No, it's not a dramatization of Shel Silverstein's poem collection (though that's a great idea!), but rather a highly-rated noir from the early '50s starring Dana Andrews (a guy Dana), Gene Tierney (a girl Gene), and Karl Malden (a broken-nose Karl). One of the reasons I watched this particular noir is the lead pair of actors. One of my favorite old movies is Laura, which happens to star both Tierney and Andrews, and I was immediately hooked.
The premise is simple, but neat: Andrews plays a cop with an attitude who is warned about "roughing up the hoods" (Andrews makes this word rhyme with "dudes" often) and this dangerous precedent follows him into an "interrogation" of a man he thinks is guilty of a crime. Unfortunately for him, he ends up killing this innocent man in his apartment and has to clean it up.
Of course, he fallsin love with the dead man's separated wife, whose father gets framed for killing the man. Oh, what to do, what to do? And, there's another unsolved murder going on in the background that our valiant protagonist/antagonist is actively trying to solve.
Score: 7.5/10
Monday, January 31, 2011
Saturday, January 29, 2011
#31 - Interiors (1978)
Officially, I have one full month of movies watched! And I'm feeling pretty good, still. Still doesn't feel like a chore (which is a real positive since I have 11 months, 334 movies left to go), but not only that, I'm still enjoying everything I'm watching (well, when I'm actually enjoying it, of course). Also this month, I also finished three books (quite the accomplishment, I'd say) and watched a crapload of tennis, of course. All this in addition to the weekend I spent in Kalamazoo. Oh, and working. Haha.
This "last" movie of the month (at least in terms of quantity of days) is Interiors, Woody Allen's first drama. I wanted to break up the recent releases a bit, so I combed through my Netflix suggestions and happened on a Woody Allen film featuring Diane Keaton (surprise!) and thought, "Why not?" Combing through Allen's filmography I find that this is only the ninth Allen film I've seen, after Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, Bullets Over Broadway, Mighty Aphrodite, Small Town Crooks, Match Point, and Scoop. I say "only" because I'm so very fond of his work that I feel I ought to have seen more. And there's no time like the present, and the next 334 movies.
Unsurprisingly, this outing of Allen's follows a family (see: virtually any Allen film) with three daughters (Hannah and Her Sisters?), one of whom is a writer (also vitually any Allen film), one of whom bounds about in different jobs (see Dianne Wiest in HaHS), and the third who is an actress (Mighty Aphrodite's Mira Sorvino (-ish)), as they watch their parents separate, mostly because of Mom's (a magnificent Geraldine Page) ever-spiraling depression, then watch their dad (a pretty faceless E.G. Marshall) remarry (a dynamite Maureen Stapleton).
The script is well-written and well-acted, and I tried really hard to pick holes in it because it initially didn't feel much different from the standard Allen fare of the Annie Hall/Manhattan/Hannah and Her Sisters vein, but it actually does have a uniqueness not only among his own work, but among works of others, too. Case in point: Page's Eve is clearly not all there, and I believe it. She's bright and together, but only occasionally. She has real feelings that vary from daughter to daughter, and though we learn much of these feelings from the daughters themselves, we see it in her interactions with them. Of course, Page is easily the best part of the film, and the best scene is right near the end of the movie as she suffers while her daughter Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) lays all her feelings out in the open.
Yet, while the movie isn't unidimensional, nothing really seems to matter as much to the story as these relationships. We see the strain in Keaton's Renata and her husband's marriage, we realize the differences between Joey and her boyfriend (Sam Waterston), we are privy to seemingly forgotten daughter Flynn's drug habit, and we are forever barraged by the word "creativity" and all its dimensions: who has it, who doesn't, who thinks others have it, what does it all mean, etc. Despite this, we find ourselves not caring what most of the characters think about creativity, and, indeed, many a viewer will probably prefer Stapleton's views: it is or it isn't; why does it have to be something else? Something to ponder, Mr. Allen.
Score: 7.5/10
This "last" movie of the month (at least in terms of quantity of days) is Interiors, Woody Allen's first drama. I wanted to break up the recent releases a bit, so I combed through my Netflix suggestions and happened on a Woody Allen film featuring Diane Keaton (surprise!) and thought, "Why not?" Combing through Allen's filmography I find that this is only the ninth Allen film I've seen, after Annie Hall, Manhattan, Hannah and Her Sisters, Bullets Over Broadway, Mighty Aphrodite, Small Town Crooks, Match Point, and Scoop. I say "only" because I'm so very fond of his work that I feel I ought to have seen more. And there's no time like the present, and the next 334 movies.
Unsurprisingly, this outing of Allen's follows a family (see: virtually any Allen film) with three daughters (Hannah and Her Sisters?), one of whom is a writer (also vitually any Allen film), one of whom bounds about in different jobs (see Dianne Wiest in HaHS), and the third who is an actress (Mighty Aphrodite's Mira Sorvino (-ish)), as they watch their parents separate, mostly because of Mom's (a magnificent Geraldine Page) ever-spiraling depression, then watch their dad (a pretty faceless E.G. Marshall) remarry (a dynamite Maureen Stapleton).
The script is well-written and well-acted, and I tried really hard to pick holes in it because it initially didn't feel much different from the standard Allen fare of the Annie Hall/Manhattan/Hannah and Her Sisters vein, but it actually does have a uniqueness not only among his own work, but among works of others, too. Case in point: Page's Eve is clearly not all there, and I believe it. She's bright and together, but only occasionally. She has real feelings that vary from daughter to daughter, and though we learn much of these feelings from the daughters themselves, we see it in her interactions with them. Of course, Page is easily the best part of the film, and the best scene is right near the end of the movie as she suffers while her daughter Joey (Mary Beth Hurt) lays all her feelings out in the open.
Yet, while the movie isn't unidimensional, nothing really seems to matter as much to the story as these relationships. We see the strain in Keaton's Renata and her husband's marriage, we realize the differences between Joey and her boyfriend (Sam Waterston), we are privy to seemingly forgotten daughter Flynn's drug habit, and we are forever barraged by the word "creativity" and all its dimensions: who has it, who doesn't, who thinks others have it, what does it all mean, etc. Despite this, we find ourselves not caring what most of the characters think about creativity, and, indeed, many a viewer will probably prefer Stapleton's views: it is or it isn't; why does it have to be something else? Something to ponder, Mr. Allen.
Score: 7.5/10
#30 - Easy A (2010)
OMG. Loved it. So good. Why can't more movies of this genre be like this and less like... everything else?
There was really nothing I didn't really like about the movie, so here is the list of things I loved:
1. Emma Stone. Practically Perfect. And a quick IMDb check tells me that, indeed, this is the first time I've seen her in anything, not counting the 30 minutes of Superbad I watched before finally leaving the room because I hated it so much.
2. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson. It helps probably that I love them anyway, but they are so perfect and really take just about every scene they're in.
3. Thomas Haden Church. His sense of humor kind of reminds me of my own when I'm teaching.
4. The soundtrack.
5. Random Veronica Mars Cast Member! And not only was it any cast member, but it was J.B., who in and of himself wasn't memorable, but for the fact that his only appearance on the show was in the best episode of the entire series, "Ain't No Magic Mountain High Enough" and features in the line, "And now for my next trick! I'm going to take J.B. into the hall, and when we come back, he'll confess!" Yay, Veronica Mars!
6. Lisa Kudrow and Amanda Bynes. I love Lisa Kudrow and I actually like Amanda Bynes just fine, thank you very much, and they were just right in their parts.
7. The The Scarlet Letter motif.
8. The fact that there's a 22-year-old high school student who Amanda Bynes claims is there because God wants him to be, because if He didn't, He would have given the student all the answers. *Guffaw*
9. Todd = Best. Woodchuck. Ever.
10. I didn't have to think much, but at the same taken, it kept me pretty rapt. That's a tough duality to achieve!
If you haven't seen it, go. Now. Run!
Score: 9/10
There was really nothing I didn't really like about the movie, so here is the list of things I loved:
1. Emma Stone. Practically Perfect. And a quick IMDb check tells me that, indeed, this is the first time I've seen her in anything, not counting the 30 minutes of Superbad I watched before finally leaving the room because I hated it so much.
2. Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson. It helps probably that I love them anyway, but they are so perfect and really take just about every scene they're in.
3. Thomas Haden Church. His sense of humor kind of reminds me of my own when I'm teaching.
4. The soundtrack.
5. Random Veronica Mars Cast Member! And not only was it any cast member, but it was J.B., who in and of himself wasn't memorable, but for the fact that his only appearance on the show was in the best episode of the entire series, "Ain't No Magic Mountain High Enough" and features in the line, "And now for my next trick! I'm going to take J.B. into the hall, and when we come back, he'll confess!" Yay, Veronica Mars!
6. Lisa Kudrow and Amanda Bynes. I love Lisa Kudrow and I actually like Amanda Bynes just fine, thank you very much, and they were just right in their parts.
7. The The Scarlet Letter motif.
8. The fact that there's a 22-year-old high school student who Amanda Bynes claims is there because God wants him to be, because if He didn't, He would have given the student all the answers. *Guffaw*
9. Todd = Best. Woodchuck. Ever.
10. I didn't have to think much, but at the same taken, it kept me pretty rapt. That's a tough duality to achieve!
If you haven't seen it, go. Now. Run!
Score: 9/10
Friday, January 28, 2011
#29 - The Town (2010)
Ben Affleck is good in something?! (Interrobang alert?!)
Now, historically, I've been just as hard on BAffle as anyone, whether it's because he's terribly miscast in his movies, or he just seems to muck about the screen with little to no idea of what he's doing, and it's because I've been so critical of him for so long that I haven't, in recent memory, given him much of a chance. Indeed, I think his directorship of Gone Baby Gone is about the only thing I've voluntarily watched of his since Good Will Hunting.
Enter The Town. Ultimately, I was going to have to see this movie. Ben's performance and direction were repeatedly referred to in glowing terms by both friends and critics alike, and the movie was good enough to be in the Oscar hunt all season, and though it only earned one nomination (Jeremy Renner, who is fantastic as Ben's loose cannon brotherfriend), it had to have been close within other categories (specifically Best Picture).
The story is somewhat conventional, and I can't say that I was surprised all that often at the paths the script took-- though, that being said, it was markedly different than the formula I thought it was going to follow from the original trailers, so that was well done-- but that didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie. There were several performances that keeps the movie above merely "watchable":
-Ben Affleck does a passable job at acting (okay, he's actually quite good)
-Rebecca Hall (who I'm loving at the moment) does a fine job, as well, though if I'm going to be critical (and aren't I always?), I wasn't as impacted by her distress as much as I should have been during a somewhat pivotal scene when Affleck comes over to "smooth things over". She gets beaucoup points for the scene in the laundromat, though.
-Jeremy Renner? Whew. Shave that little mustache thing he's got going on, and there's nothing bad at all about that. Oh, and he's so good I literally cringed watching him. Yeah.
-Jon Hamm is fine, but it's difficult, because his role is just fine. His rapport with the Boston PD guy was pretty great, though.
Oh, and Pete Postlethwaite got a Supporting Actor nod from the BAFTAs? I mean, I get he's one of yours, but dude has less time on-screen and even fewer lines than William Hurt in A History of Violence or Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love. Was it 'cause he died? Cause that's sad and all, but come on. This was no Ledger Joker. </minor rant>
So The Town: mostly predictable, some good acting (doesn't Affleck win an Oscar since this is such a "departure" for him? You know, cause it's good? Isn't that what wins these awards now? Yeah, I'm looking at you Reese Witherspoon and Sandra Bullock!), a nice, clean-looking film (well, not too clean) that deserves the accolades it's received.
Score: 8/10
Now, historically, I've been just as hard on BAffle as anyone, whether it's because he's terribly miscast in his movies, or he just seems to muck about the screen with little to no idea of what he's doing, and it's because I've been so critical of him for so long that I haven't, in recent memory, given him much of a chance. Indeed, I think his directorship of Gone Baby Gone is about the only thing I've voluntarily watched of his since Good Will Hunting.
Enter The Town. Ultimately, I was going to have to see this movie. Ben's performance and direction were repeatedly referred to in glowing terms by both friends and critics alike, and the movie was good enough to be in the Oscar hunt all season, and though it only earned one nomination (Jeremy Renner, who is fantastic as Ben's loose cannon brotherfriend), it had to have been close within other categories (specifically Best Picture).
The story is somewhat conventional, and I can't say that I was surprised all that often at the paths the script took-- though, that being said, it was markedly different than the formula I thought it was going to follow from the original trailers, so that was well done-- but that didn't detract from my overall enjoyment of the movie. There were several performances that keeps the movie above merely "watchable":
-Ben Affleck does a passable job at acting (okay, he's actually quite good)
-Rebecca Hall (who I'm loving at the moment) does a fine job, as well, though if I'm going to be critical (and aren't I always?), I wasn't as impacted by her distress as much as I should have been during a somewhat pivotal scene when Affleck comes over to "smooth things over". She gets beaucoup points for the scene in the laundromat, though.
-Jeremy Renner? Whew. Shave that little mustache thing he's got going on, and there's nothing bad at all about that. Oh, and he's so good I literally cringed watching him. Yeah.
-Jon Hamm is fine, but it's difficult, because his role is just fine. His rapport with the Boston PD guy was pretty great, though.
Oh, and Pete Postlethwaite got a Supporting Actor nod from the BAFTAs? I mean, I get he's one of yours, but dude has less time on-screen and even fewer lines than William Hurt in A History of Violence or Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love. Was it 'cause he died? Cause that's sad and all, but come on. This was no Ledger Joker. </minor rant>
So The Town: mostly predictable, some good acting (doesn't Affleck win an Oscar since this is such a "departure" for him? You know, cause it's good? Isn't that what wins these awards now? Yeah, I'm looking at you Reese Witherspoon and Sandra Bullock!), a nice, clean-looking film (well, not too clean) that deserves the accolades it's received.
Score: 8/10
#28 - Restrepo (2010)
First week of the new semester = mostly successful
Australian Open = Over in two days, and mostly successful. Kim Clijsters plays for the women's title at 330 AM EST tonight/tomorrow morning, but I don't care much about the men's final. Boo.
Yes, this is another 2010, pre-Oscar flick, the second documentary on the list so far, not terrible for someone who doesn't watch a whole hell of a lot of them. Today's movie is one of the five movies nominated for the Best Feature Documentary Academy Award (the same exact category that failed to nominate Waiting for Superman): a movie that follows a platoon in Afghanistan.
I'm not a big fan of war movies, in general: real, entirely fictional, fictional based on mostly real events. And especially in this world climate right now, I'm even less interested in seeing people killed in the name of who the hell knows what? But, as always, I go into it with an open mind, in the hopes that what I view is something that slips under the radar and is well done and is (to the extent that it possible can be) enjoyable.
First off, this is some seriously either foolhardy or brave-as-shit filmmaking. These cameramen, et al. are right in the middle of this all. And this is one of the most dangerous valleys in Afghanistan during the whole of the conflict/war. People are dying: soldiers are getting killed, locals (some bad, some good) are getting killed throughout. It is very real.
What is also real are the platoon members who are unsurprisingly candid in the head-on interviews that are conducted with them. In the camp, many of them act exactly like I would expect them to when I consider that these are not the type of people I would, for example, be friends with in real life, but it doesn't make it any less difficult to deal with the subject matter when you watch them and get to know them a bit and understand the shit circumstances they're under. Pemble and Cortez and Captain Keirney are among those who were the most intriguing and realest of them all.
There's not a whole lot I can say about the rest of the movie beyond the emotional impact it has, and the "right in the middle of it all" feeling that abounds while watching. If you're a fan of docs, you could do a lot worse, and if you hate the fact that we're sending all our boys overseas, you won't feel any better about it after watching. You've been warned.
Score: 7.5/10
Australian Open = Over in two days, and mostly successful. Kim Clijsters plays for the women's title at 330 AM EST tonight/tomorrow morning, but I don't care much about the men's final. Boo.
Yes, this is another 2010, pre-Oscar flick, the second documentary on the list so far, not terrible for someone who doesn't watch a whole hell of a lot of them. Today's movie is one of the five movies nominated for the Best Feature Documentary Academy Award (the same exact category that failed to nominate Waiting for Superman): a movie that follows a platoon in Afghanistan.
I'm not a big fan of war movies, in general: real, entirely fictional, fictional based on mostly real events. And especially in this world climate right now, I'm even less interested in seeing people killed in the name of who the hell knows what? But, as always, I go into it with an open mind, in the hopes that what I view is something that slips under the radar and is well done and is (to the extent that it possible can be) enjoyable.
First off, this is some seriously either foolhardy or brave-as-shit filmmaking. These cameramen, et al. are right in the middle of this all. And this is one of the most dangerous valleys in Afghanistan during the whole of the conflict/war. People are dying: soldiers are getting killed, locals (some bad, some good) are getting killed throughout. It is very real.
What is also real are the platoon members who are unsurprisingly candid in the head-on interviews that are conducted with them. In the camp, many of them act exactly like I would expect them to when I consider that these are not the type of people I would, for example, be friends with in real life, but it doesn't make it any less difficult to deal with the subject matter when you watch them and get to know them a bit and understand the shit circumstances they're under. Pemble and Cortez and Captain Keirney are among those who were the most intriguing and realest of them all.
There's not a whole lot I can say about the rest of the movie beyond the emotional impact it has, and the "right in the middle of it all" feeling that abounds while watching. If you're a fan of docs, you could do a lot worse, and if you hate the fact that we're sending all our boys overseas, you won't feel any better about it after watching. You've been warned.
Score: 7.5/10
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
#27 - Winter's Bone (2010)
I'm getting down to the end of my list of 2010 movies that I need to see before compiling my "Best of" and "Personal Oscar choices" lists that I'll be sharing with you all in special blog posts. Whee!
For today's blog, I'm going to do a Winter's Bone acrostic, because nothing says whimsy and poetry like this movie.
W is for Winter's Bone, the title of the movie. Three points for originality!
I is for Idyllic scenery. Ain't got none. There was a great pair of shacks, though!
N is for Nominations: it got four major Oscar nods.
T is for Takin' care of the kids, which J-Law is forced to do cause Daddy got hisself put in jail and that made Momma stop talking full stop.
E is for Eatin' squirrel meat. Tasty and nutritious.
R is for Really good acting. I mean, really good.
S is for Shootin' shit, which Lawrence does so well.
B is for Bail bondsman with a heart. Or banjo. I couldn't decide.
O is for Ozarks, backward U.S.A.
N is for Neighbors. Some of them were right neighborly.
E is for Ever'body so po'.
So, was it top-10? You'll just have to wait and find out. ;)
Score: 8/10
For today's blog, I'm going to do a Winter's Bone acrostic, because nothing says whimsy and poetry like this movie.
W is for Winter's Bone, the title of the movie. Three points for originality!
I is for Idyllic scenery. Ain't got none. There was a great pair of shacks, though!
N is for Nominations: it got four major Oscar nods.
T is for Takin' care of the kids, which J-Law is forced to do cause Daddy got hisself put in jail and that made Momma stop talking full stop.
E is for Eatin' squirrel meat. Tasty and nutritious.
R is for Really good acting. I mean, really good.
S is for Shootin' shit, which Lawrence does so well.
B is for Bail bondsman with a heart. Or banjo. I couldn't decide.
O is for Ozarks, backward U.S.A.
N is for Neighbors. Some of them were right neighborly.
E is for Ever'body so po'.
So, was it top-10? You'll just have to wait and find out. ;)
Score: 8/10
#26 - Devil Doll - MST3K (1964)
This movie is the best movie ever to use the word ventriloquy times. Oh wait, that's the MST3K riff, because there's not anything this movie is the best of, or at. Thank God for the riff, because this movie is absolutely unstomachable.
In the longstanding tradition of shitty movies that deserve to be made a mockery of by any fine citizen who upholds the standards of great moviedom, there stand only those finest pieces of cinematic genius that Mystery Science Theater 3000 aims to plow. Today we have a film that actually had moments of discernible acting: the main male protagonist's secretary actually does a passable job at repartée, in the vein (though not reaching the levels) of His Girl Friday. Otherwise, it sucked. Not as bad as Manos: Hands of Fate, but bad enough.
The story follows a reporter who wants to do a piece on The Great Verelli (probably a spelling error there, but I don't give a lick), who is a ventriloquist and hypnotist, whose show's extraordinary finale sees the dummy get up on his own accord and walk to the edge of the stage and thank the audience for coming. Everyone is enraptured. Except the home viewing audience, of course.
Eventually, we learn that the dummy is "inhabited" by the soul of a former assistant (or something... that was never really clear, big surprise) that was, apparently, hypnotized out of the body and put into the dummy. And the hypnotist's goal is to make another dummy, this time a really fugly female one, so he goes about trying to capture the "soul" of the reporter's girlfriend by putting her under a constant spell.
When I write the above, it actually sounds like the premise of an only-slightly-bad horror movie that makes a lot of money, but this was certainly not the case here.
Movie: 2/10
w/MST3K: 9/10
In the longstanding tradition of shitty movies that deserve to be made a mockery of by any fine citizen who upholds the standards of great moviedom, there stand only those finest pieces of cinematic genius that Mystery Science Theater 3000 aims to plow. Today we have a film that actually had moments of discernible acting: the main male protagonist's secretary actually does a passable job at repartée, in the vein (though not reaching the levels) of His Girl Friday. Otherwise, it sucked. Not as bad as Manos: Hands of Fate, but bad enough.
The story follows a reporter who wants to do a piece on The Great Verelli (probably a spelling error there, but I don't give a lick), who is a ventriloquist and hypnotist, whose show's extraordinary finale sees the dummy get up on his own accord and walk to the edge of the stage and thank the audience for coming. Everyone is enraptured. Except the home viewing audience, of course.
Eventually, we learn that the dummy is "inhabited" by the soul of a former assistant (or something... that was never really clear, big surprise) that was, apparently, hypnotized out of the body and put into the dummy. And the hypnotist's goal is to make another dummy, this time a really fugly female one, so he goes about trying to capture the "soul" of the reporter's girlfriend by putting her under a constant spell.
When I write the above, it actually sounds like the premise of an only-slightly-bad horror movie that makes a lot of money, but this was certainly not the case here.
Movie: 2/10
w/MST3K: 9/10
Monday, January 24, 2011
#25 - Despicable Me (2010)
New semester classes started today! After one day, I already have mixed feelings:
1. 3rd hour didn't change at all, and they're still great.
2. 1st and 2nd hour jumbled a bit, based on the students' schedules, and as it seems, they're both a little more squirrely than the previous installments.
3. 5th hour is an English 10 class--the first one I'll be teaching in the last three years-- and they're very promising. They actually did a great deal of work quietly today!
4. 6th hour is my senior English class. The good news is that I've had many of them as students before, so they understand how things go. The bad news is that there are 36 of them. And they're all BFsF.
When my brother Matt got home from work, we went to Blockbuster, Corporation of Evil, to return Matt's movies and rent some new ones, mostly for the purposes of this list. We're starting today with the animated one of the bunch, since no one here had seen it: Despicable Me. I've heard pretty much all positive things about the movie, and as a matter of fact, the other night at euchre, a few of the people around the table were talking about how funny and cute it was.
To start, the movie is utterly predictable. A nice, obviously-wrapped package full of whimsy catered toward the younger audience, with just enough to keep the adults in the room happy. Just in case you don't know me (and is there anyone who reads this blog who doesn't?) it should be said that I am a big fan of most animated movies (the Shreks and Madagascars aside, with a few other, scattered examples) and I always keep my mind open. Despicable Me didn't look very good when I saw the trailer in theatres, and as such I did avoid it: up to this point.
It follows some of the same arcs as much other animated fare: the moments of poignancy, the conflict between said poignancy and an ultimate goal (which always manage to intertwine themselves), a cast of stock characters whose nearly sole purpose is comic relief, a villain with a great scientific mind, and a protagonist who learns something about himself. I'm afraid that this movie doesn't ever get beyond these points. Not to say that these can't be all a movie necessarily has, but something has to be elevated above the mundane for me to really enjoy it, or, indeed, to recommend others view it.
The movie did have a freeze ray, though, so I'll leave you with these parting words that got stuck in my head as I watched:
With my freeze ray, I will
Stop
The world.
Score: 4/10
1. 3rd hour didn't change at all, and they're still great.
2. 1st and 2nd hour jumbled a bit, based on the students' schedules, and as it seems, they're both a little more squirrely than the previous installments.
3. 5th hour is an English 10 class--the first one I'll be teaching in the last three years-- and they're very promising. They actually did a great deal of work quietly today!
4. 6th hour is my senior English class. The good news is that I've had many of them as students before, so they understand how things go. The bad news is that there are 36 of them. And they're all BFsF.
When my brother Matt got home from work, we went to Blockbuster, Corporation of Evil, to return Matt's movies and rent some new ones, mostly for the purposes of this list. We're starting today with the animated one of the bunch, since no one here had seen it: Despicable Me. I've heard pretty much all positive things about the movie, and as a matter of fact, the other night at euchre, a few of the people around the table were talking about how funny and cute it was.
To start, the movie is utterly predictable. A nice, obviously-wrapped package full of whimsy catered toward the younger audience, with just enough to keep the adults in the room happy. Just in case you don't know me (and is there anyone who reads this blog who doesn't?) it should be said that I am a big fan of most animated movies (the Shreks and Madagascars aside, with a few other, scattered examples) and I always keep my mind open. Despicable Me didn't look very good when I saw the trailer in theatres, and as such I did avoid it: up to this point.
It follows some of the same arcs as much other animated fare: the moments of poignancy, the conflict between said poignancy and an ultimate goal (which always manage to intertwine themselves), a cast of stock characters whose nearly sole purpose is comic relief, a villain with a great scientific mind, and a protagonist who learns something about himself. I'm afraid that this movie doesn't ever get beyond these points. Not to say that these can't be all a movie necessarily has, but something has to be elevated above the mundane for me to really enjoy it, or, indeed, to recommend others view it.
The movie did have a freeze ray, though, so I'll leave you with these parting words that got stuck in my head as I watched:
With my freeze ray, I will
Stop
The world.
Score: 4/10
Sunday, January 23, 2011
#24 - Hilary and Jackie (1997)
If you've found yourself here from Facebook, you'll have noticed that the comment that accompanied this movie is "It's about time." This is because the movie falls into the "Movies from the 2 for $1 section at Family Video that Phil rented 8000 times and never watched" category. Seven, eight, nine years later, I finally got around to it. And no crappy VHS this time; online streaming from Netflix on a TV that is at least fifteen years old. So, victory to... me?
Griffiths and Watson give exquisite performances as sisters raised as musicians-- a flautist and cellist, respectively-- but it is Watson's Jacqueline duPré who eclipses her sister's talent and their lives diverge (though they remain as close as they were as children) somewhat expectedly: Griffith's Hilary chooses a husband and family and quiet, bucolic life, while Jackie tours, meets famous people, and eschews the sedentary life in favor of whirlwind tours, hotels, and fancy dress parties.
The film has a latent conflict that doesn't really expose itself until about halfway through: Jackie unexpectedly comes to visit Hilary and her husband and asks her if she can sleep with her husband. And while her behavior suggests that Jackie is not quite right in the head, we find out not too much later that it's actually a debilitating disease that is likely at least partially responsible for her oddish behavior. As Jackie descends, Hilary stagnates, and the two draw apart from one another as never before, until the satisfying, if heartbreaking conclusion.
Score: 8.5/10
Griffiths and Watson give exquisite performances as sisters raised as musicians-- a flautist and cellist, respectively-- but it is Watson's Jacqueline duPré who eclipses her sister's talent and their lives diverge (though they remain as close as they were as children) somewhat expectedly: Griffith's Hilary chooses a husband and family and quiet, bucolic life, while Jackie tours, meets famous people, and eschews the sedentary life in favor of whirlwind tours, hotels, and fancy dress parties.
The film has a latent conflict that doesn't really expose itself until about halfway through: Jackie unexpectedly comes to visit Hilary and her husband and asks her if she can sleep with her husband. And while her behavior suggests that Jackie is not quite right in the head, we find out not too much later that it's actually a debilitating disease that is likely at least partially responsible for her oddish behavior. As Jackie descends, Hilary stagnates, and the two draw apart from one another as never before, until the satisfying, if heartbreaking conclusion.
Score: 8.5/10
#23 - Anastasia (1956)
Last night was fun; I played with my parents' euchre club and came in second place and won 24 dollars. Very nice. I also got to watch some tennis, with mostly completely unsurprising results, at least until the back-to-back defeats of Sharapova and Roddick as I was going to bed (though since Roddick's match ended about 7 AM I imagine, I only watched the first set).
Today when I woke up (at 1030, lol) I decided to start my day by watching today's movie, which I actually started yesterday, but only got through about five minutes before getting sidetracked by various things. This entry in the count-up is the one that earned Ingrid Bergman her second of three Oscars, playing the titular character, a woman, a legend, steeped in intrigue and disbelief for many years, as people wondered if the last remaining member of the Romanovs really did escape the Bolsheviks and exist.
The plot is simple enough, and smacks a great deal of My Fair Lady in the whole "turning a common girl into royalty who will pass a 'test' while the girl and her teacher grow fond of one another despite their being somewhat combative at times" theme. Actually, that's exactly what the movie is about, summed up in so many words. The movie itself is not great; too many flat caricatures mucking about onscreen (the university student cum tutor is especially awful), but Bergman and Helen Hayes (as the matriarch of the family whose admission they seek) are terrific. Overall, I found the movie kind of meh.
Score: 6.5/10
Today when I woke up (at 1030, lol) I decided to start my day by watching today's movie, which I actually started yesterday, but only got through about five minutes before getting sidetracked by various things. This entry in the count-up is the one that earned Ingrid Bergman her second of three Oscars, playing the titular character, a woman, a legend, steeped in intrigue and disbelief for many years, as people wondered if the last remaining member of the Romanovs really did escape the Bolsheviks and exist.
The plot is simple enough, and smacks a great deal of My Fair Lady in the whole "turning a common girl into royalty who will pass a 'test' while the girl and her teacher grow fond of one another despite their being somewhat combative at times" theme. Actually, that's exactly what the movie is about, summed up in so many words. The movie itself is not great; too many flat caricatures mucking about onscreen (the university student cum tutor is especially awful), but Bergman and Helen Hayes (as the matriarch of the family whose admission they seek) are terrific. Overall, I found the movie kind of meh.
Score: 6.5/10
Saturday, January 22, 2011
#22 - Red (2010)
Initial drawing point to the movie: Helen Mirren kicking ass
Pleasant surprise I got in the first three minutes: Mary-Louise Parker
What did I realize after the first six?: It's a completely unrealistic movie that I would nonetheless immensely enjoy.
Literary device used more than once: Deus ex Willis
Winner for most homophobic bastard present in the film: Ernest Borgnine as the vaultkeeper
Question I had about 20 minutes in: Where the hell is Helen Mirren?
Best "Linus's Security Blanket" impersonation: A stuffed, bright pink pig
Number of times a dumb viewer would have said, "Wait, I thought s/he was dead!": 47.
Score: 8/10
Pleasant surprise I got in the first three minutes: Mary-Louise Parker
What did I realize after the first six?: It's a completely unrealistic movie that I would nonetheless immensely enjoy.
Literary device used more than once: Deus ex Willis
Winner for most homophobic bastard present in the film: Ernest Borgnine as the vaultkeeper
Question I had about 20 minutes in: Where the hell is Helen Mirren?
Best "Linus's Security Blanket" impersonation: A stuffed, bright pink pig
Number of times a dumb viewer would have said, "Wait, I thought s/he was dead!": 47.
Score: 8/10
Thursday, January 20, 2011
#21 - Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead (1990)
So, today I had jury duty. It was very eventful. I dropped my finals off at school and talked to the sub who was going to administer them, then headed off to the courthouse. This was the small, city courthouse, as opposed to the country courthouse where they hold all the trials for the more serious crimes. We waited around for about 30 minutes, reading this helpful little guide to what a jury’s responsibility is and all that, before we were greeted by the district judge and told that there were originally five trials scheduled for today, but four settled ahead of time, so the last one would get going in the next 10 minutes or so. Thirty minutes later, he came back and told us that the defendant was now an half-hour late and there was a warrant out for his arrest. And thus, we were dismissed. I was back at school by about 930. Whee.
Tonight I have to work at the concession stand for the high school basketball games because a portion of the proceeds goes to the tennis program, which is pretty sweet. It gives the girls a chance to earn money for their uniforms. Of course, it also is going to take up over four hours of my time tonight. This is precious, quality movie and Australian Open viewing time! To this end, I streamed a movie while grading my students’ finals in school today, a very witty comedy called Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead.
For the uninitiated, the title characters are incidentals from Shakespeare’s Hamlet who are sent to England to deliver the (supposedly-going-mad) Hamlet to his death, with this death order in a letter. But it is R and G who themselves are killed instead, as Hamlet switches letters and escapes when the ship is attacked by pirates.
The movie follows these two characters as a way to almost re-tell the story of Hamlet, from their eyes. Gary Oldman and Tim Roth play the title characters, whose names are often interchanged in the film, presumably because the characters themselves are nearly always referred to in tandem. And, unlike in Shakespeare’s play, where the characters themselves are likely assistants of Claudius’s overall corruption within the kingdom, the characters in the movie (based on Tom Stoppard’s play) always just seem to be in the right/wrong place at the right/wrong time. Despite the fact that they often have thoughtful discussions and repartée, they seem like outsiders to us, and feel like outsiders themselves. We know this is true every time they have a discussion as to whether or not they are actually Hamlet’s friends.
This is another one of those movies that is really right up my alley, and it’s one that I should have watched a long time ago when a couple of people told me I’d enjoy it. But, if I had watched it then, I wouldn’t have had this opportunity to blog about it now. Furthermore, it’s been off my radar for quite awhile. Thank you, Netflix, for telling me that I’d enjoy it, so that I could finally remember to watch it. A real “should-see” for all you Anglophiles out there!
Score: 9/10
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
#20 - Romancing the Stone (1984)
When I was younger, I happened to catch a movie on the TV and watched it with my parents. The movie: The Jewel of the Nile, which starred Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner, and I really enjoyed it. Of course, I couldn't tell you at all what happened, but I just found it exciting and funny and neat-looking. It was only much later that I learned that this movie was the inferior to sequel to today's entry into the count-up.
It stars the same duo, along with Danny DeVito, with Douglas as a swashbuckler of the highest order and Turner as a classic "good person caught in a bad situation" character. The premise of the movie is just about the least interesting thing about it, which is fine since the leads are both pretty great (especially the super-hot-even-when-dowdy Turner), the dialogue is witty, and the look of the movie is all nature-like. Who cares if I don't really care what the "big" "story" "arc" is?
Of course, romance blossoms between the two leads, after the general "resolution of differences" and getting over their general feelings of mistrust. The ending is a bit saccharine, formulaic, and predictable, but would you really want anything else from this kind of movie? Overall, I'd watch it again, for sure, but I'm not in any hurry. It does make we want to watch more Kathleen Turner movies, though. Maybe some V.I. Warshawski at some point in the count-up?
Score: 7/10
It stars the same duo, along with Danny DeVito, with Douglas as a swashbuckler of the highest order and Turner as a classic "good person caught in a bad situation" character. The premise of the movie is just about the least interesting thing about it, which is fine since the leads are both pretty great (especially the super-hot-even-when-dowdy Turner), the dialogue is witty, and the look of the movie is all nature-like. Who cares if I don't really care what the "big" "story" "arc" is?
Of course, romance blossoms between the two leads, after the general "resolution of differences" and getting over their general feelings of mistrust. The ending is a bit saccharine, formulaic, and predictable, but would you really want anything else from this kind of movie? Overall, I'd watch it again, for sure, but I'm not in any hurry. It does make we want to watch more Kathleen Turner movies, though. Maybe some V.I. Warshawski at some point in the count-up?
Score: 7/10
Monday, January 17, 2011
#19 - Animal Kingdom (2010)
I love having this blog sometimes. I spent the weekend in Kalamazoo and we watched a couple movies, in among all the game-playing and talking (and all the work I've been putting into the Australian Open Suicide Pool @ talkabouttennis.com), and talked about a couple of other movies that have come out recently, such as today's entry into the count-up. But the even cooler thing is that when I got home, my brother told me that he rented Animal Kingdom and that we needed to watch it before he had to take it back to the video store. Pretty neat.
I guess I should point out that this wasn't really the kind of movie that I would seek out, typically. Among the reasons that I sat down to watch this one is the fact that the matriarch of the family in the movie, Jacki Warner, was just nominated for a Golden Globe and may get an Oscar nod, as well. It also comes highly recommended from a couple of different sources.
And, after having watched it, it was confirmed that my initial instincts were true. I don't really want to talk about the movie. It's a heinous movie with some (okay, mostly one) heinous character, and it succeeded in making me angry and not wanting to even finish the film to its conclusion, but I can also confirm that it's quite good.
Score: 7.5/10
I guess I should point out that this wasn't really the kind of movie that I would seek out, typically. Among the reasons that I sat down to watch this one is the fact that the matriarch of the family in the movie, Jacki Warner, was just nominated for a Golden Globe and may get an Oscar nod, as well. It also comes highly recommended from a couple of different sources.
And, after having watched it, it was confirmed that my initial instincts were true. I don't really want to talk about the movie. It's a heinous movie with some (okay, mostly one) heinous character, and it succeeded in making me angry and not wanting to even finish the film to its conclusion, but I can also confirm that it's quite good.
Score: 7.5/10
Sunday, January 16, 2011
#18 - A Fish Called Wanda (1988)
Last night, Dan and Cory and Christy and I went to see an improv group in Kalamazoo named "Crawlspace Eviction" that was really funny. iBrators and iPoisePads made impromptu appearances. Yup. Awesome. After we got home from the show, we Sporcled some and planned breakfast and a movie in the morning.
For so many years, I have heard from many people how much they love this movie, so going into it I had very high expectations. It is often difficult to live up to years and years of "You'll love this movie" and "It's my favorite" and "It's so funny", but pleasantly this movie met all the expectation.
First of all, the entire ensemble was spectacular. Kevin Kline won an Oscar for his role, but it just as easily could have gone to Michael Palin or John Cleese for their turns, as well. The movie holds up surprisingly well after all these years, especially since I tend to think that comedies become dated and not-that-funny after a time. Many tend to be of-the-time and I don't find them that humorous upon a second watching, but I think I'd feel quite the opposite about this film.
There's a lot to pay attention to, since there is a really awesome mix of sight gags, physical comedy, and terrific, witty dialogue. It's one I already want to watch again. Maybe next year...
Score: 9/10
For so many years, I have heard from many people how much they love this movie, so going into it I had very high expectations. It is often difficult to live up to years and years of "You'll love this movie" and "It's my favorite" and "It's so funny", but pleasantly this movie met all the expectation.
First of all, the entire ensemble was spectacular. Kevin Kline won an Oscar for his role, but it just as easily could have gone to Michael Palin or John Cleese for their turns, as well. The movie holds up surprisingly well after all these years, especially since I tend to think that comedies become dated and not-that-funny after a time. Many tend to be of-the-time and I don't find them that humorous upon a second watching, but I think I'd feel quite the opposite about this film.
There's a lot to pay attention to, since there is a really awesome mix of sight gags, physical comedy, and terrific, witty dialogue. It's one I already want to watch again. Maybe next year...
Score: 9/10
Friday, January 14, 2011
#17 - Troll 2 (1990)
Hey all! Blogging from Kalamazoo this weekend, where I'm spending a couple days with my friends Dan and Marianne, because tonight we had a viewing party of one of the most notoriously bad movies of all time: Troll 2.
Now, you may be thinking, "Well, I can't possibly see this movie because I haven't seen Troll 1."
You'd be both right and wrong.
You'd be right because you shouldn't see this movie. Not ever.
But you'd be wrong, because you'd have assumed that this was a sequel to a movie called Troll. That doesn't exist. Also, there are no trolls in the movie.
Troll count = 0. For all 93 minutes.
This piece of shit has some of the worst acting known to man, and as Dan pointed out, every character is bad in his or her own way. They all find ways to "shine".
There is the consummate over-acter who longs for the parts where she can be as crazy as can be; there is the monotone "I'm-reading-all-my-lines-straight-off-the-cue-cards" Kirsten Dunst acting style; there is the "worst-high-school-actor-who-inexplicably-gets-all-the-good-parts" chick; there's just so much that could have gone wrong, and it all did.
Of course, we all knew going into it how crappy it is, and our sole intention going into it was to mock it as we did "The Room," but that didn't make this movie any more palatable. Combine this with the fact that it's supposed to be a rabid anti-vegetarianism cautionary tale (WTF?!) and you have a total lack of, well, anything.
Score: 1.5/10 (With "The Room" being a 1.0/10)
Experience and enjoyment level from watching it with everyone and laughing at it: 10/10
Now, you may be thinking, "Well, I can't possibly see this movie because I haven't seen Troll 1."
You'd be both right and wrong.
You'd be right because you shouldn't see this movie. Not ever.
But you'd be wrong, because you'd have assumed that this was a sequel to a movie called Troll. That doesn't exist. Also, there are no trolls in the movie.
Troll count = 0. For all 93 minutes.
This piece of shit has some of the worst acting known to man, and as Dan pointed out, every character is bad in his or her own way. They all find ways to "shine".
There is the consummate over-acter who longs for the parts where she can be as crazy as can be; there is the monotone "I'm-reading-all-my-lines-straight-off-the-cue-cards" Kirsten Dunst acting style; there is the "worst-high-school-actor-who-inexplicably-gets-all-the-good-parts" chick; there's just so much that could have gone wrong, and it all did.
Of course, we all knew going into it how crappy it is, and our sole intention going into it was to mock it as we did "The Room," but that didn't make this movie any more palatable. Combine this with the fact that it's supposed to be a rabid anti-vegetarianism cautionary tale (WTF?!) and you have a total lack of, well, anything.
Score: 1.5/10 (With "The Room" being a 1.0/10)
Experience and enjoyment level from watching it with everyone and laughing at it: 10/10
Thursday, January 13, 2011
#16 - Exit Through the Gift Shop (2010)
I aced my observation from yesterday! My assistant principal was excited by my test review session in three parts, each of which was a different activity that I could do with my students to prepare, but in a not-boring way.
On to the film!
I remember hearing about this documentary when it came out earlier this year, to some great reviews, but I had forgotten about it until talking to my friend Dan earlier today. This is a perfect suggestion, because I was just noticing how I had no documentaries on my list so far, and there's still so many I haven't seen, from the innovative to the more recent.
Today's foray into the world of film is this crazy documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop which seems to be a documentary about street art, but there's a broader sense of this as being not exactly a documentary about street art but a documentary about Thierry, a man who filmed street artists under the guise of making this documentary about street art, but whose real passion was the act of filming, and street art is the medium around which this happens.
The "filmographer's" inability to stop filming has turned into obsession and he desires most to meet and film notorious (at least, since I know nothing about street art, I take the film's word for it that he is, indeed, notorious in that world) street artist "Banksy."
What it pretty ironic about the documentary is that the main character ends up being the person who wanted to do nothing but film. The rest is a little hard to explain, but this is definitely a must-see for its general nuttiness. It is, in its best moments, a brilliant character study with a most interesting turn-of-the-tables.
By the way, I love Banksy's wry sense of humor. He made me laugh several times (especially at the end when talking about Thierry, for those of you who have seen it).
Score: 9/10
On to the film!
I remember hearing about this documentary when it came out earlier this year, to some great reviews, but I had forgotten about it until talking to my friend Dan earlier today. This is a perfect suggestion, because I was just noticing how I had no documentaries on my list so far, and there's still so many I haven't seen, from the innovative to the more recent.
Today's foray into the world of film is this crazy documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop which seems to be a documentary about street art, but there's a broader sense of this as being not exactly a documentary about street art but a documentary about Thierry, a man who filmed street artists under the guise of making this documentary about street art, but whose real passion was the act of filming, and street art is the medium around which this happens.
The "filmographer's" inability to stop filming has turned into obsession and he desires most to meet and film notorious (at least, since I know nothing about street art, I take the film's word for it that he is, indeed, notorious in that world) street artist "Banksy."
What it pretty ironic about the documentary is that the main character ends up being the person who wanted to do nothing but film. The rest is a little hard to explain, but this is definitely a must-see for its general nuttiness. It is, in its best moments, a brilliant character study with a most interesting turn-of-the-tables.
By the way, I love Banksy's wry sense of humor. He made me laugh several times (especially at the end when talking about Thierry, for those of you who have seen it).
Score: 9/10
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
#15 - The King's Speech (2010)
Woo, I'm up to double-digit followers!
Today was a big day! I was observed in my first hour French I class, and I think everything went pretty well, despite the fact that my SmartBoard today decided to be a real douchebag and not work properly (thankfully today was not a note-heavy day!), and for the most part, my students did a really nice job of participating and being good students. Thanks kids!
I also got a few packages today: an Audiobook of The Picture of Dorian Gray to listen to on my way to Kalamazoo this weekend, a new battery for my new laptop, a new board game that I'm super excited to try out, and a cordless mouse for my new laptop. Huzzah! Presents for Phil = positive.
A few days ago, I made a post online to my Facebook friends, not-so-subtly asking if anyone wanted to see today's movie with me, and I am pleased to report that my friend Erika took me up on my invitation and we headed out to the MJR to see The King's Speech.
I did not go into the movie without quite a bit of knowledge about its content, as well as several opinions of what others thought about it when they saw it. They were not wrong. I don't mean to say that I went in with prejudices and a completely pre-formed opinion, but I agree with most of what I heard. A brief synopsis:
1. Colin Firth is excellent. True. He really gives a terrific performance (the kind of performance the Academy just eats up, for sure).
2. Geoffrey Rush is excellent. True. Loved him. What a great and balanced character that he portrayed so well.
3. Helena Bonham Carter is good, but the role is simple. True. The role is cake. Facile.
4. This movie is no "The Social Network". True. They shouldn't even be considered in the same breath in terms of scope, depth, direction, editing, and impact.
5. It's a fine/good/very nice movie. True. It's not a great film, but it's a very good film. It deserves about 86% of the magnitude of the lauding it's been given.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it, and I will be perfectly happy when Colin Firth wins an Oscar on February 27th.
Score: 8/10
Would-be Deserved Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture, Best Actor (Firth), Best Supporting Actor (Rush), Best Original Score, Best Film Editing
Today was a big day! I was observed in my first hour French I class, and I think everything went pretty well, despite the fact that my SmartBoard today decided to be a real douchebag and not work properly (thankfully today was not a note-heavy day!), and for the most part, my students did a really nice job of participating and being good students. Thanks kids!
I also got a few packages today: an Audiobook of The Picture of Dorian Gray to listen to on my way to Kalamazoo this weekend, a new battery for my new laptop, a new board game that I'm super excited to try out, and a cordless mouse for my new laptop. Huzzah! Presents for Phil = positive.
A few days ago, I made a post online to my Facebook friends, not-so-subtly asking if anyone wanted to see today's movie with me, and I am pleased to report that my friend Erika took me up on my invitation and we headed out to the MJR to see The King's Speech.
I did not go into the movie without quite a bit of knowledge about its content, as well as several opinions of what others thought about it when they saw it. They were not wrong. I don't mean to say that I went in with prejudices and a completely pre-formed opinion, but I agree with most of what I heard. A brief synopsis:
1. Colin Firth is excellent. True. He really gives a terrific performance (the kind of performance the Academy just eats up, for sure).
2. Geoffrey Rush is excellent. True. Loved him. What a great and balanced character that he portrayed so well.
3. Helena Bonham Carter is good, but the role is simple. True. The role is cake. Facile.
4. This movie is no "The Social Network". True. They shouldn't even be considered in the same breath in terms of scope, depth, direction, editing, and impact.
5. It's a fine/good/very nice movie. True. It's not a great film, but it's a very good film. It deserves about 86% of the magnitude of the lauding it's been given.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it, and I will be perfectly happy when Colin Firth wins an Oscar on February 27th.
Score: 8/10
Would-be Deserved Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture, Best Actor (Firth), Best Supporting Actor (Rush), Best Original Score, Best Film Editing
#14 - Quest for Fire (1982)
Today I bring to you a movie that has long held a distinctive cachet: it is the only movie my parents ever walked out of - yes literally walked out of - at the movie theatre. I don't know much about it other than it stars Ron Perlman (*snickers*) and my mom's impression of the movie is just to do a lot of Neanderthal-like grunting before talking about how terrible it was and how they walked out of it. Not an auspicious beginning at all.
Our opening scene does, indeed, have Ron Perlman grunting. Anything that happens from this point on will be completely new to me. Haha.
The soundtrack to the movie is extremely invasive. This is no doubt in large part to the fact that there is no real dialogue. These Cro-Magnons don't have a developed language as we would understand it, so to fill the time between cacophonies, we get thunderclaps, gospel choirs, trumpets and timpani, and nature sounds (lots of wind, tons and tons of birds, rain, wolves, etc.).
It seems as though our conflict is the loss of the fire they love. Apparently they have not yet learned how to make fire, so the fire they had in the beginning must have been harnessed by some naturally occurring event. And when their cave was raided by the Chewbaccas, the fire burned out (one of the Chewys ran away with one lit log, so presumably they wanted the fire?) and the Quest for Fire begins.
And let me just say: nothing's more awesome than watching Ron Perlman make out with tree branches.
This is a tough movie in so many ways: I don't know if I'm actually enjoying it (I'm leaning toward not really, for the most part); I don't know if it's actually a good movie (how historically accurate is it actually? The savagery and primitiveness seems probably as spot on as it gets); is my annoyance at the sounds of the characters justified (I lean toward yes, since this is an opinion more than anything else); is the acting good (You couldn't pay me to do this movie or anything like it, so I'll lean toward... meh); and, finally, how does the film look (It's aight. Overall, some of these things are pretty cool. The prosthetic fangs on the sabre-toothed tiger, the mammoths up close (but not the mammoth herd from afar, or the bears), some of the characters (most look exceptionally dirty and ugly, so that's gotta be close.)
Random question during the viewing: were there many different "tribes" of these pre-modern men? How likely were some of these conflicts?
All in all, the movie wasn't quite as bad as walking out of it, but neither do I have much to write about it in the way of... well, anything. This movie simply exists; it was made, some people saw it; I've seen it now; some rutting happens; there's an intragenerational cautionary tale in there somewhere. And, uh, I neither recommend nor warn you away from seeing it.
Score: Ambivalence, as I was only marginally happy for them when they had fire, and didn't really feel that badly when they didn't.
(4.5/10)
Our opening scene does, indeed, have Ron Perlman grunting. Anything that happens from this point on will be completely new to me. Haha.
The soundtrack to the movie is extremely invasive. This is no doubt in large part to the fact that there is no real dialogue. These Cro-Magnons don't have a developed language as we would understand it, so to fill the time between cacophonies, we get thunderclaps, gospel choirs, trumpets and timpani, and nature sounds (lots of wind, tons and tons of birds, rain, wolves, etc.).
It seems as though our conflict is the loss of the fire they love. Apparently they have not yet learned how to make fire, so the fire they had in the beginning must have been harnessed by some naturally occurring event. And when their cave was raided by the Chewbaccas, the fire burned out (one of the Chewys ran away with one lit log, so presumably they wanted the fire?) and the Quest for Fire begins.
And let me just say: nothing's more awesome than watching Ron Perlman make out with tree branches.
This is a tough movie in so many ways: I don't know if I'm actually enjoying it (I'm leaning toward not really, for the most part); I don't know if it's actually a good movie (how historically accurate is it actually? The savagery and primitiveness seems probably as spot on as it gets); is my annoyance at the sounds of the characters justified (I lean toward yes, since this is an opinion more than anything else); is the acting good (You couldn't pay me to do this movie or anything like it, so I'll lean toward... meh); and, finally, how does the film look (It's aight. Overall, some of these things are pretty cool. The prosthetic fangs on the sabre-toothed tiger, the mammoths up close (but not the mammoth herd from afar, or the bears), some of the characters (most look exceptionally dirty and ugly, so that's gotta be close.)
Random question during the viewing: were there many different "tribes" of these pre-modern men? How likely were some of these conflicts?
All in all, the movie wasn't quite as bad as walking out of it, but neither do I have much to write about it in the way of... well, anything. This movie simply exists; it was made, some people saw it; I've seen it now; some rutting happens; there's an intragenerational cautionary tale in there somewhere. And, uh, I neither recommend nor warn you away from seeing it.
Score: Ambivalence, as I was only marginally happy for them when they had fire, and didn't really feel that badly when they didn't.
(4.5/10)
Monday, January 10, 2011
#13 - Blow-Up (1966)
There was an Antonioni retrospective (and if that doesn't sound the height of pretentiousness in two words, then I don't know what does... maybe cinema vérité) at the Traverse City Film Festival a couple years back when they played a couple of his movies, including this one, which was one of those that eventually got dropped because A) I was already seeing too many, B) I was already spending too much money, and C) I could get it on DVD, so spending 9.50 on it seemed a little excessive under the circumstances, though I freely admit that it would have been cool to see it on the big screen with an appreciate audience as opposed to alone in a basement on a 27'' TV. Although, it's not really so bad as all that.
The main character of Blow-Up is this sort of douchebaggy photog type and Antonioni lets him gad about and take pictures for about 30 minutes and I can't honestly say I had much of an idea why. Actually, prior to watching the film, all I knew about it was that there was a photographer and a murder. At least, I think that's true. Thirty minutes in there was a photographer, but as of yet, no murder. In the next 15 minutes, there's a lurker, and the beginning parts of a conflict. As our main character traipses about, he takes several photographs of a couple in a park, and once the woman realizes that they're being photographed, she asks our lead for the photos, which he declines. She then shows up at his apartment/workspace/studio to collect.
He (the main character) is just so... odd, that it doesn't make what's going on (or, perhaps, not going on) any easier to comprehend. I keep noticing that he spends half the movie stepping around things when he's walking: hopping over tables, over bodies (not dead ones), over bars, over giant propellers (okay, one giant wooden propeller), or loping weirdly away, or falling, or,.. I just don't understand what this part of the apparent crucial character development is. Are we supposed to identify with him because he's different? Are we supposed to find him incredible (in the sense of being "not credible", the way the word was originally intended to mean) and so we don't necessarily believe him at first (or at all)? Of course, his awkwardness is also mirrored in the set, which is a series of labyrinthine houses and other venues.
Regardless, after he fakes out the woman and sends her home with not the negatives he took of her (after telling her he'd give her the negatives), he develops several of the pictures in the series, pastes them around his room like John Nash and newspaper clippings (the general nuttiness is there, too), enlarges them, and thinks he sees something. Okay, so now I remember that the premise of the movie is basically "Is it there, or isn't it?" How very existential. He's taken a series of pictures of the people, and now, after staring at some of them and tracing eyelines, he thinks that perhaps the man met with foul play or something or other, and that might be the reason for the woman's persistence at getting the negatives.
More gadding about and (a fashion show AND an underground rock concert?) nothing is happening.
So after he puts together the pictures and decides there was a murder, he...
Score: 5.5/10
Postscript:
I got the DVD for free a couple of years ago, so let me write to you what the box says:
"...Blowup is an influential, stylish study of paranoid intrigue and disorientation. It is also a time capsule of mod London, a mindscape of the era's fashions, free love, parties, music (Herbie Hancock wrote the score and TheYardbirds riff at a club) and hip langour [sic]."
All this is very well, but it doesn't take six minutes of watching mimes "play tennis" to get the viewer to understand that the movie wants you to draw a conclusion about the real versus the imagined. Also, the scene with The Yardbirds: easily one of the most pointless parts of the film that left me most dissatisfied. The styles depicted in the movie were, actually, among the most interesting things in the movie, but four minute girl wrestling scenes with squeals detract from all that.
Feel free to poo-poo my libeling of a classic film, but I stand behind my criticisms and my overall non-enjoyment (for the most part) of the film. Until next time!
Post-postscript:
I really want to endorse a different film here, not that it's at all the same, but for area depicted and an approximate time frame, but because it's really quite good and since I'm trying to go for awhile before I watch anything I've already seen, I'll just include it here. If you want a great character study with some superb acting, check out Withnail and I. I won't tell you more about it, and after watching you'll appreciate it all the more that I didn't.
The main character of Blow-Up is this sort of douchebaggy photog type and Antonioni lets him gad about and take pictures for about 30 minutes and I can't honestly say I had much of an idea why. Actually, prior to watching the film, all I knew about it was that there was a photographer and a murder. At least, I think that's true. Thirty minutes in there was a photographer, but as of yet, no murder. In the next 15 minutes, there's a lurker, and the beginning parts of a conflict. As our main character traipses about, he takes several photographs of a couple in a park, and once the woman realizes that they're being photographed, she asks our lead for the photos, which he declines. She then shows up at his apartment/workspace/studio to collect.
He (the main character) is just so... odd, that it doesn't make what's going on (or, perhaps, not going on) any easier to comprehend. I keep noticing that he spends half the movie stepping around things when he's walking: hopping over tables, over bodies (not dead ones), over bars, over giant propellers (okay, one giant wooden propeller), or loping weirdly away, or falling, or,.. I just don't understand what this part of the apparent crucial character development is. Are we supposed to identify with him because he's different? Are we supposed to find him incredible (in the sense of being "not credible", the way the word was originally intended to mean) and so we don't necessarily believe him at first (or at all)? Of course, his awkwardness is also mirrored in the set, which is a series of labyrinthine houses and other venues.
Regardless, after he fakes out the woman and sends her home with not the negatives he took of her (after telling her he'd give her the negatives), he develops several of the pictures in the series, pastes them around his room like John Nash and newspaper clippings (the general nuttiness is there, too), enlarges them, and thinks he sees something. Okay, so now I remember that the premise of the movie is basically "Is it there, or isn't it?" How very existential. He's taken a series of pictures of the people, and now, after staring at some of them and tracing eyelines, he thinks that perhaps the man met with foul play or something or other, and that might be the reason for the woman's persistence at getting the negatives.
More gadding about and (a fashion show AND an underground rock concert?) nothing is happening.
So after he puts together the pictures and decides there was a murder, he...
Score: 5.5/10
Postscript:
I got the DVD for free a couple of years ago, so let me write to you what the box says:
"...Blowup is an influential, stylish study of paranoid intrigue and disorientation. It is also a time capsule of mod London, a mindscape of the era's fashions, free love, parties, music (Herbie Hancock wrote the score and TheYardbirds riff at a club) and hip langour [sic]."
All this is very well, but it doesn't take six minutes of watching mimes "play tennis" to get the viewer to understand that the movie wants you to draw a conclusion about the real versus the imagined. Also, the scene with The Yardbirds: easily one of the most pointless parts of the film that left me most dissatisfied. The styles depicted in the movie were, actually, among the most interesting things in the movie, but four minute girl wrestling scenes with squeals detract from all that.
Feel free to poo-poo my libeling of a classic film, but I stand behind my criticisms and my overall non-enjoyment (for the most part) of the film. Until next time!
Post-postscript:
I really want to endorse a different film here, not that it's at all the same, but for area depicted and an approximate time frame, but because it's really quite good and since I'm trying to go for awhile before I watch anything I've already seen, I'll just include it here. If you want a great character study with some superb acting, check out Withnail and I. I won't tell you more about it, and after watching you'll appreciate it all the more that I didn't.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
#12 - The Secret of Kells (2009)
Today is a two-movie day, I decided. I also did some reading between the movies (I'm currently in the middle of three different books that I'm go to try to have read in January (good luck with that, Phil)) and planning for my classes this week. It's the last week before finals, so it took a little longer than normal, since I wanted to make sure that I cover everything I need to. But, mercifully, it is over and I can instead turn my attentions to the most important thing in my life at the moment: this blog.
LOL.
In addition to watching the film, I'm also eating popcorn out of the cool popcorn bag-looking plastic containers that Michelle got me for Christmas. Thanks, Michelle!
In my continuing effort to vary the genres and eras from which I choose, I decided to go with my first animated film of the list. Doubtlessly there will be more to follow, especially if PIXAR comes out with another movie this year, though I daresay I've seen most of the animated movies I will ever want to see already. But, there are a couple of subgenres that I'd like to discover more of: European animation and anime. That all brings me to my newest choice: The Secret of Kells, the surprising Best Animated Film Oscar nominee from last year that comes to us from a joint effort of Ireland (where the voice actors are from), France, and Belgium.
The first thing that strikes me is the dramatic and austere animation style; it's visually arresting, and I can tell within minutes that it fits the story itself well. This is not accidental, and it matters not that there's no third dimension. This is not a 3-D movie, and to have pretended it was would done the movie a great disservice. I especially appreciate the technique that's used a few times of the picture being divided into two or more "frames" with different settings, and when the characters are walking, they move into the new scenes. Several of the scenes are also presented in the style of chalk drawings It's pretty neat.
It takes about half the movie for what I assumed the principal conflict was to arise, but I didn't really notice it hadn't happened yet because it doesn't take long to appreciate the characters, the fantasy of the "other" plot(s), and the subtly impressive folksy/native soundtrack. The main character, Brendan (Brenden?) (Brendon?), is a young boy with a great imagination, a wonderful sense of curiosity, and a kind-of-a-crappy life situation (though I've certainly seen worse, even in animated films). And I also didn't mind when 15 minutes later that part of the plot had not yet advanced any further. Again, what I liked so much about the movie was its pitting of practicality against imagination and fantasy.
The movie's synesthesia was something I noticed throughout. It is easy to like and highly regard the use of music and sound to heighten what is going on on-screen, and there were many parts of the film that were complementary in this way: a slow decrescendo when a character is in trouble, a harsh drum tattoo as someone is knocking, the sounds of birds chirping as arrows zoom on the screen-- a recognizable paradox.
The film is slightly macabre at points (granted, it's no The Nightmare Before Christmas) but it's far outweighed by the overwhelming heart of the movie, even if the ending is a little pat.
Overall, it's not too bad a "writing a holy book" allegory, should you choose to see it that way. And from first to last, it is a movie I'd recommend viewing.
Score: 9/10
LOL.
In addition to watching the film, I'm also eating popcorn out of the cool popcorn bag-looking plastic containers that Michelle got me for Christmas. Thanks, Michelle!
In my continuing effort to vary the genres and eras from which I choose, I decided to go with my first animated film of the list. Doubtlessly there will be more to follow, especially if PIXAR comes out with another movie this year, though I daresay I've seen most of the animated movies I will ever want to see already. But, there are a couple of subgenres that I'd like to discover more of: European animation and anime. That all brings me to my newest choice: The Secret of Kells, the surprising Best Animated Film Oscar nominee from last year that comes to us from a joint effort of Ireland (where the voice actors are from), France, and Belgium.
The first thing that strikes me is the dramatic and austere animation style; it's visually arresting, and I can tell within minutes that it fits the story itself well. This is not accidental, and it matters not that there's no third dimension. This is not a 3-D movie, and to have pretended it was would done the movie a great disservice. I especially appreciate the technique that's used a few times of the picture being divided into two or more "frames" with different settings, and when the characters are walking, they move into the new scenes. Several of the scenes are also presented in the style of chalk drawings It's pretty neat.
It takes about half the movie for what I assumed the principal conflict was to arise, but I didn't really notice it hadn't happened yet because it doesn't take long to appreciate the characters, the fantasy of the "other" plot(s), and the subtly impressive folksy/native soundtrack. The main character, Brendan (Brenden?) (Brendon?), is a young boy with a great imagination, a wonderful sense of curiosity, and a kind-of-a-crappy life situation (though I've certainly seen worse, even in animated films). And I also didn't mind when 15 minutes later that part of the plot had not yet advanced any further. Again, what I liked so much about the movie was its pitting of practicality against imagination and fantasy.
The movie's synesthesia was something I noticed throughout. It is easy to like and highly regard the use of music and sound to heighten what is going on on-screen, and there were many parts of the film that were complementary in this way: a slow decrescendo when a character is in trouble, a harsh drum tattoo as someone is knocking, the sounds of birds chirping as arrows zoom on the screen-- a recognizable paradox.
The film is slightly macabre at points (granted, it's no The Nightmare Before Christmas) but it's far outweighed by the overwhelming heart of the movie, even if the ending is a little pat.
Overall, it's not too bad a "writing a holy book" allegory, should you choose to see it that way. And from first to last, it is a movie I'd recommend viewing.
Score: 9/10
#11 - Following (1998)
I have eight followers! Getting up there, lol.
Today's adventure in the world of movies is a Netflix recommendation, through and through. I was looking for something to watch and it was one of the recommendations for me, based on my interest in Memento and Inception. Following is also directed by Christopher Nolan (exactly as the two movies that formed the recommendation) and is a tale of a man who does just what the title suggests: follows people, but not so much as a hobby, but more of a compulsion borne out of curiosity. Let's hope that it's better than Fighting, another gerundive title concept apparently interesting and complex enough around which to revolve an entire feature-length film.
His desire to follow people, as he claims, starts out because he's a writer and wants to develop characters based on his observations of the people he sees. If he follows them, he can invent nuances, backstories, entire plots based on these people who become his imagination fuel. But what happens when you follow someone who has his own "hobby"? And this "hobby" could be more dangerous, and its basic premise comes from meanness and a dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Shot in black-and-white (which actually helps the film's gritty quality), the main character's world slowly starts to unravel when he decides to get involved with this other man in his "adventures".
Excellent performances around a very interesting script. This is the kind of film that many would be dissatisfied with because of its non-linear style (see also: Memento, Inception, et al.), though the movie wraps itself up very nicely and I didn't often find myself asking, "What?" Try it; you might like it!
Score: 8/10
Today's adventure in the world of movies is a Netflix recommendation, through and through. I was looking for something to watch and it was one of the recommendations for me, based on my interest in Memento and Inception. Following is also directed by Christopher Nolan (exactly as the two movies that formed the recommendation) and is a tale of a man who does just what the title suggests: follows people, but not so much as a hobby, but more of a compulsion borne out of curiosity. Let's hope that it's better than Fighting, another gerundive title concept apparently interesting and complex enough around which to revolve an entire feature-length film.
His desire to follow people, as he claims, starts out because he's a writer and wants to develop characters based on his observations of the people he sees. If he follows them, he can invent nuances, backstories, entire plots based on these people who become his imagination fuel. But what happens when you follow someone who has his own "hobby"? And this "hobby" could be more dangerous, and its basic premise comes from meanness and a dissatisfaction with the status quo.
Shot in black-and-white (which actually helps the film's gritty quality), the main character's world slowly starts to unravel when he decides to get involved with this other man in his "adventures".
Excellent performances around a very interesting script. This is the kind of film that many would be dissatisfied with because of its non-linear style (see also: Memento, Inception, et al.), though the movie wraps itself up very nicely and I didn't often find myself asking, "What?" Try it; you might like it!
Score: 8/10
Saturday, January 8, 2011
#10 - The Awful Truth (1937)
I am really grateful for the support you all have shown me about this new venture, and it has manifested itself in different ways. In this instance, my wonderful cousin Julie wanted to give me two of her favorite movies of all-time for me to watch at my convenience. Today was our family Christmas party (oddly post-holidays this year) that was held at Julie's lovely home and we got to talking about some of her favorite movies and I promised I'd watch them. Thanks for the suggestions, Julie!
She was concerned about how I'd feel about her choices, but as it turns out, she wasn't quite aware of my love of old movies, Cary Grant, and witty banter in old-time screwball comedies. Score one point for her first selection, her favorite: The Awful Truth starring the inimitable Cary Grant and the lovely Irene Dunne.
I think I'm going to try this stream-of-consciousness writing more often when I can.
The leads play a married couple who decide to get a divorce since they don't trust each other not to be seeing other people on the side. (Gotta love these screwball comedy plots. 10 bucks says they get back together in the end.)
Like a lot of these great movies, the main characters are both witty and have perfected their repartée with each other.
They've named their dog "Mr. Smith". Weird. Apparently, "custody" of the dog is one of the primary devices for conflict in the movie. I guess I understand? By the way, Dunne gets custody of the dog by showing him his toy furtively.
An old woman just used the term "rebound" to describe the first person one strikes any sort of interest in after a relationship fails. I guess that term's been around a lot longer than I thought.
This new guy that Irene Dunne is seeing is a real Southern bumpkin, and in this scene he calls to mind the line from Ben Folds's "Zak and Sara" that goes "...pills that put you in a lovely trance that makes it possible for all white boys to dance..." It's about the funniest thing ever, behind probably Elaine's full-body-dry-heave-set-to-music.
Okay, this man she's found is quite the catch. Yikes! He's from Oklahoma, first of all. And he just playfully slapped the hell out of her upper arm. And he's a terrible singer.
Huh. Physical comedy manifested in Cary Grant doing a near-cartwheel. That whole scene looked awkward. And now he just fell out of a chair, which was actually funny.
Okay, so there's a contrived mixup with a pair of hats that are almost exactly identical, but it's hysterical toward the end, especially when Cary swats at one. I laughed out loud.
"A man's best friend is his mother." Did we just put Psycho in? Watch out, Irene, he's gonna kill you!
Stupid montage of Jerry and his new heiress cum love interest having fun. Does anybody actually have a job? Of course, this directly coincides with the day the divorce proceedings are going to end.
Yet another line that reminds me of another movie: "You go your way and I'll go mine." Barbra Streisand also says this to Horace Vandergelder in Hello, Dolly, a musical I'd rather always see in person than watch the movie, no matter how much I like the film. I think a part of it is the fact that they took "The Motherhood March" out of the movie, which is both a fantastically funny song, and the blocking for the scene is great.
The mother of the fiancée looks a lot like Rex Harrison's (Henry Higgins) mother from My Fair Lady, looks like I'm about to IMdB it. Ooooh, she's the wife from You Can't Take It with You. Not even close, but now I recognize her.
Okay, so the movie has reached its inevitable pinnacle of absurdity. Now it's just a matter of time until they realize how perfect they are for each other. As in all movies of this kind, there's only about five minutes left. Better wrap it up nice and neat and pleasant-like so that everyone will be happy.
Well lookee that, that door opened up all by itself! Three minutes left, folks.
That clock, again? Why?
For crying out loud no one's thinking that maybe they will, maybe they won't. We all know. Two minutes.
You should really use the chair. Irene, you kind of look like a ho when you make that face.
And again with that damn clock. Cleeeeeeever.
--------MOVIE ENDS---------
Witty, mostly well-paced, well-directed (Leo McCarey won the Best Director Oscar for it), and you have to love the leads. This could have been a far-worse movie, though I feel like I've seen this movie several times before with only slight variations in plot. You can try to be It Happened One Night all you want, but you probably won't quite succeed.
Score: 7/10
She was concerned about how I'd feel about her choices, but as it turns out, she wasn't quite aware of my love of old movies, Cary Grant, and witty banter in old-time screwball comedies. Score one point for her first selection, her favorite: The Awful Truth starring the inimitable Cary Grant and the lovely Irene Dunne.
I think I'm going to try this stream-of-consciousness writing more often when I can.
The leads play a married couple who decide to get a divorce since they don't trust each other not to be seeing other people on the side. (Gotta love these screwball comedy plots. 10 bucks says they get back together in the end.)
Like a lot of these great movies, the main characters are both witty and have perfected their repartée with each other.
They've named their dog "Mr. Smith". Weird. Apparently, "custody" of the dog is one of the primary devices for conflict in the movie. I guess I understand? By the way, Dunne gets custody of the dog by showing him his toy furtively.
An old woman just used the term "rebound" to describe the first person one strikes any sort of interest in after a relationship fails. I guess that term's been around a lot longer than I thought.
This new guy that Irene Dunne is seeing is a real Southern bumpkin, and in this scene he calls to mind the line from Ben Folds's "Zak and Sara" that goes "...pills that put you in a lovely trance that makes it possible for all white boys to dance..." It's about the funniest thing ever, behind probably Elaine's full-body-dry-heave-set-to-music.
Okay, this man she's found is quite the catch. Yikes! He's from Oklahoma, first of all. And he just playfully slapped the hell out of her upper arm. And he's a terrible singer.
Huh. Physical comedy manifested in Cary Grant doing a near-cartwheel. That whole scene looked awkward. And now he just fell out of a chair, which was actually funny.
Okay, so there's a contrived mixup with a pair of hats that are almost exactly identical, but it's hysterical toward the end, especially when Cary swats at one. I laughed out loud.
"A man's best friend is his mother." Did we just put Psycho in? Watch out, Irene, he's gonna kill you!
Stupid montage of Jerry and his new heiress cum love interest having fun. Does anybody actually have a job? Of course, this directly coincides with the day the divorce proceedings are going to end.
Yet another line that reminds me of another movie: "You go your way and I'll go mine." Barbra Streisand also says this to Horace Vandergelder in Hello, Dolly, a musical I'd rather always see in person than watch the movie, no matter how much I like the film. I think a part of it is the fact that they took "The Motherhood March" out of the movie, which is both a fantastically funny song, and the blocking for the scene is great.
The mother of the fiancée looks a lot like Rex Harrison's (Henry Higgins) mother from My Fair Lady, looks like I'm about to IMdB it. Ooooh, she's the wife from You Can't Take It with You. Not even close, but now I recognize her.
Okay, so the movie has reached its inevitable pinnacle of absurdity. Now it's just a matter of time until they realize how perfect they are for each other. As in all movies of this kind, there's only about five minutes left. Better wrap it up nice and neat and pleasant-like so that everyone will be happy.
Well lookee that, that door opened up all by itself! Three minutes left, folks.
That clock, again? Why?
For crying out loud no one's thinking that maybe they will, maybe they won't. We all know. Two minutes.
You should really use the chair. Irene, you kind of look like a ho when you make that face.
And again with that damn clock. Cleeeeeeever.
--------MOVIE ENDS---------
Witty, mostly well-paced, well-directed (Leo McCarey won the Best Director Oscar for it), and you have to love the leads. This could have been a far-worse movie, though I feel like I've seen this movie several times before with only slight variations in plot. You can try to be It Happened One Night all you want, but you probably won't quite succeed.
Score: 7/10
Friday, January 7, 2011
#9 - The Social Network (2010)
Hello all!
I am going to be "liveblogging" this movie, though it's not officially live, since I'm posting it all after. But if this movie is going to be the transcendent experience it has been for, well, everyone else, I want to get all my thoughts and feelings down as they happen.
Opening scene: The future Lisbeth Salander and Mark Zuckerberg, I mean, Jesse Eisenberg (who was one of the only good things in the entirety of the movie... something Man? I already forgot the title. I'll come back to it. It was terrible, after all.) are talking very rapidly (I love it).
I continue to be impressed with the speed Zuckerberg's life goes at; the dialogue, the ease with using computers, and the synthesis of these two items. Of course, he is a horrible person. What with the blogging about his ex-girlfriend's breast size and creating his own version of "Hot or Not" with the pictures of
OMG. That's the "meathead" who got his playbook stolen from season 3 of Veronica Mars! He's the twins, who apparently is two different actors with the "meathead's" face CGI'ed onto the other. Hott. Anyways...
(continued from above) girls from Harvard being "pitted" against one another.
Okay, I just picked up on the major framing device: lawsuits. Seems an easy enough starting point.
Despite his resemblance to Andy Murray, a tennis player I really despise, I love Andrew Garfield and look forward to continuing watching "Red Riding".
I am being constantly reminded that Facebook was originally established for college students to hang out online with other college students, way back in the day. I'm sure Zuckerberg is thrilled at the teeming masses of 13-year-olds posting pictures of themselves shirtless via a cell phone and a mirror.
"If you were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."
:D
Jesse Eisenberg has little skinny chicken legs. Oh, and he's running through the snow in shorts. I say pneumonia gets him sometime. Not Eisenberg. Zuckerberg. Berg. Berg. Berg.
LOL @ Cats that look like Hitler.
Love the witticisms. Also, Zuckerberg is such an egoist. A Mark Zuckerberg Production = A Spike Lee Joint?
A Bill Gates cameo? Awesome!
The part of the movie that I'm most/least interested in is the eventual fallout between Mark and Eduardo.
I'm actually trying to remember if I've actually seen Justin Timberlake act before. I'm not one of those people who refuse to believe he can be a talented actor because he used to sing for *NSYNC. I'm pleased to know that I'm not wrong. (I hate being wrong.) He's quite good.
So that's how it dropped the "The". Huh.
Okay, so I know that I've got like an hour left of the movie, but it's my favorite one of the year so far. Except for maybe Toy Story 3.
Matt and Mike and I just busted up at the sum of 19,000. I won't ruin the fun here.
And here's the switch: Parker in, Saverin, out?
I really find the way that everyone is sitting at the table during the deposition/legal scenes fascinating. There is always an interesting setup, chairs leaned back, facing the side, facing the window, facing each other, leaned in. I really enjoy just looking on these scenes.
From my perspective, hard not to feel bad for Eduardo. Or maybe it's just enhanced because it's Andrew Garfield. Not sure, but it doesn't matter.
And along those lines, I do not feel bad for Sean Parker. Again, this might be because of the last point.
---Movie over---
Okay, it's phenomenal. I have heard several people say that all this hype for this movie is just too much; that its premise will root it firmly in 2010 as a seminal movie of our generation, but that it will become trite and will never be a classic. And while I can understand the idea behind those thoughts, I cannot support them. A movie like this may not be shown in 2050, but it's the kind of near-perfect film that will hold up. It will be a classic, unless you desperately want it not to be, in which case, you're wrong and you need to give it up.
Congratulations on your Oscar, Mr. Fincher
Score: 10/10
Would-be Deserved Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture, Best Director (Fincher), Best Actor (Eisenberg), Best Supporting Actor (Garfield), Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Adapted Screenplay
I am going to be "liveblogging" this movie, though it's not officially live, since I'm posting it all after. But if this movie is going to be the transcendent experience it has been for, well, everyone else, I want to get all my thoughts and feelings down as they happen.
Opening scene: The future Lisbeth Salander and Mark Zuckerberg, I mean, Jesse Eisenberg (who was one of the only good things in the entirety of the movie... something Man? I already forgot the title. I'll come back to it. It was terrible, after all.) are talking very rapidly (I love it).
I continue to be impressed with the speed Zuckerberg's life goes at; the dialogue, the ease with using computers, and the synthesis of these two items. Of course, he is a horrible person. What with the blogging about his ex-girlfriend's breast size and creating his own version of "Hot or Not" with the pictures of
OMG. That's the "meathead" who got his playbook stolen from season 3 of Veronica Mars! He's the twins, who apparently is two different actors with the "meathead's" face CGI'ed onto the other. Hott. Anyways...
(continued from above) girls from Harvard being "pitted" against one another.
Okay, I just picked up on the major framing device: lawsuits. Seems an easy enough starting point.
Despite his resemblance to Andy Murray, a tennis player I really despise, I love Andrew Garfield and look forward to continuing watching "Red Riding".
I am being constantly reminded that Facebook was originally established for college students to hang out online with other college students, way back in the day. I'm sure Zuckerberg is thrilled at the teeming masses of 13-year-olds posting pictures of themselves shirtless via a cell phone and a mirror.
"If you were the inventors of Facebook, you'd have invented Facebook."
:D
Jesse Eisenberg has little skinny chicken legs. Oh, and he's running through the snow in shorts. I say pneumonia gets him sometime. Not Eisenberg. Zuckerberg. Berg. Berg. Berg.
LOL @ Cats that look like Hitler.
Love the witticisms. Also, Zuckerberg is such an egoist. A Mark Zuckerberg Production = A Spike Lee Joint?
A Bill Gates cameo? Awesome!
The part of the movie that I'm most/least interested in is the eventual fallout between Mark and Eduardo.
I'm actually trying to remember if I've actually seen Justin Timberlake act before. I'm not one of those people who refuse to believe he can be a talented actor because he used to sing for *NSYNC. I'm pleased to know that I'm not wrong. (I hate being wrong.) He's quite good.
So that's how it dropped the "The". Huh.
Okay, so I know that I've got like an hour left of the movie, but it's my favorite one of the year so far. Except for maybe Toy Story 3.
Matt and Mike and I just busted up at the sum of 19,000. I won't ruin the fun here.
And here's the switch: Parker in, Saverin, out?
I really find the way that everyone is sitting at the table during the deposition/legal scenes fascinating. There is always an interesting setup, chairs leaned back, facing the side, facing the window, facing each other, leaned in. I really enjoy just looking on these scenes.
From my perspective, hard not to feel bad for Eduardo. Or maybe it's just enhanced because it's Andrew Garfield. Not sure, but it doesn't matter.
And along those lines, I do not feel bad for Sean Parker. Again, this might be because of the last point.
---Movie over---
Okay, it's phenomenal. I have heard several people say that all this hype for this movie is just too much; that its premise will root it firmly in 2010 as a seminal movie of our generation, but that it will become trite and will never be a classic. And while I can understand the idea behind those thoughts, I cannot support them. A movie like this may not be shown in 2050, but it's the kind of near-perfect film that will hold up. It will be a classic, unless you desperately want it not to be, in which case, you're wrong and you need to give it up.
Congratulations on your Oscar, Mr. Fincher
Score: 10/10
Would-be Deserved Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture, Best Director (Fincher), Best Actor (Eisenberg), Best Supporting Actor (Garfield), Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Adapted Screenplay
#8 - An Education (2009)
I know I didn't have an update yesterday, but I was super tired and planned on getting two up today, anyway, so I didn't feel too badly about it. Though I know I've disappointed so many of you who rely on this to get you through each and every day!
:D
The first thing I want to ask after watching today's film (again, watched in two installments over my lunch period) is:
Can we redo last year’s Oscars? PLEASE?
Carey Mulligan turns in an exquisite performance as 16-year-old schoolgirl Jenny, who is beguiled by an older man in Peter Sarsgaard. Of course, she lost to the delegate from New Jersey, but I won’t go on about that. Neither Sarsgaard not Alfred Molina, who plays Jenny’s father, were given even a nomination for their performances, either.
I don’t actually want to give away too much information on the movie, because it’s really better if you don’t know that much about it. All I was told was that I’d probably really like it and that I should watch it. So, a year later, I got around to it, and was rewarded for doing do. The movie is intelligent, witty, well-acted, paced right, visually arresting in all the right ways; it triggers emotions without being overwrought.
Oh, and Carey Mulligan speaks French. Yeah, this movie hit me in all the right places.
I'll close with a couple of quotes that made me double over in laughter. Quite an accomplishment, since I was all alone in the classroom watching it, and it wasn't a movie that was going for huge laughs :) You'll need to watch the movie to find out why they're great!
“Not even Jenny’s, for that matter.”
“You do have a choice, still? It’s not… too late?”
Score: 9.5/10
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
#7 - Sunshine Cleaning (2008)
I had really anticipated spending the large portion of my evening watching live tennis from any of the three Australian tennis tournaments going on even as I write this, but since American television is terrible terrible terrible, I decided to watch a movie as I did some schoolwork. Or, rather, I decided to do some schoolwork as I watched a movie.
It's been hitting me the last couple days as I've been doing this activity that the process of choosing movies can be difficult for a person like me if you're planning on watching so many. For example, I might not want to watch two movies from the same era simultaneously, or from the same genre, or with the same actor(s), or by the same director, etc. and frankly, it's exhausting me much more than the actually watching and blogging. So I decided to not worry nearly as much about it; whatever sounds good (or maybe not even "good" in all cases) at the time is going to be good enough for me, and it's going to have to be good enough for all of you.
Way to go Phil, way to alienate your readers. I fully expect the number of "followers" to decrease by 5. Or 12.
And as such, I make zero apologies for the fact that my new pick also has a common actress with pick #5 in Amy Adams.
Sunshine Cleaning came with only a 3.7/5 rating (based on my own preferences) from Netflix, which I felt was awfully darn low. I mean, I like quirky, offbeat, dark-ish comedies. I live for "out of the mainstream". I love Amy Adams and Emily Blunt. Basically, they got their formula wrong. Maybe they knew that my generally picky-ness and critical outlook (especially about movies) would pit my overall enjoyment of the movie against its flaws.
Ding!
First off, I do want to say that I really enjoyed the movie. The basic premise is that Adams and Blunt begin a business (the title cleaning business) that specializes in decontaminating and cleaning up crime scenes.
I thought Amy Adams was really terrific, and her oftentimes slightly-wounded affectation that she's perfected was able to really show through. Of all the characters, she's the one I responded to the most. Emily Blunt was fine as her sister, somewhat of a ne'er-do-well whose otherplot involved tracking down the daughter of a woman whose house the girls were cleaning up. Adams certainly has the bigger part in the movie, and as such, she is able to do more with it.
The supporting cast has some hits and misses:
Clifton Collins Jr. (I know him only as the "In Cold Blood" killer from Capote) was exceptional in the few minutes of screen time he was given, as the proprietor of the cleaning supply store Adams frequents. I was mesmerized by his character, each word delivered with the exact right and appropriate tone. He never missed. The biggest fault with this all is that he was in the movie for about four scenes.
Mary Lynn Rajskub, a longtime favorite of mine from when my friend Dan introduced me to Mr. Show, was also pretty great in her role as the aforementioned daughter Blunt seeks and befriends. My gripe about her is not in her acting, but in the character and situation itself. At no point did I find this subplot at all believable, beyond Blunt's initial reactions about the artifacts. There's no authenticity about the situation; it's so contrived that it didn't matter how well Rajskub performed, especially during the scene where they go to a party together. Mary Lynn, for you, and only for you, am I glad that your character in this movie existed at all.
Alan Arkin, Oscar winner for his role as Little Miss Sunshine's vulgar grandpa, is just weird. At the age of (I don't know, 65?), he's trying several different ways to make money, including making his own flavored popcorn and... a failed shrimp-selling-to-restaurants venture? I still have no idea what on Earth that was doing in the movie. None at all. I think it's supposed to be woven in with the fact that his wife, the girls' mother, isn't around anymore, but I can't even really be sure with that. I refuse to just "accept" that he's "eccentric-ish".
And finally, Adams's son is played by a young boy named Jason Spevack (yes, I had to look this up) who does really quite a nice job. Him I believe from beginning to end. He's really a great character. His interactions with Adams, Blunt, Collins, and Arkin really make me like each of these characters more than I would have without these moments.
I hit upon the movie's biggest plot weaknesses in the summations of the actors and their roles, so I do feel it needs to be said that much of the writing of the movie was quite clever and believable, and the idea itself was pretty neat. I liked the idea that they become the kind of people who take up this kind of venture, and I especially like Adams's characters idea that the cleaning company comes in when people are at their lowest and they offer just a little something that may offer some comfort to those who remain. They are help, and they can proffer more than just the ability to clean up decomposition; they can take care of one thing that the family won't have to.
This all brings me back to the 3.7 rating Netflix
Score: 7.5/10
It's been hitting me the last couple days as I've been doing this activity that the process of choosing movies can be difficult for a person like me if you're planning on watching so many. For example, I might not want to watch two movies from the same era simultaneously, or from the same genre, or with the same actor(s), or by the same director, etc. and frankly, it's exhausting me much more than the actually watching and blogging. So I decided to not worry nearly as much about it; whatever sounds good (or maybe not even "good" in all cases) at the time is going to be good enough for me, and it's going to have to be good enough for all of you.
Way to go Phil, way to alienate your readers. I fully expect the number of "followers" to decrease by 5. Or 12.
And as such, I make zero apologies for the fact that my new pick also has a common actress with pick #5 in Amy Adams.
Sunshine Cleaning came with only a 3.7/5 rating (based on my own preferences) from Netflix, which I felt was awfully darn low. I mean, I like quirky, offbeat, dark-ish comedies. I live for "out of the mainstream". I love Amy Adams and Emily Blunt. Basically, they got their formula wrong. Maybe they knew that my generally picky-ness and critical outlook (especially about movies) would pit my overall enjoyment of the movie against its flaws.
Ding!
First off, I do want to say that I really enjoyed the movie. The basic premise is that Adams and Blunt begin a business (the title cleaning business) that specializes in decontaminating and cleaning up crime scenes.
I thought Amy Adams was really terrific, and her oftentimes slightly-wounded affectation that she's perfected was able to really show through. Of all the characters, she's the one I responded to the most. Emily Blunt was fine as her sister, somewhat of a ne'er-do-well whose otherplot involved tracking down the daughter of a woman whose house the girls were cleaning up. Adams certainly has the bigger part in the movie, and as such, she is able to do more with it.
The supporting cast has some hits and misses:
Clifton Collins Jr. (I know him only as the "In Cold Blood" killer from Capote) was exceptional in the few minutes of screen time he was given, as the proprietor of the cleaning supply store Adams frequents. I was mesmerized by his character, each word delivered with the exact right and appropriate tone. He never missed. The biggest fault with this all is that he was in the movie for about four scenes.
Mary Lynn Rajskub, a longtime favorite of mine from when my friend Dan introduced me to Mr. Show, was also pretty great in her role as the aforementioned daughter Blunt seeks and befriends. My gripe about her is not in her acting, but in the character and situation itself. At no point did I find this subplot at all believable, beyond Blunt's initial reactions about the artifacts. There's no authenticity about the situation; it's so contrived that it didn't matter how well Rajskub performed, especially during the scene where they go to a party together. Mary Lynn, for you, and only for you, am I glad that your character in this movie existed at all.
Alan Arkin, Oscar winner for his role as Little Miss Sunshine's vulgar grandpa, is just weird. At the age of (I don't know, 65?), he's trying several different ways to make money, including making his own flavored popcorn and... a failed shrimp-selling-to-restaurants venture? I still have no idea what on Earth that was doing in the movie. None at all. I think it's supposed to be woven in with the fact that his wife, the girls' mother, isn't around anymore, but I can't even really be sure with that. I refuse to just "accept" that he's "eccentric-ish".
And finally, Adams's son is played by a young boy named Jason Spevack (yes, I had to look this up) who does really quite a nice job. Him I believe from beginning to end. He's really a great character. His interactions with Adams, Blunt, Collins, and Arkin really make me like each of these characters more than I would have without these moments.
I hit upon the movie's biggest plot weaknesses in the summations of the actors and their roles, so I do feel it needs to be said that much of the writing of the movie was quite clever and believable, and the idea itself was pretty neat. I liked the idea that they become the kind of people who take up this kind of venture, and I especially like Adams's characters idea that the cleaning company comes in when people are at their lowest and they offer just a little something that may offer some comfort to those who remain. They are help, and they can proffer more than just the ability to clean up decomposition; they can take care of one thing that the family won't have to.
This all brings me back to the 3.7 rating Netflix
Score: 7.5/10
#6 - The Sting (1973)
One thing that will certainly aid me in my goal to hit 365 movies this year is the fact that each day, I am entitled to what the substitute teachers in our building call "Superprep". This is my 90-minute break in the middle of the day that is my prep period and lunch rolled together. Now, I have always used this period to the fullest I can, getting as much work done during it so that I won't have to take it all home. And now, I can use it to multi-task.
Over the last three days, both as I worked on other things, and instead of working on other things, I have watched the new movie on the count-up, The Sting, in about 40-minute installments. Thus, I am able to start typing my review of the movie as I wait for my webinar on safety in schools and its impact on the School Improvement Plan to begin.
Onto the review:
Paul Newman and Robert Redford are back together again. Butch and Sundance this time are conmen Gondorff and Hooker. As it happens, Redford's Hooker loses his friend who wants out of the business and is basically referred to Gondorff, who is considered one of the best in the biz. At one point, a character even says that there isn't any grifter in the country who doesn't know the name of Henry Gondorff. Hooker becomes sort of Gondorff's protege as the two of them plan their biggest con yet.
Looking at the other movies that came out this year that were nominated for Best Picture, I have to agree that this is the best of the three I've seen (the others being The Exorcist and A Touch of Class), though I haven't seen American Graffiti (which I've read was a great movie for its generation) or Cries and Whispers. The movie is equal parts dramatic and dryly humorous, which are among the main reasons (besides the leads themselves) that have made this movie a favorite of my parents'.
Score: 8.5/10
Over the last three days, both as I worked on other things, and instead of working on other things, I have watched the new movie on the count-up, The Sting, in about 40-minute installments. Thus, I am able to start typing my review of the movie as I wait for my webinar on safety in schools and its impact on the School Improvement Plan to begin.
Onto the review:
Paul Newman and Robert Redford are back together again. Butch and Sundance this time are conmen Gondorff and Hooker. As it happens, Redford's Hooker loses his friend who wants out of the business and is basically referred to Gondorff, who is considered one of the best in the biz. At one point, a character even says that there isn't any grifter in the country who doesn't know the name of Henry Gondorff. Hooker becomes sort of Gondorff's protege as the two of them plan their biggest con yet.
Looking at the other movies that came out this year that were nominated for Best Picture, I have to agree that this is the best of the three I've seen (the others being The Exorcist and A Touch of Class), though I haven't seen American Graffiti (which I've read was a great movie for its generation) or Cries and Whispers. The movie is equal parts dramatic and dryly humorous, which are among the main reasons (besides the leads themselves) that have made this movie a favorite of my parents'.
Score: 8.5/10
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
#5 - The Fighter (2010)
This is entry number two in the Road to the Oscars series (my yearly goal to see as many likely Oscar-nominated movies as possible), and seventh of Entertainment Weekly's 25 movies to see before Oscar night.
Okay, it's decided: Christian Bale will and should win an Oscar for his role as Dicky Eklund in the amazing movie The Fighter. My only criticism about this (and it is echoed exactly by my brother Matt, who saw the movie with me) is that it will surely be in the Supporting Actor category. This is really a travesty. The movie is precisely about the story of both brothers simultaneously.
One of the major themes of the movie is, you guessed it, family. The brothers are as much a part of each others' lives as it is possible to be and though the movie's "inspirational sports movie" subgenre plot does follow Micky Ward's (Mark Wahlberg) career, the two characters' arcs are interwoven by necessity. The story being told is a true one, and the viewer is no less invested in Dicky than Micky. (Following still?)
Supporting the two characters are two of the most kick-ass women in moviedom at the moment: the boys' mother, portrayed by the sensational Melissa Leo, and Micky's girlfriend, the hott (yes, two t's) Amy Adams, who gets better just about every time I see her. (Forgetting she ever made "Leap Year", of course.) Few people could have ever stood up to the intimidating Alice (Leo), but Charlene (Adams), who always feels in the right (a character trait evinced by nearly the entire cast) doesn't seem to mind. The movie does seem to offer the maxim: "Behind every good man, is a good woman (or two)."
The movie isn't perfect from start to finish; my brother and I had the same problem, which he was able to articulate better than me. When Dicky comes back into Micky's life (still following?), Wahlberg's character is all over the place. He's saying one thing, saying another thing, doing a third thing... it's very muddling, and actual seems to detract from our understanding of the characters as we know them. Of course I realize that these are complex characters and that not everything gets wrapped up in neat little packages, but the scene borders on being overwrought. The scene needed to be handled a little more carefully, if the director still wants us to follow.
Overall, the film falls into the "must-see" category. The acting is superb, and the ending (which features the actual Micky and Dicky over the closing credits) is sure to pull out the emotions (as I figured it would).
I really debated over my final score, but I have decided that I am very happy with it.
Until tomorrow!
Score: 9/10
Would-be deserved Oscar nominations:
Best Picture, Best Actor-- though this will be supporting (Bale), Best Supporting Actress (Adams), Best Supporting Actress (Leo) - yes, they both absolutely deserve it - Best Film Editing
Oh, Matt just reminded me of one other amazing part of the film: the look of the "fake" ESPN fights as though they were taking them from old footage. It could have been gimmicky, but instead it enhanced the look and feel of the film. Masterful.
Okay, it's decided: Christian Bale will and should win an Oscar for his role as Dicky Eklund in the amazing movie The Fighter. My only criticism about this (and it is echoed exactly by my brother Matt, who saw the movie with me) is that it will surely be in the Supporting Actor category. This is really a travesty. The movie is precisely about the story of both brothers simultaneously.
One of the major themes of the movie is, you guessed it, family. The brothers are as much a part of each others' lives as it is possible to be and though the movie's "inspirational sports movie" subgenre plot does follow Micky Ward's (Mark Wahlberg) career, the two characters' arcs are interwoven by necessity. The story being told is a true one, and the viewer is no less invested in Dicky than Micky. (Following still?)
Supporting the two characters are two of the most kick-ass women in moviedom at the moment: the boys' mother, portrayed by the sensational Melissa Leo, and Micky's girlfriend, the hott (yes, two t's) Amy Adams, who gets better just about every time I see her. (Forgetting she ever made "Leap Year", of course.) Few people could have ever stood up to the intimidating Alice (Leo), but Charlene (Adams), who always feels in the right (a character trait evinced by nearly the entire cast) doesn't seem to mind. The movie does seem to offer the maxim: "Behind every good man, is a good woman (or two)."
The movie isn't perfect from start to finish; my brother and I had the same problem, which he was able to articulate better than me. When Dicky comes back into Micky's life (still following?), Wahlberg's character is all over the place. He's saying one thing, saying another thing, doing a third thing... it's very muddling, and actual seems to detract from our understanding of the characters as we know them. Of course I realize that these are complex characters and that not everything gets wrapped up in neat little packages, but the scene borders on being overwrought. The scene needed to be handled a little more carefully, if the director still wants us to follow.
Overall, the film falls into the "must-see" category. The acting is superb, and the ending (which features the actual Micky and Dicky over the closing credits) is sure to pull out the emotions (as I figured it would).
I really debated over my final score, but I have decided that I am very happy with it.
Until tomorrow!
Score: 9/10
Would-be deserved Oscar nominations:
Best Picture, Best Actor-- though this will be supporting (Bale), Best Supporting Actress (Adams), Best Supporting Actress (Leo) - yes, they both absolutely deserve it - Best Film Editing
Oh, Matt just reminded me of one other amazing part of the film: the look of the "fake" ESPN fights as though they were taking them from old footage. It could have been gimmicky, but instead it enhanced the look and feel of the film. Masterful.
Monday, January 3, 2011
#4 - Of Human Bondage (1934)
I've been very intrigued to see exactly who has heard about this blog, from my friends online to my family members here at home, to some of my coworkers who happen to be on Facebook, as well, and it's generated several different and fascinating discussions. My dad seems slightly confused, my mom seems slightly amused, my brother Matt is quietly supportive (we're going to see movie number five/six tomorrow night), while Mike and Dave seem really excited about it, and interested in watching some of these movies with me (this is made slightly more difficult due to their moving back to school in a week, but I'll get to see them in the summer!).
It is worth noting that in two weeks' time, the Australian Open begins. For those of you who don't know, or don't know me well enough at all to know of my obsessions, this is the first major tennis tournament of the year. Thus, I will be spending a large portion of the two weeks on http://www.talkabouttennis.com in addition to my blogging here, and my working and watching movies. I predict it will be a seemingly long two weeks. All the more reason to get ahead, right? And so, I continue with my fourth movie: Of Human Bondage.
I've read about this movie several times, and in almost every publication, the write-up focused on Bette Davis's fantastic introduction to the movie world, playing a Cockney waitress. It was her first Oscar nomination of a total of 10-- she would win the following year, then again three years after that.
The movie right off the bat is not an exercise in subtlety. First off, the main character has a noticeable physical distinction: he limps when he walks because of a club foot. Seconds later, a very blatant distinction is made between his club foot and someone else's club foot, because the latter's doesn't bother who it belongs to nearly as much as the main character's did to him. (Did we all follow that? If not, don't worry; it's no big deal.) We are immediately meant to believe that this is important. Maybe it was... in the novel by Somerset Maugham.
Also, the movie is jumpy, as though it cannot itself stand to linger too long on itself, a problem in itself that is manifested directly in Davis's character who does a lot of eye-rolling, and eye-raising, especially early in the film. Yes, you're a coquette, we get it. The movie also requires her to rush quickly out of scenes incredibly too often, as though she spent just seconds too long on camera. I guess this is why the movie only runs 86 minutes long.
The characters are flat; even Leslie Howard's Philip, the main character, seems the exact same throughout the entire film, though the movie tries to make a direct connection between getting his foot fixed and his lot in life improving (he receives an unexpected windfall from a dying relative). Peripeteia at its finest. Only Davis's Maureen is the least bit interesting to follow, though it's hard to root for her, especially as she eventually lashes out against Philip after all he's done for her-- a symbol of him being bound to her. Hilariously enough, this last point, a reference to the film's title, is spelled out in about 20 words halfway through the movie as Philip talks to his current "squeeze", what's-her-face. This 18-second (an estimate, not an exact time) exchange between the two spells out exactly what we're supposed to take away from the plot. Again, we're not going for subtle here.
Score: 6.5/10
It is worth noting that in two weeks' time, the Australian Open begins. For those of you who don't know, or don't know me well enough at all to know of my obsessions, this is the first major tennis tournament of the year. Thus, I will be spending a large portion of the two weeks on http://www.talkabouttennis.com in addition to my blogging here, and my working and watching movies. I predict it will be a seemingly long two weeks. All the more reason to get ahead, right? And so, I continue with my fourth movie: Of Human Bondage.
I've read about this movie several times, and in almost every publication, the write-up focused on Bette Davis's fantastic introduction to the movie world, playing a Cockney waitress. It was her first Oscar nomination of a total of 10-- she would win the following year, then again three years after that.
The movie right off the bat is not an exercise in subtlety. First off, the main character has a noticeable physical distinction: he limps when he walks because of a club foot. Seconds later, a very blatant distinction is made between his club foot and someone else's club foot, because the latter's doesn't bother who it belongs to nearly as much as the main character's did to him. (Did we all follow that? If not, don't worry; it's no big deal.) We are immediately meant to believe that this is important. Maybe it was... in the novel by Somerset Maugham.
Also, the movie is jumpy, as though it cannot itself stand to linger too long on itself, a problem in itself that is manifested directly in Davis's character who does a lot of eye-rolling, and eye-raising, especially early in the film. Yes, you're a coquette, we get it. The movie also requires her to rush quickly out of scenes incredibly too often, as though she spent just seconds too long on camera. I guess this is why the movie only runs 86 minutes long.
The characters are flat; even Leslie Howard's Philip, the main character, seems the exact same throughout the entire film, though the movie tries to make a direct connection between getting his foot fixed and his lot in life improving (he receives an unexpected windfall from a dying relative). Peripeteia at its finest. Only Davis's Maureen is the least bit interesting to follow, though it's hard to root for her, especially as she eventually lashes out against Philip after all he's done for her-- a symbol of him being bound to her. Hilariously enough, this last point, a reference to the film's title, is spelled out in about 20 words halfway through the movie as Philip talks to his current "squeeze", what's-her-face. This 18-second (an estimate, not an exact time) exchange between the two spells out exactly what we're supposed to take away from the plot. Again, we're not going for subtle here.
Score: 6.5/10
Sunday, January 2, 2011
#3 - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly (2007)
Okay, so I didn't use the original French title-- Le scaphandre et le papillon-- in the title bar because I didn't want everyone to stop reading since, yes, I'm already in to the foreign movies. Of course, now that I've told you this fact so early means that I just lost 28 percent of my reading population to the television or Facebook. LOL. Kidding, guys. You're all better than that. Probably.
I can honestly say that I had no intention of watching another movie today, and the reason I decided to watch and write about a second one today is not actually to get "ahead in the count" (is that baseball jargon? God help me if it is...), but because I was bored out of my gourd lesson planning for my first week back at school. I needed a pick-me-up, and since I wasn't about to leave the house (one day they'll attach a moniker to me that includes the one word that describes me best: recluse. Haha.) I decided to consult my list, consult my DVD collection, and choose TDBatB. (I also considered Elmer Gantry, but I was slightly more in the mood to watch a more-recent film than another classic. Also, EG is about 30 minutes longer and since it was getting late as it is, I went this route instead.)
A little background I found interesting: as it turns out the French have their own word for a diving bell: un scaphandre. Thank God, except since I had no idea what a diving bell was before I looked it up it didn't matter a whole hell of a lot... As it turns out, a diving bell is a heavy, bell-shaped instrument lowered to the ocean bottom that is used to transport scuba divers beneath the surface. Well that... clears it up? Obviously, the term is metaphorical and having seen the movie, the title actually does make sense, in addition to it being pretty cool sounding.
The movie is visually stunning. Its director, Julian Schnabel was one of those rare cases where a person gets a Best Director nomination without his film getting as much acclaim. Well, it is hard for the Academy to recognize true amazingness sometimes. This was the year, after all, that the very good No Country for Old Men beat the spectacular There Will Be Blood for the top prize.
Our first scenes are of a man waking up from a coma and it becomes clear seconds late that the speech we hear cannot be heard by the doctors and orderlies; rather, he is paralyzed nearly completely. He is able to move his eyes only, and two young women-- a speech therapist and a physical therapist-- are called in to help him in his recuperation.
What we are allowed to see are the actual happenings of the patient (the movie is based on a true, autobiographical story of Elle editor Jean-Do(minique) Bauby), the history and character development he allows us to see, and his vivid imagination. All three parts combine to form a magnificent story that truly, efficiently captures the power of words. Perhaps this was a reason I so took to this movie. I can honestly say that it is the single-best movie I have ever seen that relied heavily on a chart arranged by the frequency of the letters of the alphabet in the French-- nay, any!-- language. E S A R I N... and on it goes. Furthermore, I submit this movie as proof that my assumption was correct; the least commonly used letter in the French alphabet: W.
My final word on the movie (other than you should all totally see this as soon as you're able) is that the acting is superb. Mathieu Amalric = real acting talent. He convinced me of his emotions in a single movement of one eye many times. And you can't help but sympathize with Emmanuelle Seigner, the mother of her children with Jean-Do especially as she dictates and translates messages for him near the end of the movie. My favorite character in the film, though, is Claude (a female), whose responsibility is to painstakingly write down each letter as Jean-Do "says" it. It is in a scene with the two of them on a boat that the title is brought forth, in beautiful and poetic language.
My score: 9/10
(And yes, there will be movies that earn lower scores in the future, I can guarantee it. I'm too picky for it never to happen. :D)
I can honestly say that I had no intention of watching another movie today, and the reason I decided to watch and write about a second one today is not actually to get "ahead in the count" (is that baseball jargon? God help me if it is...), but because I was bored out of my gourd lesson planning for my first week back at school. I needed a pick-me-up, and since I wasn't about to leave the house (one day they'll attach a moniker to me that includes the one word that describes me best: recluse. Haha.) I decided to consult my list, consult my DVD collection, and choose TDBatB. (I also considered Elmer Gantry, but I was slightly more in the mood to watch a more-recent film than another classic. Also, EG is about 30 minutes longer and since it was getting late as it is, I went this route instead.)
A little background I found interesting: as it turns out the French have their own word for a diving bell: un scaphandre. Thank God, except since I had no idea what a diving bell was before I looked it up it didn't matter a whole hell of a lot... As it turns out, a diving bell is a heavy, bell-shaped instrument lowered to the ocean bottom that is used to transport scuba divers beneath the surface. Well that... clears it up? Obviously, the term is metaphorical and having seen the movie, the title actually does make sense, in addition to it being pretty cool sounding.
The movie is visually stunning. Its director, Julian Schnabel was one of those rare cases where a person gets a Best Director nomination without his film getting as much acclaim. Well, it is hard for the Academy to recognize true amazingness sometimes. This was the year, after all, that the very good No Country for Old Men beat the spectacular There Will Be Blood for the top prize.
Our first scenes are of a man waking up from a coma and it becomes clear seconds late that the speech we hear cannot be heard by the doctors and orderlies; rather, he is paralyzed nearly completely. He is able to move his eyes only, and two young women-- a speech therapist and a physical therapist-- are called in to help him in his recuperation.
What we are allowed to see are the actual happenings of the patient (the movie is based on a true, autobiographical story of Elle editor Jean-Do(minique) Bauby), the history and character development he allows us to see, and his vivid imagination. All three parts combine to form a magnificent story that truly, efficiently captures the power of words. Perhaps this was a reason I so took to this movie. I can honestly say that it is the single-best movie I have ever seen that relied heavily on a chart arranged by the frequency of the letters of the alphabet in the French-- nay, any!-- language. E S A R I N... and on it goes. Furthermore, I submit this movie as proof that my assumption was correct; the least commonly used letter in the French alphabet: W.
My final word on the movie (other than you should all totally see this as soon as you're able) is that the acting is superb. Mathieu Amalric = real acting talent. He convinced me of his emotions in a single movement of one eye many times. And you can't help but sympathize with Emmanuelle Seigner, the mother of her children with Jean-Do especially as she dictates and translates messages for him near the end of the movie. My favorite character in the film, though, is Claude (a female), whose responsibility is to painstakingly write down each letter as Jean-Do "says" it. It is in a scene with the two of them on a boat that the title is brought forth, in beautiful and poetic language.
My score: 9/10
(And yes, there will be movies that earn lower scores in the future, I can guarantee it. I'm too picky for it never to happen. :D)
#2 - True Grit (2010)
This "getting people to watch movies with me" is so easy! All I have to do is start lesson planning for my return to work tomorrow after the break, and my mom will come ask me, "Hey, do you want to go see True Grit?" Hell yes, I do. Of course, there remains now a minimum of four days of lesson planning ahead of me, but whatever.
It should be noted that for the next 50 days or so, there will be several more 2010 entries, as awards season is in full swing, culminating with the February 27th broadcast of the Oscars. An Oscar party will happen this year, and we may already have a venue. One of the fun things about Oscar parties are the themed dishes based either literally or more tangentially on the Best Picture nominees, and with 10 again this year, there's going to be a lot of planning involved. True Grit (a likely contender, at least for a nomination) is easy: lots and lots of whiskey. Okay, maybe some bean dish or mulligan stew or other Western-themed dish may actually come into play, but the booze is near-ubiquitous as we follow Jeff Bridges's Rooster Cogburn on his (or should we say... Mattie's?) manhunt.
Those who have seen the original 1969 version with John Wayne are more familiar with the premise of the film (which is really quite simple) than I was going into it, but I have read that there is a bit of a distinction between the two films: the former version focuses more on Wayne's Cogburn, whereas the latter recognizes that the story is Mattie's. She's the one who wants vengeance on Tom Cawley for the murder of her father, and it's she who "retains" Cogburn to track him (herself firmly in tow, as much to protect her investment as anything else).
It's been said in numerous other publications, but 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld (not Seinfeld) is terrific. She establishes her presence in every scene, delivers witty rejoinders with an ease I wish I would more often have, and more than holds her own alongside Bridges, Damon, and Brolin. We care (or at least, we should care) as much about her as we do Rooster, and it's my opinion that the duality is intentional. They are both the lead actors of the film-- which can be construed, without too much distorting-- as another in the "Buddy Journey" subgenre.
One final note on the film itself: it is funny. There were many times when we were laughing out loud, or just smiling at the situation of the moment. Bridges, especially, delivers his lines drolly, doubtlessly as they were intended in the Coens' script. He's not the only one, however. Pay close attention to and enjoy the exchanges between Mattie and the trader in town. Pure delight.
Score: 8.5/10
Would-be Deserved Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture, Best Director (Joel & Ethan Coen), Best Actor (Bridges), Best Actress-- though this is likelier to be "Supporting" (Steinfeld), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography
It should be noted that for the next 50 days or so, there will be several more 2010 entries, as awards season is in full swing, culminating with the February 27th broadcast of the Oscars. An Oscar party will happen this year, and we may already have a venue. One of the fun things about Oscar parties are the themed dishes based either literally or more tangentially on the Best Picture nominees, and with 10 again this year, there's going to be a lot of planning involved. True Grit (a likely contender, at least for a nomination) is easy: lots and lots of whiskey. Okay, maybe some bean dish or mulligan stew or other Western-themed dish may actually come into play, but the booze is near-ubiquitous as we follow Jeff Bridges's Rooster Cogburn on his (or should we say... Mattie's?) manhunt.
Those who have seen the original 1969 version with John Wayne are more familiar with the premise of the film (which is really quite simple) than I was going into it, but I have read that there is a bit of a distinction between the two films: the former version focuses more on Wayne's Cogburn, whereas the latter recognizes that the story is Mattie's. She's the one who wants vengeance on Tom Cawley for the murder of her father, and it's she who "retains" Cogburn to track him (herself firmly in tow, as much to protect her investment as anything else).
It's been said in numerous other publications, but 14-year-old Hailee Steinfeld (not Seinfeld) is terrific. She establishes her presence in every scene, delivers witty rejoinders with an ease I wish I would more often have, and more than holds her own alongside Bridges, Damon, and Brolin. We care (or at least, we should care) as much about her as we do Rooster, and it's my opinion that the duality is intentional. They are both the lead actors of the film-- which can be construed, without too much distorting-- as another in the "Buddy Journey" subgenre.
One final note on the film itself: it is funny. There were many times when we were laughing out loud, or just smiling at the situation of the moment. Bridges, especially, delivers his lines drolly, doubtlessly as they were intended in the Coens' script. He's not the only one, however. Pay close attention to and enjoy the exchanges between Mattie and the trader in town. Pure delight.
Score: 8.5/10
Would-be Deserved Oscar Nominations:
Best Picture, Best Director (Joel & Ethan Coen), Best Actor (Bridges), Best Actress-- though this is likelier to be "Supporting" (Steinfeld), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography
Saturday, January 1, 2011
#1 - Cool Hand Luke (1967)
I really wanted to choose a great movie to start out the year, so I consulted my "Movies I've been meaning to watch for about forever" list and decided on this classic. Prior to the viewing, I new scattered few facts about it:
1. Paul Newman's in it.
2. Something about a chain gang. Probably this is Paul Newman-related, too.
3. George Kennedy won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as someone who isn't Paul Newman.
4. It's on the AFI's list of the top 100 movies of all time, probably because the AFI really likes Paul Newman, too.
5. It contains one of the most commonly quoted lines in moviedom: "What we have here is failure to communicate," which is spoken first neither to or by Paul Newman. (Which is just weird, 'cause Paul Newman is the best.)
Ready for the best movie synopsis in history?
Paul Newman (did you know he was in this?!) plays Luke (imagine that), a real cool hand (see the movie for the best definition of that).
To expand: Newman's Luke is thrown into a rural detention facility after an episode of public intoxication and vandalism of public property (he, quite mischievously, cuts the heads off several parking meters). This opening scene prepares the viewer well for the kind of character Luke is. He's a wry guy; we don't know why he's doing what he's doing, and we get to assume he doesn't really, either, but we're bemused by this character right from the start.
Luke and his fellow detainees do their work on the side of the road by day in several sequences that highlight the monotony of their responsibilities, but we are offered several scenes about the "down time" of the group that give some identities to who would otherwise be stock and flat characters. I won't go a whole lot further on plot summary, because I enjoyed the movie a lot more not knowing what was going to happen.
Now, 1967 was a particularly strong years for movies, especially when you consider that this classic film wasn't even nominated for the Best Picture statuette. It's understandable when you see that the nominated films include some that hold up very well: The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie and Clyde, and that year's winner In the Heat of the Night, whose Rod Steiger also beat Newman (and Hoffman, Beatty, and Tracy) for the Best Actor award. I might as well throw in here that of all of these, In the Heat of the Night is probably my favorite, though it's like choosing my favorite Pixar film, i.e. they're all great.
Score: 9/10
I think it's very cool that my brother Mike watched this with me, so I did get to share day 1 with someone. Onto day 2!
1. Paul Newman's in it.
2. Something about a chain gang. Probably this is Paul Newman-related, too.
3. George Kennedy won a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for his role as someone who isn't Paul Newman.
4. It's on the AFI's list of the top 100 movies of all time, probably because the AFI really likes Paul Newman, too.
5. It contains one of the most commonly quoted lines in moviedom: "What we have here is failure to communicate," which is spoken first neither to or by Paul Newman. (Which is just weird, 'cause Paul Newman is the best.)
Ready for the best movie synopsis in history?
Paul Newman (did you know he was in this?!) plays Luke (imagine that), a real cool hand (see the movie for the best definition of that).
To expand: Newman's Luke is thrown into a rural detention facility after an episode of public intoxication and vandalism of public property (he, quite mischievously, cuts the heads off several parking meters). This opening scene prepares the viewer well for the kind of character Luke is. He's a wry guy; we don't know why he's doing what he's doing, and we get to assume he doesn't really, either, but we're bemused by this character right from the start.
Luke and his fellow detainees do their work on the side of the road by day in several sequences that highlight the monotony of their responsibilities, but we are offered several scenes about the "down time" of the group that give some identities to who would otherwise be stock and flat characters. I won't go a whole lot further on plot summary, because I enjoyed the movie a lot more not knowing what was going to happen.
Now, 1967 was a particularly strong years for movies, especially when you consider that this classic film wasn't even nominated for the Best Picture statuette. It's understandable when you see that the nominated films include some that hold up very well: The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie and Clyde, and that year's winner In the Heat of the Night, whose Rod Steiger also beat Newman (and Hoffman, Beatty, and Tracy) for the Best Actor award. I might as well throw in here that of all of these, In the Heat of the Night is probably my favorite, though it's like choosing my favorite Pixar film, i.e. they're all great.
Score: 9/10
I think it's very cool that my brother Mike watched this with me, so I did get to share day 1 with someone. Onto day 2!
The Beginning of an "Era"
The undertaking of watching 365 movies in as many days is by no means an original one, but to make this as achievable as possible, I have created a series of rules that will assist me in coming as close to finishing the task as possible in this first attempt. If you think it's all cheating... that's too bad, because in the spirit of 99.99% of blogging, it's all about me.
1. The goal is 365 movies in 365 days, NOT one movie each day. There will undoubtedly be some times where life gets in the way, and since this is supposed to be an enjoyable undertaking, it will not run or ruin my life.
2. The movies do NOT have to be all movies I haven't seen before, though I intend (since I have SO many movies on my to-watch list) to make a significant percentage of them first-time viewings. To quantify this, let's assume no less than 90% (or 330-ish) will fit this category. This also allows me to include movies I seem to watch every year (e.g. A Christmas Story).
3. A movie will only count once, regardless of multiple viewings.
4. Non-movie things that count as "movies" for the purposes of the game: complete seasons of television shows and TV miniseries. These needn't be watched all the same day.
Other things to note:
1. If you are a friend of mine and you see want to help me in my quest by watching movies with me/going out to a movie/having a viewing party of some classic film like The Room, please do! I want to make this an enjoyable an experience as possible.
2. If you are more familiar with these blog-things than I am and know a why to improve the look of it (or have ideas as to what can make it neater!), please let me know.
3. It should be noted that each year I attend the Traverse City Film Festival in late July/early August and over the course of a week span, I see about 20 movies, but I may not have much of a chance to update while I'm there.
Thanks in advance for following and keeping up with my new adventure, and for any help and support you may offer in the coming days and months.
1. The goal is 365 movies in 365 days, NOT one movie each day. There will undoubtedly be some times where life gets in the way, and since this is supposed to be an enjoyable undertaking, it will not run or ruin my life.
2. The movies do NOT have to be all movies I haven't seen before, though I intend (since I have SO many movies on my to-watch list) to make a significant percentage of them first-time viewings. To quantify this, let's assume no less than 90% (or 330-ish) will fit this category. This also allows me to include movies I seem to watch every year (e.g. A Christmas Story).
3. A movie will only count once, regardless of multiple viewings.
4. Non-movie things that count as "movies" for the purposes of the game: complete seasons of television shows and TV miniseries. These needn't be watched all the same day.
Other things to note:
1. If you are a friend of mine and you see want to help me in my quest by watching movies with me/going out to a movie/having a viewing party of some classic film like The Room, please do! I want to make this an enjoyable an experience as possible.
2. If you are more familiar with these blog-things than I am and know a why to improve the look of it (or have ideas as to what can make it neater!), please let me know.
3. It should be noted that each year I attend the Traverse City Film Festival in late July/early August and over the course of a week span, I see about 20 movies, but I may not have much of a chance to update while I'm there.
Thanks in advance for following and keeping up with my new adventure, and for any help and support you may offer in the coming days and months.