Woody Harrelson Film Festival

There's no rule book for innovators like me, which sometimes makes my task difficult. But we don't do things because they're easy, we do them because they are hard (JFK said this right before he was shot in the head by Woody Harrelson's father). Which is to say, I think I'm halfway through this wonderful adventure. I've watched exactly 39 and a half movies (the half is War for the Planet of the Apes , which I started but then got too scared of the monkeys to keep watching it alone. Rest assured, I will complete it some day), and 39 and a half is exactly one half of 79, which is how many movies are on my list right now. The problem is, it turns out my list might be a little faulty. I keep coming across movies that I have failed to include, and am constantly tortured by the age-old question: should I include documentaries, or not? Generally I lean towards "not," at least for now. But I recently unearthed an error I made 6 long months ago: including two ...

The only thing I'd ever seen Jennifer Aniston in before this movie was an Aveeno commercial. I'm really more of a Nivea or St. Ive's person, and maybe Burt's Bees on a special occasion, but right now I do have a bottle of Aveeno Positively Radiant Sheer Daily Moisturizer Sunscreen Broad Spectrum SPF 30 which I put on my face every day and every night. It works okay, I think, and it has a little shimmer in it which I think is sort of fun.  It's more fun than this movie, at least, which I really think does not have to exist. In my opinion, rom-coms only have value when they are holiday themed, and this movie was not holiday themed, so I did not enjoy it.  Interestingly, Steve Zahn, a man I have never heard of and Jennifer's costar in this movie, is in two other movies I also take issue with— War for the Planet of the Apes  (another Woody movie, which I am avoiding watching because I am afraid of the monkeys) and Stuart Little , a movie about which I have oft docum...

Too long! Too many stories! Kind of pointless! Not enough Woody!  According to Roger Ebert , having this opinion about this movie is the predictable, easy—even trite—thing to do. We should know, according to Ebert, that Spike Lee knew exactly what he was doing when he made this movie—made it genre-less and confusing and full of stereotypes and tropes that don't really seem to belong—that there was a greater meaning in all of it for us to sort out. "He teaches film at Harvard," Ebert reminds us. "Who cares!" I say.  

In lieu of our usual programming, I present you today with an ode to the outfits of Larry Flynt.  This was a good movie which I enjoyed.

For those of you who don't know, Lost In London  is kind of a special flick. The first and only film (to date) directed by our dear Woody, it was also the first film to ever be broadcast live into theaters across the nation. On top of that, it was filmed entirely in one shot, with one camera and no cuts (I haven't seen 1917 , but I imagine it was pretty derivative of Lost In London ). Furthermore, I'd like to take this opportunity to make what is a bold, potentially controversial statement: Lost In London  is the only film in the Woody Harrelson genre.  Perhaps I should back up a little. Lost In London is based on a true story, and Woody appears as himself alongside Owen Wilson and Willie Nelson (the three men all live nearby each other in Hawaii, now. Personally, I'm wondering why Matthew McConaughey doesn't join them!) on a rollicking journey through the streets of London one night as Woody attempts to make amends to his wife and children by taking them to the set...