Showing posts with label time bandits. Show all posts
Showing posts with label time bandits. Show all posts

Sunday, April 28, 2024

Random rewatch: Time Bandits

It's not entirely accurate to refer to my Saturday night rewatch of Time Bandits as random.

First there was the fact that someone recently got the movie assigned from my Flickchart in the Facebook group Flickchart Friends Favorites Fiesta, where each month you are assigned to watch the highest ranked movie you haven't seen from another member's chart. The person really liked it -- I suspected she would from her tastes -- and the comments section engendered a bit of a discussion about the movie's ending, which multiple people found troubling. (It's a head scratcher to be sure, but I've never had a problem with it.)

Then there was Friday night's viewing of Jabberwocky, and yesterday's writing on The Audient about that disappointing viewing, which whetted my appetite for another Time Bandits viewing as a point of contrast and a bit of a palate cleanser to rid myself of the bad taste of Jabberwocky.

But the clinching reason I watched Time Bandits Saturday night was that I have a very periodic series on this blog called Random Rewatch, in which I use a random number generator to choose a movie on my Flickchart to rewatch, and once I've watched it, I do it again. 

Sometimes it takes years for me to watch the next movie. This time, it took a little under a year. Last June I rewatched Zack Snyder's Sucker Punch, and drew Time Bandits as the next movie. A very favorable draw, since the movie currently ranks 29th on my chart, but because I'd only last rewatched it in 2020, I was not in a hurry to put it on my schedule straight away.

But the confluence of recent events promoted it to the top of my viewing queue, and now, at the end of me writing this post, the next movie in the series can be selected.

Because I've written about Time Bandits a lot over the years -- including most recently yesterday -- I thought I would just give you a few takeaways from this viewing, even if they are thoughts I may have expressed in the past.

1) Yesterday I talked about how Jabberwocky was missing a good appearance by John Cleese, which Time Bandits does have. In fact, the appearance is so good -- even if it is over inside of five minutes -- that Cleese actually gets top billing in the movie. In fact, his name is the very first image of any kind against a screen of black when the movie starts. Either Cleese demanded it to do this favor for his friend Terry Gilliam, the co-writer and director, or Gilliam just thinks that highly of this brief contribution.

2) The actor who should actually be first-billed, if we were going only by the main character of the movie, is Craig Warnock as Kevin. Two things about this. One, I find it interesting that I had to wait for the closing credits to learn/remember his name. I am fairly likely to know the names of kid actors from formative movies for me in the 1980s. For example, I could tell you the name of every actor or actress in The Goonies. But for some reason, Craig Warnock is never a name I committed to memory -- and that could certainly be because Warnock never had much of a career after this, while Goonies like Corey Feldman and Sean Astin did. The other thing about this character is that Amazon's synopsis for the movie -- I rented it on Amazon as a convenience instead of having to hook up my old computer to watch it on DVD -- shows his name spelled as "Keven." Fortunately, I checked other resources and this seems to be just a typo.

3) Speaking of Gilliam as a co-writer, want to know his other co-writer? Michael Palin. That appears to be a course correction from Jabberwocky, which Gilliam wrote with some person named Charles Alverson. No wonder this is an infinitely better script. Alverson is listed in IMDB as an uncredited writer for Brazil, though nothing after that. Maybe that's why I don't love Brazil.

4) Speaking of Palin, I laughed the most during the two exchanges between him and Shelley Duvall, one in the Middle Ages and one aboard the Titanic. That's not news. But I did have a new takeaway about this, which is that the rule of three would have ordinarily meant they placed these two actors, with their various embarrassing physical issues (she's got "an enormous --" and we never hear what), in one more scene, either in the Battle of Castiglione scene with Napoleon or in the Ancient Greece scene. They didn't, and I think that's to the movie's benefit. They have priceless comedic timing and chemistry and one more might have ruined it.

5) I'm pretty sure the best comedic performance in the entire movie, though, belongs to David Warner as the Evil One. I relished it this time as much as I ever do. I don't have anything specific to say about that, but I thought five takeaways was a good round number.

You know I love Time Bandits. Let's let that be it for today.

But there's one more piece of business, which is to choose the next movie in this series.

There are currently 6477 movies on my Flickchart, so that's the number I am plugging into the random number generator as we speak. Let's see if I get something more challenging than my top 30 movies of all time.

Ooo, much more so. I got 6012, so this is going to be a movie I really don't like. And that movie is ...

The animated movie Doogal from 2005, which is based on a property my wife watched as a child.

I don't see anything to be gained from watching Doogal again, but rules are rules. I'll put it on the schedule sometime between now and 2030.

Saturday, April 27, 2024

Adjacent to Python, not adjacent to good

Terry Gilliam directed or co-directed two of my top 50 movies on Flickchart, those being Monty Python and the Holy Grail (#41) in 1975 and Time Bandits (#29) in 1981.

In between, he directed one of the least funny turkeys I have ever seen.

That's 1977's Jabberwocky, which I finally saw last night on Kanopy. That delay seems unimaginable for a person who grew up steeped in Monty Python, and who, in fact, memorized an entire scene in Holy Grail which he can still quote today. (Which will actually come up in a minute.) But that's just an indication of how little people who liked Python actually talked about this movie, even though it features fully half of the Python players and is directed by one of them.

Based loosely (if at all) on the Lewis Carroll poem, Jabberwocky acknowledges its connection to Carroll by kicking off the action with that poem's famous opening: "Twas brillig and the slithy toves ..." I guess these words are being spoken, or at least thought, by a butterfly, because they end when a poacher (played in his one quick scene by Python Terry Jones) steps on and crushes the butterfly while tromping through the woods. A few moments later, this character is going to be skeletonized by the titular beast, unseen at this point, which at least set me up for something interesting.

Nope.

Poor Michael Palin, saddled with being the movie's main character and having to act out a movie's worth of bad ideas by Gilliam and co-screenwriter Charles Alverson. He keeps his chin up and at least is a beacon of sweetness within all this grossness and drudgery.

Yes, if there's something Monty Python collectively understand, it's the grossness and drudgery of the Middle Ages. Most of the characters in Holy Grail and in this portion of Time Bandits look like gnarled gnomes with bad teeth. Python think it's funny what cretins these people were, and mostly, they're right. Just think of the scene in Time Bandits where John Cleese's Robin Hood -- ah, what Jabberwocky might have done with a good dose of John Cleese -- is giving out stolen goods from the rich to the poor, but the price of each receiving their small amount of riches is that one of Hood's goons, with teeth practically coming out of his forehead, must punch them square in the face. And it's not just men, as this menace is knocking the block off of women as well.

That might not have worked, tonally, but by the time Gilliam had made Time Bandits, he knew a) how to pull off the tone and b) that small doses were all we needed. Jabberwocky is essentially one hour and 45 minutes of a goon punching you in the face, and it's as unpleasant as that sounds. 

There are jokes here about shitting, eating grossly, bawdy sexuality, inbred-looking royalty, terrible hygiene and the general awfulness of people. Under the right circumstances, some of this stuff might make me laugh. Since none of it did -- I literally did not laugh once -- each new flailing attempt just stacked the deck against this movie. The most I can say is that I appreciated what they were trying to go for once or twice, but they were quite far from achieving it.

Why does this stand in such stark contrast to Holy Grail and to Time Bandits, which also features Palin as well as Cleese? Is Charles Alverson that much of a detriment to Gilliam's comedic instincts?

Because this is, really, very close to those two movies in many respects. It looks shoddy, which is a feature not a bug of Holy Grail (and a product of its mid-70s origins to some degree). It has the bawdy humor that Gilliam explores more credibly in Time Bandits. There are even some things that are so directly explored in the earlier film that they would be considered rip-offs if the same creative talent were involved. For example, Palin's character is named Dennis, which is the same name as the character who talks King Arthur's ear off in the aforementioned "constitutional peasant" scene in Holy Grail. (You don't remember me aforementioning it? That's the scene I memorized when I was 14 and can still recite to this day.) There's a black knight in Jabberwocky, just as there is in Grail, and there are rude guards at the top of a tower, just as there are in Grail, although all they do is urinate off the tower. 

That's a good metaphor for what is being traded off between these two movies, though. Although the French guards delivering their complicated insults in Holy Grail has faded over time for me as one of that film's best sources of humor, more silly than masterful comedy writing, it's Shakespeare compared to two guys urinating off the top of a tower.

I do think this gives us an idea of how important the other Pythons -- who included Graham Chapman and Eric Idle in addition to the ones we've already mentioned -- were to the writing process of Holy Grail. When you only have some of them, and when the one who is directing it has not yet come into the visual powers that would later distinguish his career, you get a lowbrow, mean-spirited and unfunny slog like this. 

I thought this might make me a Gilliam completist, but just checking now, I see I have not yet seen The Brothers Grimm, one of two movies he directed in 2005 (along with Tideland). That one was not well received, so I won't rush to fit it in.

In a year in which I am reviewing outlier movies from favorite directors, Jabberwocky does not qualify. In fact, looking over Gilliam's filmography for this piece, there are actually more Gilliam movies I dislike than like. While the two movies I've discussed glowingly in this piece are obviously my favorites, Twelve Monkeys is also around my top 100 on Flickchart, clocking in at #127. From there, though, things drop off pretty steeply, as only one movie he has made since then -- and that's nearly 30 years -- has gotten three stars from me on Letterboxd, which is The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus, and I may have been generous with that rating. All the others since 1995 are some sort of misfire, and I'm no fan of Adventures of Baron Munchausen, which came before Twelve Monkeys, either. (I like Brazil fine, but not as much as most people.)

In the grand scheme of things, it should not be a surprise that Jabberwocky stinks, because Gilliam missed more than he hit. And we now know he's not a great guy either, aligning himself with right-wing politics, so you know, he and his shitty 1977 movie can go eff themselves. 

Monday, November 2, 2020

Not my Bond, but my icon just the same

I didn't see Sean Connery in a James Bond movie until 2006. The second of January, 2006, to be exact, when at long last I cracked the seal on Connery's long career as 007 with Dr. No.

This is not a technically accurate statement. I did see Never Say Never Again around the time it first came out, on a plane I think. But I was always confused about why this interloper was playing Roger Moore's role. I have no idea if that's actually a good movie or not (my sources say no) because I was too distracted by Connery's presence.

Many people eulogizing Connery, who died at age 90 this weekend, will naturally focus their attentions on him giving birth to one of cinema's most famous figures, who is still with us today, and would have had his own most recent movie in 2020 if not for the pandemic. 

Not me. But that doesn't mean I didn't love Sean Connery.

I've chosen for this memoriam post a still from my highest ranked Connery film on Flickchart, Time Bandits (#29), which I happened to have watched just a few months ago on the occasion of the death of Ian Holm. I guess I was preparing for Connery's death for a while now -- it's something I've thought might be coming soon, knowing that he had entered his tenth decade of life -- as I also watched The Untouchables back in September.

For many people, these would be considered secondary roles that paled in comparison to his work as Bond, even if he won an Oscar for the latter. (And when you look him up on IMDB, The Untouchables is the title the site uses to distinguish him on first glance: "Actor, The Untouchables.")

For me, they were primary texts.

Something about the warrior's strength and extreme paternal warmth of his King Agamemnon in Time Bandits just typified, for the eight-year-old me, the type of pure magnetism we expect of our great cinematic stars. So even though he's in no more than 15 minutes of that movie, he is one of its most memorable parts. 

When I rewatched The Untouchables, I was reminded of how little of that movie he's actually in as well. He might not come into it until the 20- or 30-minute mark, and he dies earlier in the narrative than I remembered. But again, he makes a huge impression in just a short amount of screen time. My friends and I used to always quote to each other his unforgettable "that's how you get Capone" speech.

It would be absurd to suggest that Connery was better as a character actor than a lead, as indeed, his personality in a leading role could sell tickets with the best of them. But even in my third-ranked Connery film on Flickchart, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, he's more appropriately considered a supporting actor than the lead. Co-lead, maybe.

It's not until my fourth-ranked Connery film that we get to both James Bond and a film in which he undoubtedly was top billed, which was my favorite of the four proper Connery Bond films I've seen: Goldfinger. It was in this film that I feel like the Bond we still love today was born. That was thanks to Connery, whether he was "my Bond" or not.

I've seen 16 Connery films, according to Flickchart, though I have yet to add my most recently watched Bond film, Thunderball, so that will make 17. Yet only those four I've mentioned so far make my top 1000 films. That would suggest that maybe Connery wasn't really "my movie star" either.

Except that whenever Sean Connery appeared in a film, I was excited for it. Whether he was a Russian submarine captain in The Hunt for Red October or an immortal in Highlander or even a gonzo warrior in the extremely goofy Zardoz, he always brought a presence, a charisma, and an absolutely ripper Scottish burr to his performances. When he effectively retired from making movies nearly 20 years ago -- The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was his last major role in 2003, if you can believe it -- it always felt premature to me, like Connery had left us adoring fans with a palpable absence on the cinematic landscape.

And now he's left a palpable absence in the world at large.

To honor Connery I plan to continue working my way through his Bond movies on Monday night, though it's sad to note that I'll have only one left after this one. You Only Live Twice will be an appropriately melancholy choice, I think, as this is the one whose premise features at least a fake-out of the character's actual death.

After that, only Diamonds Are Forever will remain. The good thing about the medium of cinema, though, is that movie stars are also forever. So even if we don't have him anymore, in another sense, we'll always have Sean Connery.

Rest in peace.

Sunday, June 21, 2020

Remembering Ian Holm, and also my mother

I said I wasn't going to memorialize my mother again on this blog, but I never said memories of her wouldn't creep into other posts accidentally. (Besides, grieving is an unpredictable thing ... you probably should not make too many rules.)

I wasn't going to write a proper "in memoriam" post for Ian Holm, either, maybe especially on the heels of remembering my mother on this blog. The first return to fondly remembering another deceased cinematic luminary needed to be someone really important to me, not someone more on the margins like Holm.

But then the movie in which I first met him entered my head, and pushed its way past the other candidates for a Saturday night viewing.

Many people who have been remembering Ian Holm in the past day or so, since his death at age 88 was announced, have been focused on what are considered his signature roles in major contributions to the zeitgeist, like Alien and Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring. In fact, he is so fondly remembered as Bilbo Baggins that you almost forget, for a moment, that he never played this character as the star of his own movie. When it was time to tell Bilbo's story, Martin Freeman was the choice, which makes sense, given that Holm was in his late 70s.

For me, though, Ian Holm was first and foremost Napoleon Bonaparte in Time Bandits, a role with only about ten minutes of screen time -- which, I guess, is something it has in common with Bilbo.

Like The Cable Guy, which I wrote about yesterday, Time Bandits is also in an extremely elevated position on my Flickchart, all the way up at #25 overall. Like The Cable Guy, I had only once previously tagged it on this blog. Though in a way that's even stranger than only writing about The Cable Guy once, as Time Bandits has been around for 15 years longer and was one of the movies I wore out on VHS when I was growing up. I'm sure that's due in large part to the fact that before this viewing, I hadn't watched it since 2007, which was two years before this blog existed.

If you aren't familiar with the basic set-up of Terry Gilliam's best film, well, you have some homework to do. But I'll nutshell it here for you. It involves a group of little people who steal a map from the Supreme Being, for whom they worked in helping create the world. The map shows the time holes that were left when they had to create the whole earth in only seven days, and they can travel through these portals to other periods of history, where they can steal the riches of famous people and then vanish into thin air, quite literally. (Well, it actually involves running through a cool black door-sized portal that opens and stays open for about a minute.) Along the way they acquire our protagonist, 11-year-old Kevin, after ending up in his bedroom in modern-day England.

As they select their targets, their first stop is to make off with Napoleon's riches. The whole sequence is masterfully absurd. The famous diminutive military leader is in the process of sacking an Italian city during the Napoleonic Wars, and he has basically driven the local population into total submission. However, instead of ordering a halt to the attacks, and accepting the surrender of the locals -- a measure his two trusted advisers urge him to make post haste -- he wants to watch a Punch and Judy show featuring two puppets smacking each other with sticks. Any attempt to divert him from this diversion is met with great anger and frustration. When the puppeteer is shot and killed, the desperate stage manager hustles the band of robbers on stage, as an alternative to shooting himself in the head. It's an accidental masterstroke, as the size-obsessed dictator professes to like "Little things, hitting each other!"

The bulk of Holm's time on screen involves snapping at his generals and laughing like a loon at the entertainment options proffered for him. But then there's also the following scene where a pickled Napoleon lists a succession of former great military and political leaders who were shorter than he is. He passes out and the little people, made generals in the stead of their disappointing precursors, steal a bunch of paintings, jewelry and gold goblets that happen to be piled up in the very banquet hall where Napoleon loses consciousness.

It would be a stretch to say that Holm plays any significant role in making Time Bandits as great as it is, at least not in comparison to any of the other stars who have about the same amount of screen time as he does (among them Sean Connery). But it's always the first role that comes to mind for me for a great actor whose presence on screen always portended good things.

It wasn't Holm's contributions to the film -- which are over by the 20-minute mark -- that comprised the largest share of my takeaway from Time Bandits on this viewing. In fact, as I was watching, I kept on being reminded how much my mother loved this movie, especially the parts that made her laugh.

I don't ever remember sitting down to watch Time Bandits with my mother on VHS. As a parent now, I am only too aware how important it is to get stuff done during the precious time when the TV is keeping your children engaged. But my mom would have definitely been with us when we saw it in the theater, and I have a memory now of her lingering by the TV to watch certain key moments -- as I also now do when my children are watching a movie I love.

Specifically, I remember her reacting so enthusiastically to the moments involving Gilliam's fellow Monty Pythons, John Cleese and Michael Palin. Which is kind of a mind-blowing revelation, in fact, because I'd always thought my love for Monty Python came more from my dad than from my mom. My dad and I have actually performed Monty Python skits live together, but the evidence of Time Bandits shows that my mom was equally tickled by Python's antics. I guess it was something they had in common.

In fact, had my mother lingered at just the right time -- as she did on multiple occasions, I would guess -- she would have gotten to see both moments that I specifically remember making her laugh. The first of these is when the bandits are arriving in the Middle Ages, and they land on a carriage being pulled by horses and containing Palin and Shelley Duvall. Palin, a real dandy and a poor sample of masculinity, and Duvall, a goofy and frivolous woman, are talking about their future together, and the conversation turns to Palin's embarrassing "personal problem." What this problem is, exactly, is never unveiled, but we are meant to assume it relates either to his sexual stamina, or to incontinence. I remember my mother loved this particular exchange:

Duvall: "So you don't still have to wear the special --?"
Palin: "No, I don't have to wear the -- special -- anymore."

The delivery of Palin's line always made my mother guffaw, as it contains the perfect awkward pause as Palin leaves out the key word in the sentence, which neither of them dare speak. (Humorously, the two actors return later, on the Titanic, I guess suggesting that silly prats and their silly would-be fiancees are an ever-recurring dynamic throughout time.)

A few minutes after a fleeing Palin and Duvall are robbed and tied to a tree -- "The problem! THE PROBLEM!" he cries -- the bandits come across Robin Hood, played by Cleese. This Robin Hood is a cheery, charming fellow who talks the bandits into donating their early 19th century treasures to the poor merely by power of suggestion -- or, also, the implication that his goons and ruffians will beat the robbers senseless should they refuse. (We see an example of this as one particularly rough character insists on punching each poor person after gifting them with a shiny object.)

As the bandits are making off with at least their lives if not their loot, Hood (as he introduces himself) waves at them and says "Thank you very much. Thank you very, very, very, very, very much." When he's sure they're out of earshot, he says under his breath "What awful people."

That always got my mom, too.

As I looked in on the last time I wrote about Time Bandits in 2010, I noticed the film was mentioned in the context of me talking about movies I had requested from my family for Christmas that year. And in that post I wrote this:

"I chose Time Bandits as the art for this post because that's the one I'm most likely to get. In her response to my email, my mom said she was glad that Time Bandits still held such a place in my heart all these years later. I wore out our VHS copy of it back in the 1980s, and though I don't remember watching it with her very often, neither does it surprise me that she loved it too."

Aww.

I suppose there is one last person -- or rather, group of people -- who I want to memorialize in this post. And that is the bandits themselves.

Now, many adults who appeared in a movie that came out in 1981, nearly 40 years ago, could be dead now for any number of reasons. When the adult in question has dwarfism, though, that is far more likely of an outcome. And as I was watching Time Bandits on this occasion, it occurred to me that not only could all the bandits have passed on, it was by far the most likely outcome.

When the film ended, I decided to look it up.

Randall, the leader of the bandits (even though they agreed no leader, according to Strutter), was played by David Rappaport. Rappaport died only nine years after Time Bandits, and his death was not related to his condition -- at least not directly. He suffered from depression, and ended up killing himself in 1990, at only age 38. Very sad. During this viewing, I made note of what a good actor I thought Rappaport was. They're all good, really -- it shouldn't be assumed that someone with dwarfism is somehow limited in their acting skills -- but as the bandit with the most screen time, he carries more of the acting burden than the others. And carries it wonderfully.

Kenny Baker, who played Fidgit (and of course, also, R2D2), lived a good long life for a person with dwarfism, surviving until age 81 at his death in 2016. Wikipedia just says he had a "brief illness." It's heartening that he at least received a proper send-off when he passed four years ago, even though it was a bit hard to quantify his contribution to R2D2 because his face was never seen on screen. I was always affected by his performance here since he's the only bandit who "dies" in the movie. (Which of course the Supreme Being ultimately reverses.)

Jack Purvis, who played Wally, lived until age 60. He actually managed to live six more years after becoming a quadriplegic during a car repair accident in 1991. I just now learned that it was the death of Rappaport and the incapacitation of Purvis that caused Gilliam to shelve a Time Bandits sequel. Probably best that we never got that sequel for other reasons, but it's sad that these were the actual reasons.

Malcolm Dixon, the actor who played Strutter, might be the most interesting case of all. Wikipedia does not have a birth date for Dixon, but it does have a death date, and that date is only just two months ago on April 9, 2020. Considering that Strutter always struck me as the oldest-looking bandit, and that he has credits as long ago as the 1960s, he might have been even older than Baker when he died. The cause of death had not been released when the article was written. Jeez, it might have been COVID.

Tiny Ross, who played the omnivore Vermin, is the only actor among the bandits who does not have his own Wikipedia page. But looking on google tells me he died in 1994. IMDB tells me he filmed the climactic scene of Time Bandits with a broken arm he sustained during filming. The sling is hidden by the knight riding the horse on which he's also riding. Good on him.

That leaves only one more bandit, Og, played by Mike Edmonds.

And you know what?

Mike Edmonds is still alive.

He's 76. And here's what he looked like in 2014, when he was 70:


Thank heavens for small favors -- and for the ability to end this "in memoriam" piece on a positive note.

Wednesday, December 8, 2010

All I want for Christmas


I've got to stop looking at the price of DVDs.

It may have happened in past years, but this year, I really noticed the price of DVDs come crashing through the floor. This probably explains why I've bought four DVDs on the cheap -- for myself, not as presents -- since Friday afternoon. I saw three I couldn't resist for $3.99 on Friday (Henry Poole is Here, Watchmen and Cube) and one I couldn't resist for $5 on Saturday (The Shawshank Redemption). In fact, the additions to my movie collection have gotten so out of control recently that I actually received one of the movies (Watchmen) on BluRay, as an early Christmas present, only two days after I picked it up on DVD.

And so it was yesterday that I simply had to turn down a handful of great $4.99 deals on movies I normally would have walked away with, such as Romancing the Stone and Married to the Mob, as well as a $9.99 copy of A Clockwork Orange on BluRay. Whether these movies fit your description of a bargain is not the point -- they fit mine. I informally walk around with a price in my head I will pay for every movie I love, and if the price is low enough, I will usually buy it, regardless of my financial circumstances or my expectations for how soon I might watch it. This was a safe policy when only bad movies could be found in the bargain bin, but now that good movies can be found there too, I might have to revise my outlook.

So, what did I tell my family I wanted for Christmas?

Movies.

This was before the recent explosion of DVDs to my collection. In addition to the four purchases over the last four days, the three BluRays I got as my gift, and a couple movies I picked up a few weeks ago, I also got those 11 movies in that poker game. So yeah, this was before I added those 20 more movies to my collection.

See, my family has a tradition of giving each other Christmas lists -- a tradition that my sister and I have participated in more than our parents, but our parents have participated too. When I was younger, I was the subject of much teasing inside the family for having a list that was twice as long as anyone else's. What came across to them as greed -- or, at least for the purposes of teasing me, they played it that way -- was actually something else: I wanted to be surprised. The more options I presented, the more I'd be surprised about what I actually ended up getting. When my sister listed only five relatively inexpensive things, there was a reasonable expectation that she would end up with most if not all of them. I didn't want that kind of absolute certainty.

We're all adults, the youngest of whom is 34, but we do still drop each other hints, in order to take some of the guesswork out of buying Christmas presents. As we've gotten older and more pragmatic, we've also realized that a lot of good money is thrown away on presents that end up being total mismatches for the recipient. The best thing is to find a happy medium between surprise presents and presents that were specifically requested.

And so I submitted a Christmas list this year. But because I couldn't get that giddy excitement over listing the practical things I needed, I gave my family a list of 12 DVDs or BluRays that I wanted. The theory being that it would be fun to see which three or so they ended up getting me.

This is my long build-up to giving you that list:

Bound
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Goodfellas
The Iron Giant
Jacob's Ladder
A Simple Plan
Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
Starship Troopers
Three Kings
Time Bandits
Unforgiven

I'm surprised I haven't been tempted by a great deal on any of these titles in the days since.

I chose Time Bandits as the art for this post because that's the one I'm most likely to get. In her response to my email, my mom said she was glad that Time Bandits still held such a place in my heart all these years later. I wore out our VHS copy of it back in the 1980s, and though I don't remember watching it with her very often, neither does it surprise me that she loved it too.

Whether I'll get any others, it's hard to say. My dad doesn't usually think too much of getting me any kind of media (CDs, DVDs, etc.) as presents, so he's probably out. My sister will probably also get me a movie, because it was her who came through with two DVDs that she had to guess on last year -- Inglourious Basterds and Up. In fact, it may have been those presents that inspired me to provide a list this year, because the first was a hit, but the second was something of a miss -- Up is not one of my favorite Pixar movies. (Though I did like it better on the second viewing than I had on the first.) Guessing on movies can be hard -- you want the person to like the movie, but not so much that they already own it. A tough balance to find, especially if you aren't familiar with what they're buying. However, because she got me two DVDs last year, my sister may not want to repeat that type of gift this year.

But the project of coming up with those 12 titles -- from a list of maybe 40 possible contenders -- reminded me again of the strange dichotomy between movies we love, and movies we want to own. Consulting my Flickchart rankings to come up with these films, I found myself skipping over a lot of titles I like better than the movies I've listed here. In some cases it was because I'd seen the movie in question fairly recently. But then there were other cases where no recent viewing was informing the omission. I love the movie but simply don't want to own it.

One good example was the Star Wars movies. Why wouldn't I want to own Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back or Return of the Jedi? I've said I don't need a specific plan for when I'd like to watch a movie again, upon acquiring it, so the fact that we saw these four years ago is irrelevant -- and for most Star Wars fans would probably seem like an eternity. With movies like these, just having them available to pop in, should the urge strike you, should be reason enough. But I held off. Instead, I asked for Star Trek II, Star Trek IV and Starship Troopers. For some reason, I want to own those three movies about space battles, and not the other three -- even though I'm sure I would rank at least Star Wars and Empire higher than these other three films. Odd, right? But at the same time, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. The love of a movie and the desire to watch it repeatedly don't necessarily correspond.

I could cite other examples, but I've already rambled enough. Can you tell that I jammed about three different concepts into this post? What can I say -- it's the holidays. My thoughts are pretty jumbled right now, especially as I try to make an end-of-the-week deadline for our presents to ship to Australia, to reach my in-laws before Christmas.

To wrap up with a more concise thought, however, I'll say this: Regardless of what I do or don't receive for Christmas, I've got to chill out on the movie acquisitions in 2011. I should probably start realizing that physical copies of movies are becoming artifacts, in all their forms -- why else should they be able to tempt me so with these low low prices? I have successfully addressed the perceived embarrassment that my library was under 100 titles, and so it'll be good just to sit back and re-acquaint myself with the 25 new movies I will, by then, own.

To say nothing of watching all those movies I haven't seen.