this time in history. I suppose one may categorize “42” as light fare, as it is definitely a “crowd-pleaser,” however, at the same time, never does the film condescend to the audience. It works like an enjoyable history lesson about what was going on in baseball between 1945-1947. I learned a few things I did not know about before such as the suspension of Dodgers’ manager Leo Durocher for conduct found to be immoral by the Catholic Youth Organization. I learned that Branch Rickey went to Ohio Wesleyan Unversity. This stuck in my memory because I remembered that former Seattle Supersonics basketball great, Jack Sikma, played his college career at Illinois Wesleyan University, located just a bit south of Normal, Illinois, a fine town where I once had a car repaired while on a cross-country road trip.
The baseball facts in the film were obviously well-researched and, as a baseball fan, I appreciated this fact. “42” is not as good as, but does follow the same kind of well-organized and well-structured pacing as “Argo.” The script does not linger on trivial subplots that do nothing to advance the story. This is always appreciated as it does not allow the audience’s mind to wander and it does not allow the film to stall at any point. If you enjoy well-made films in which you learn a little something about a subject of which you may have known very little or if you enjoy such films and also like baseball, you will surely enjoy “42,” the answer to the question, “What is the ultimate good movie about Jackie Robinson?” or "What is the title of a good baseball movie?"