Ronhamprod

Immortals (2011)
Dir: Tarsem Singh
Stars: Henry Cavill, Mickey Rourke, Freida Pinto, Stephen Dorff, Luke Evans and John Hurt

This film is one of those where you watch the preview and say to yourself either, “I’m in!  Can’t wait!” or, “I will probably never see that movie for any reason .”

For me, I was in from the beginning – not sure if you remember my post from back in July 2011 when the first full length preview came out for Immortals, but the visuals of the film hinted at in the preview, combined with the fact that I had really enjoyed both The Cell and The Fall by Tarsem Singh equalled my going to see this film opening weekend.  That said, I wasn’t disappointed.  And that’s a swell feeling: I was recently talking with a pal of mine who similarly had just watched the latest Twilight movie.  She had been looking forward to the film for months, seen all the sneak peeks, read all the books and obviously seen all the previous films (SEVERAL times) – and she wasn’t disappointed either!  So, as this discussion pertains to Immortals, the film gets a “plus” to begin with because its preview did a fine job of advising just what kind of movie the audience is getting into – and then not disappointing. 

If you enjoy art, photography, cinematography or even going to museums, this film might be for you.  In one of the many interviews I read regarding the film, Singh discusses how he’s influenced by art and sought to make the film look like a painting.  Well, the use of lighting, costumes and different lenses to capture truly mythic images is impressive, and one of the biggest positives of the movie.  The fact that Immortals was shot on a set shocked me: not sure how much you know about Singh’s previous film, The Fall, but that was shot all over the globe!  Apparently this film was intended to be shot on a set from the get-go, but it doesn’t show at all.  From a visual standpoint, you feel as if it’s a Greek poem come to life in watching the movie. 

Lots of the complaints I heard about Immortals surrounded “overdone” acting and its intense violence.  Well, isn’t that exactly what’s contained in the original Greek poems this story is based on?  When you’re reading the stories in high school or college, and suddenly so-and-so removes someone else’s tongue, you kind of grimace and move on.  But this film is definitely more challenging to stomach as some of the violence briefly and eloquently described in the old myths comes to life… 

That said, some of the intense, sweeping, heroic action is also captured, which makes Immortals so fun to watch.  When the hero, Theseus – in all his “ab-nificent” glory – runs around and cuts his enemies to bits in slow motion, it’s pretty exciting.  I would classify this movie with The Matrix in this respect: all of the cartoonish violence, the immeasurable acts that the characters achieve and the uber-violence displayed by the villains are justified by the story.  In short, the story separates the movie from plenty of other stinkers out there who merely try to cash in by imitating the latest special effects craze.  For example, when Poseidon jumps off a cloud and joins a team of Gods as they battle a bunch of crazed Titans, their acts are justified by the ancient story this movie’s based on!  You just have to decide for yourself whether or not you’re interested in seeing some of this action come to life in gross detail.

One final thought: I have to give kudos to the actors and casting director who put them in the film for looking and moving like the Gods they portray.  My goodness, this was a “beautiful people” movie!

J. Edgar (2011)
Dir: Clint Eastwood
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts and Josh Lucas

This film is obviously a biographical drama.  It concerns the story of J. Edgar Hoover, told from the man’s perspective as he dictates the more impressive highlights of his career to several different Special Agents in the twilight of his years.  J. Edgar is, for lack of a better word, bizarre.  It’s a very different biography, told in anything but chronological order, which in the end fits the delusional nature of its title character.

I’m not going to get too detailed concerning the “layers” of the movie because they’re consistent with all of Eastwood’s films.  What I mean is, from the cinematography to the costumes, from the makeup to the art direction, this film is extremely professional.  As a period piece, J. Edgar should be nominated for numerous awards.  In other words, when the story flashbacks require a scene with a young JEH wooing a young lady in a deserted Library of Congress, the film truly puts those characters in that place and time, sparing no expense to do so. 

For me, however, the unique nature of the film begins and ends with Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance.  I’m not sure if some part of Hoover’s personality spoke to the actor or if he’s always been fascinated by this historical figure, but this is a noteworthy performance to say the least.  The preparation required for this role must have been extensive.  Hoover’s mannerisms, his speech, the way he holds his mouth in that downturned smile are all consistently displayed.  When we’re watching Hoover as he was in the 1920s and 1930s, he charges around the halls of justice, ordering agents about with a boundless energy.  However, by the time Nixon’s in office and he’s awaiting to be ushered into the Oval Office for yet another meeting with the latest President, the strain with which Hoover picks himself up off of the waiting room couch is fitting, appropriate and believable.  (See Note 1) However, I don’t think DiCaprio’s performance would have been as effective without the impressive makeup. 

I’ll let you watch the film yourself to see what happens regarding the infamous portions of Hoover’s reign, including the rumor he dressed as a woman from time to time and had a monstrous “secret file” on countless politicians and celebrities.  The aspect of Hoover’s personality that hit me was his delusion.  Two pieces of his life contributed to this delusion, beginning with his Mom.  Judi Dench plays Mrs. Hoover, who honestly reminded me of Mrs. Bates from Psycho.  Poor old J. Edgar had no friends: he just wanted to make Ma happy.  Secondly, the film convinces you that no one – from surely the 1950s onward – ever, ever told this man, “Sir, you’re wrong.”  Never!  I was reading Kenneth Turan’s review and he said what I thought during one scene in Act Three: absolute power corrupts absolutely.  If you had upset this man, he would investigate you!  Again, Hoover was completely delusional.  His memory of events was terrible, but the film convinces you that he himself was convinced he had it right!  That’s a pretty tight, narrow line to tow – but the film makers do it masterfully. 

I feel like I’ve dwelled on all the negative aspects of Hoover’s character, but I want to end with a clarification that the film does a great job of establishing some of the genuine good Hoover did for law enforcement.  While I think most viewers would agree that this is a cautionary tale, the more I think about this movie, the more I like it.  And despite its run time, the movie didn’t feel “long” at all.

Note 1: I heard some folks complaining about the makeup as I left the theater: to be sure, there were some scenes that contained a mix of makeup and lighting that was less than ideal.

Nosferatu (1922)
Dir: F.W. Murnau
Stars: Max Schrek, Gustav von Wangenheim and Greta Schroeder

I think this must be the oldest film I’ve ever commented on, but it’s not the oldest movie I’ve ever seen: as if I needed to prove my film geekdom further, I know I’ve seen Birth of a Nation and even some of the first Edision and Lumiere brother films.  Regardless, I figured for this season of Halloween I’d have a peek at this “classic” that seems to be a fixture on all of the horror movie lists I’ve recently seen. 

I think if you’re going to take the time to watch a film like Nosferatu, it’s important to kind of think of yourself in terms of an audience member watching the film when it was made, which for our purposes would be 1922.  What I mean is, if you watch this movie under today’s standards, it’s sure to make you laugh!  The acting is overdone, with no subtlety to it: but think of why that is – most of the actors no doubt came from theater or were simply asked, “Want to be in a movie real quick?”  Let’s think about the special effects: there’s nothing special about them by today’s standards.  Jump cuts and fades are used in the editing to show the vampire disappearing or quickly escaping in some scenes.  The cuts even suggest he turns into a bunch of rats a few times.  But again, the editing is pretty funny by today’s standards.  Sound?  There is no sound!  There are screen cards to display dialogue, but otherwise, the sound is purely a musical score.

So, what I’d encourage viewers to do is imagine themselves sitting in a huge, thousand-plus seat cinema in 1922.  You got your bowler on and your gloves neatly folded into your side pocket and your best gal in the seat next to you!  After watching a couple news reels, (it’s still too early for cartoons to play) Nosferatu comes up on the screen, along with the creepy organ music, which is played live, of course!  You’re kind of creeped out by the Count’s assistant, Knock, from his leering smile and crazy gray hair.  Then, you’re scared of the journey to the Count’s castle because you don’t have the internet.  Or TV.  Or even radio yet, probably.  All you have are a few books at home and the newspaper as your daily entertainment.  And all the ghost stories you ever heard probably came from your crazy Grandma who drank infinite amounts of tea and always had that annoying cough.  And now those stories of werewolves in the woods and goblins creeping down the hallways are coming to life on screen!

See what I mean?  I was thinking about that shot in which the villagers tell Hutter, the hero of the film, about the werewolves in the woods.  Then, there’s a cut to a hyena.  Now, I knew it was a hyena, but to the average 1922 audience, it probably could have been a werewolf for all they knew, thus scaring the crap out of them.  If you think further on this audience talking about the film for the next generation and so on, you can hopefully see why a film – that looks pretty funny by today’s standards – is considered a classic. 

To give the film its due credit, there are some images that clearly have influenced generations of subsequent horror films.  For example, Nosferatu popping out of his coffin on the ship, and some of the shadows used by the cinematographer are indeed iconic.  It’s interesting to watch such an old film like this because you have that “a-ha!” moment of where some of today’s film techniques were born. 

Final tidbit: I love good ol’ Robert Osbourne on TCM.  He informed me prior to my viewing the film that the film’s producers never secured the rights to make Nosferatu based on Bram Stoker’s famous novel.  They changed the names and details of the story, but it was clear to the court that it was Stoker’s work up there: so, they lost the court case!  Their penalty was to “destroy all copies of the film”.  Ruh roh!  But by then, the film had already been released and there were copies of it all over creation… so the only version people saw for many years were copies of copies of copies.  The version I saw had been restored painstakingly by a British company; but it left me to wonder how the musical score, played live on a theater organ might have changed the feeling of the film.

Layer Cake (2004) * Burke Favorite *
Dir: Matthew Vaughn
Stars: Daniel Craig, Colm Meany, Michael Gambon, Jamie Foreman, Sienna Miller and Tom Hardy

This is just my kind of movie: I understand this British caper movie with drug themes may not be for everyone, but I really dig its style, its cast, its intricate storyline and the name of its main character, “XXXX”.  I’m sure I’ve already lost many of you between the terms “British” (as in, “What the hell did they just say??”), “intricate storyline” and the admission that there’s a main character with no name: and I really mean no condescension in that statement, it’s just that we all have our guilty pleasures.  Layer Cake is undoubtedly one of mine.  Anyhow, if you’re still with me, I think the film’s style in and of itself makes it worth a watch, even if this isn’t your genre.

Let me get into the meat of the sandwich here: what’s Layer Cake about?  It’s about a guy with no name played by Daniel Craig, who’s trying to retire – yes, he’s trying to get out of selling cocaine for a living, but working towards a comfortable retirement is indeed a relatable thought.  Right of the bat, the film makers have taken a common theme and applied sex and violence to it: when is that ever a bad recipe for a film?  The story starts as most British caper films of late begin, with a nice, music-driven montage of how this man’s business works.  Craig’s character separates himself from the Tony Montanas and George Jungs (I’m thinking of Johnny Depp in Blow) as drug dealers we’ve seen in other movies.  This guy keeps a low profile, takes his business seriously, and always pays his clients promptly, fully aware of the dangerous business he’s chosen.

I particularly like the portion of the opening montage in which special effects are used to illustrate how what XXXX sells is really no different from what we buy in the cosemetic store (from one point of view).  The shot I’m referring to has Craig sauntering through a perfume store, with French Connection UK brand “cocaine” and “heroine” in nicely packaged boxes.  As he keeps walking through the store, the boxes re-image themselves into their usual appearances, bringing a nice visual to the fact that hard narcotics are nowhere near legal yet…

Regardless, the opening five minutes do a very efficient and entertaining job of introducing us to the main character, establishing that this film is more concerned with style than probably any other aspect, and setting up the problem.  XXXX always pays his customers “on time, in full, you give no short counts and you get no second chances…” (that line sounds better with Craig’s accent, of course).  Regardless, his biggest customer, Jimmy Price, “wants to have a word”.  Now, immediately Craig’s entire crew is nervous: Jimmy never wants to meet, so… there must be a problem.

Turns out Jimmy wants XXXX to a do a little snoop job for him and find the daughter of Jimmy’s associate, a guy named Eddie Temple.  Without revealing too much, the job forces XXXX to make some serious decisions about the guys he’s been doing business with, a gorgeours girl he comes in contact with (Sienna Miller) and this Temple character.  Speaking of characters, the film is chock full of very amusing personas, who do absolutely all they can between their lines, their costumes and their nuances to maximize their screen time: let me offer some examples –

• Sally Hawkins as Slasher: you might recognize her from other English cinema, but this role has her decked out in ultra-high heels and leather jackets as she accompanies her boyfriend around Amsterdam and London’s seedy streets high out of her mind.
• Jamie Foreman as Duke: I’ve seen this actor in numerous English films (Gangster No. 1 or Football Factory, anyone?), and he always impresses as a guy in over his head… just found out from his IMDB bio that he’s actually the son of an infamous London gangster, which no doubt has helped his performances as mental-patient worthy characters.
• Colm Meaney as Gene: talk about the definition of “muscle” in a gangster crew, this guy only speaks and moves when he has to – but please, do everything you can NOT to have him move towards you…  I first saw Meaney in The Commitments.
• Michael Gambon as Eddie Temple: dressed in gorgeous, tailored suits and with a wildly un-trimmed gray haircut, this guy is pretty scary as the billionnaire you don’t want to “f” with.  When his side of the story comes out concerning one of XXXX’s associates, it’s one of the best reveals in the movie.
• Dexter Fletcher as Cody: starring as a comfortable cop who’s more a negotiator than totally corrupt, Fletcher has the perfect pitch as a law enforcer who takes his chance when he gets it.  Why leave a yellow Range Rover behind when its drug dealing owner has recently “met with an accident”? 

I have to say, there are several others I’m not even touching on, but you get the idea of how loaded this film is with characters: let me finish by putting it this way – if you liked Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels, you really ought to put this one on the list as a more sophisticated, less comedic British caper film.

Final Thought: would you agree that it’s possible that Daniel Craig got his hat thrown into the James Bond ring of considerations for lead role as a result of some of the scenes from this film?

Insidious (2011)
Dir: James Wan
Stars: Patrick Wilson, Rose Bryne, Lin Shaye and Barbara Hershey
Insidious – Trailer

Drive (2011)
Dir: Nicolas Winding Refn
Stars: Ryan Gosling, Carey Mulligan, Bryan Cranston, Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman
Drive – Trailer
Drive Photo Gallery (worth seeing) – http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/drive_2011/pictures/

OK, I didn’t expect to return to such a recent posting so soon, but after my viewing of both Insidious and Drive, I figured it was a good idea.  Before reading on, you may want to refer to an earlier entry I did on the portrayal of sex & violence in film: http://ronhamprod.com/?p=572

Let’s start with Drive, shall we?  I saw the preview linked above about two months ago and started bouncing up and down on my chair in excitement: I marked the calendar and agreed with myself that “we” (the royal “we”, just this once) would go and see this title just as soon as it was released.  The story, as demonstrated in the preview, concerns an existential hero, “the Driver”.  He has no name, he has little feelings and few words – he just drives.  I’ve heard references comparing this character to Melville’s Le Samourai, which is a totally appropriate comparable.  While he makes legit money as a stunt driver, the opening scene establishes that he relishes those midnight drives in the car, helping criminals make their getaway.  Again though, he’s different in that he doesn’t carry a gun and explains his contract very clearly to potential clients before getting in the getaway car. 

Anyhow, the meat of Drive‘s story concerns his next door neighbor, Irene (Carey Mulligan), her small boy and the return of her husband, Standard, from prison.  Standard owes some bad guys protection money for his prison stay, and a robbery results – involving the Driver – to pay the debt.  I was talking to a friend of mine who saw the movie as well, and he made a great comment that the chase scenes aren’t a moment too long: they have purpose and they don’t continue for minutes on end all over L.A. proper! 

As you can no doubt tell by now, I really dug Drive.  For the most part.  I had seen one of the director’s previous films, Valhalla Rising, a few months ago, and was pretty impressed with how he brought the feel of a myth off the pages of an old dusty book and onto the screen.  That film also used minimal dialogue and impressive scenery to tell its story.  However… the violence in Drive is extreme and goes way overboard – that’s my opinion!  There are three separate scenes that show things that we already could imagine for ourselves from the intricate sound effects: as I said with Basic Instinct, there’s no reason to “show it all”…. in my opinion.  Let me finish Drive by saying I would still be terrified of The Driver without the visuals.

And now, let’s switch gears and discuss Insidious.  Between the two, this is the title that should be completely gruesome, right?  I mean, we’re talking about the writer/director team that brought us all Saw, not to mention six (6) sequels.  Insert open mouth, wide eyed face of surprise here: I don’t know about you, but having seen only the first in the series – which was plenty – I’m still digesting the fact there are seven total Saw movies. 

Regardless, Insidious is about a wonderful little family and their recent move into an older house, a house in which each and every single door creaks.  I’m not kidding.  However, the creaks and the odd photographic angles within the house and the creepy musical score by Joseph Bishara (see fun fact at the end!) all contributed to the feelings of unease I felt while watching Insidious.  As I thought about the film in the days after I watched it, I was reminded of The Exorcism of Emily Rose, Blair Witch Project and Psycho rather than The Thing, Friday the 13th and A Nightmare on Elm Street.  Perhaps I just prefer the more psychological thriller as opposed to those splattered with blood and guts.  I guess I respect the production much more when it still has me grasping my chair (with the proverbial “white knuckles”), but with little or no blood in the film. 

Fun Fact: the music composer to Insidious is also the actor that got made up for the part of the “lipstick face demon”.  Frankly, I couldn’t believe they put that shot in some of the TV spots I saw – you know the one I’m talking about if you saw the movie… when the demon is standing right behind Patrick Wilson’s character in the kitchen and Barbara Hershey reacts – like I did – by screaming like a kid on the playground?

Source Code (2011)
Dir: Duncan Jones
Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan, Vera Farmiga and Jeffrey Lewis

The credits start and there are numerous overhead shots of both downtown Chicago, and a commuter train headed for the city.  As the credits conclude, Jake Gyellenhaal’s character, Colter Stevens, wakes up – as if from a nap – on the commuter train, destined for Chicago.  The important thing to understand is that he has no idea where he is.  For him, it’s as if he just woke up in a completely different city and place.  The woman across from him, Christina (Michelle Monaghan) smiles at him, calls him Sean and says she took his advice.  A lady passes by and spills a bit of coffee on his shoe.  As Colter and Christina start to talk, they’re suddenly interrupted by the conductor demanding Colter’s ticket.  Then, the commuter across the aisle expresses his displeasure at the train being late.  Finally, Colter explodes in frustration, telling Christina that he’s not Sean, but an Army helicopter pilot in Afghanistan: how the hell did he get here?  There’s more: Colter disappears into the bathroom and sees a different man in the mirror!  So, things are really a mess by this point: Colter exits the bathroom, sees a very confused Christina there, asking him if he figured himself out yet – and then the train explodes!

Source Code is indeed very well structured: many screenplay books refer to this maxim, that if a script’s structure is there, the story kind of writes itself.  Regardless, once the train blows up in the film’s opening scene, we are taken back to a teeny tiny “pod”.  There, Colter is strapped to a pilot’s kind of seat, dressed in his Army uniform.  Apparently, the experience he just had was an insertion in to others’ collected memory of an event. 

Try and stay with me here (believe me, I had to rewind and think about some of the bits of information dished out as the story progressed): Colter has been wounded in action, but he’s still able to help his country.  The commuter train he was on was indeed blown to bits earlier that morning.  The memories of all of the passengers have been assembled into this scene that Colter lived through in the opening scene.  The problem is that this train explosion is merely the beginning.  That’s why the Army wants him to go back in and keep re-living the same scene over and over again.  He’s got to find the bomb that blew up the train, or confirm that it wasn’t on board.  Colter also has to find the bomber if they were on board the train. 

The film was a mere 90 minutes in length but I was on the edge of my seat for most of it.  Source Code is my kind of science fiction (see my post on Knowing): the kind where I’m not only entertained, but also learning as the story progresses.  I’m not wondering how they got the makeup on that weird Star Trek alien, I’m in the midst of a true adventure in a collection of memories.  I thought the director, Duncan Jones, kept the story rolling and the twists coming without seeming in a hurry. 

In many ways, this title reminded me of old Hitchcock thrillers, with an “ordinary man” struggling to understand the dangerous circumstance he’s been thrown into.  This story even had a subtle, touching and efficient storyline concerning Colter’s father.  And while there was action and chase scenes and explosions, much like The Matrix, they were essential to the story.  It’s completely satisfying to watch a movie like Source Code, whose special effects and action are reliant on the setup and not inserted for effect. 

American Psycho (2000)
Dir: Mary Harron
Stars: Christian Bale, Willem Dafoe, Josh Lucas, Chloe Sevigny and Jared Leto

I feel like many mainstream actors share this type of role early on in their career: it’s edgy, probably violent or shocking in some way – more likely to be overtly sexy, if the actor’s a lady – and the actor in question completely sinks into their part.  American Psycho is one of those movies, and Christian Bale is obviously the actor in question.  With the Batman franchise, Rescue Dawn, Public Enemies and The Fighter to follow, this role – in my humble opinion – was Bale’s re-debut to the industry.  I say “re-debut” because he deserves a lot of credit for Spielberg’s Empire of the Sun, which he starred in as a boy.

(Spoiler Alert)
I guess I saw American Psycho on VHS when it came out ten years ago.  My only memory of my feeling towards the film was that I was glad I watched it merely for Bale’s performance.  The rest of the film was just awful!  At least that’s how I felt then.  Upon re-watching it last week, I feel much more positive towards the whole production: I guess, and it embarrasses me to admit this, I either forgot or didn’t realize that in the end, it was all Patrick’s fantasies we’d been watching! 

Between the presentation of Wall Street style peer pressure to the handling of this man’s fantastic, violent episodes, the movie is a true indictment of the “live big” mentality being protested against in Manhattan just now (amongst other cities across the U.S.).  Think of the scene when Patrick busts out his latest business card: his name is in the middle, his title directly beneath his name, his phone number in the top right and company along the bottom (or something close to this layout).  As his associates display their cards, each and every one has the same information in exactly the same order, with only subtle differences in the card stock, color and fonts used!  And yet, Patrick is so convinced his card sucks compared to the others’ that he can’t take it and has to disappear into the restroom for a few minutes.  I think this scene might have been my favorite because I feel like I’ve seen business associates (and mere acquaintances – there is a difference, you know) react in the same way to fashion, personal comments and observations/opinions on movies!  So yes, this movie is worth a watch in the end, I suppose…  It is awfully violent, though – be forewarned.

Let’s get back to that “breakout” role: I think of DeNiro in Mean Streets, Russel Crowe in Romper Stomper, Malcolm McDowell in If and Eric Bana in Chopper and Bale in this one as some prime examples of these performances… Would love to hear from you on this topic!  What roles do you remember saying, “Can’t wait to see more of this dude!”

No Strings Attached (2011)
Dir: Ivan Reitman
Stars: Natalie Portman, Ashton Kutcher, Greta Gerwig, Lake Bell and Kevin Kline

Author’s Note: The title of this post alludes to my intention to post a bit more often with perhaps less detail and consideration for each and every title: I’ve been looking over ol’ ronhamprod.com and seeing that I do some massive, detailed posts and then don’t post for a while… so hoping for a bit more consistency here, dear readers.

That said, let’s talk BRIEFLY about No Strings Attached, and be aware, there are plenty of spoilers coming up here.  Believe me, I’m helping you out.  I’m not sure how this title ended up on my Netflix cue, but last night it went into the DVD player.  I suppose I was on a kick of, “I need to be watching more recent titles”. 

Whatever the reason, woe be to the viewer who stumbles upon this one.  The movie did have its positives: much like Drive and (500) Days of Summer, the movie made Los Angeles look absolutely beautiful.  However, it also insisted on adhering to the following rom-com formula: Girl meets Boy as a teen, they lose track of each other for several years, Girl circumstantially re-meets Boy in gorgeous downtown L.A., after Boy and Girl sleep together countless times, suddenly Girl inexplicably doesn’t want to be with Boy, Boy inexplicably takes Girl back.

And I guess that last piece is where I struggled the most with Strings: why did he take her back?  I would have given this a huge “recommend” if the end would have simply been Portman and Kutcher running into each other one more time maybe years later, each with their new lovers.  The scene would include them kind of congratulating each other with, “Hey, I wouldn’t have found my love without you, but thank goodness I didn’t stay with you!”  Why is it such a guarantee or an absolute that romantic comedies end with the two together?  Would love to hear from you on this question…

Running the Sahara (2007)
Dir: James Moll
Stars: Charlie Engel, Ray Zahab and Kevin Lin
Website: http://www.runningthesahara.com/about.html

Believe it or not, back in 2008, I ran a half marathon.  All at once, no breaks!  And my first thought upon crossing the finish line was, “I cannot IMAGINE doing all of that again THIS MINUTE.”  Because I only ran 13.1 miles: a marathon is 26.2 miles.  Again, that’s all at once, in a row, on the same day.  Now, dear Reader, imagine doing not one, but two marathons every day.  For 90 days.  I’ll let that idea sink in for a moment….

Because that’s precisely the idea behind National Geographic’s documentary, Running the Sahara.  This film is kind of an exercise in insanity: the premise is Charlie, Kevin and Ray, who are already extremely successful marathon runners, decide marathoning isn’t enough.  Somehow, these three came up with the idea of “dipping their toes” in the Atlantic Ocean, in Senegal, and then running all the way across Africa – no less than 4,300 miles total – and “dipping their toes” in the Red Sea, in Eygpt.  OK.  To do this, they’d need about 90 days, several pairs of running shoes, plenty of water & protein bars, and a truck full of National Geographic technicians, medics, cameramen and guides.  Oh, and in my opinion, you’d have to be certifiably crazy. 

When my pal RM told me about this picture last month, I was in after he summarized it for me: it just sounds unbelievable, and it is unbelievable to watch.  I mean, we all know who Columbus was, and how Edison invented all those gadgets we now take for granted: but I think part of why I liked Sahara so much was that it was “every day” people doing absolutely extraordinary things.

And perhaps it’s different strokes for different folks or whatever, but why anyone would spend their time watching a reality show about a bunch of knuckleheads getting drunk and sleeping with each other in a house when THIS kind of two hour documentary exists is beyond me.  Other reasons to watch:

• Narrated by Matt Damon, just like another “must see” documentary recently covered on this blog recently called Inside Job.  Have you seen it yet?  Get on it!
• Gorgeous, awe inspiring National Geographic photography covering the African continent
• Watching these guys RUN in a SAND STORM (come on, the capitalization is deserved!)
• The political ramifications of trying to run through Libya
• The shocking true life drama when one of the team members starts to have second thoughts on the whole mission
• The awareness raised and classy coverage of the water issue that grips many African nations, including a trip deep down into a real operational well

Believe me, if it’s a choice between Bachelor Pad, Jersey Shore, or any Housewives of _________ show and this kind of quality documentary, I’m taking this every time.  But, we all have our guilty pleasures, now don’t we?