Because I got a bit behind, I had to finish a second movie today in order to catch up. And thus, through the first two months of the year, I have watched exactly as many movies (59) as there have been days this year. I'm very pleased with my sticktoitiveness. Don't bother looking it up. That's not at all a word. :D
In homage to the wrong decision being made at the Oscars last night (Tom Hooper?!?!) I decided on a movie that is often considered one of the worst ever to win the Best Picture Oscar: 1933's Cavalcade. As you can tell, I have little expectation for this film.
First of all, something that is clear right from the get-go is the complete range of acting abilities showcased in this movie. Some of the acting is so bad, it hurts, though the dialogue is largely to blame. Gems like:
"We have a great marriage."
"Yes, we do."
Yikes.
This is then followed by the obligatory grasp-and-stare so common in older films. It happens two more times in the next five minutes. Scary.
The basic premise of the film is that it follows a family through about 30 years of New Years' Days, from 1899 to 1933, through significant world events: The Boer War, WWI, the voyage of the Titanic (this was a really lousy and stupid thing to have included), etc. I really thought the premise sounded kind of neat, but the movie is far too uneven. Characters disappear and reappear later and I find that I've forgotten that I cared about them (or didn't care about them). The matriarch of the family spends most of the movie being morose, and it bothers me to no end. First: the part is thankless. Her husband goes off to war, then her son drowns when the Titanic sinks, then her other son is enlisted in the war. It never ends. It's a lot like Mrs. Miniver, except not as good, and Greer Garson is a much more solid actress. (Plus, she's written more heroically than tragically.)
The most consistent parts of the film were definitely the parts where the life of Fanny Bridges, the daughter of an old family friend, intertwines with the Marryotts. She's quite a good singer and one of the best actors in the film, but also her affiliation with the family feels normal and salient.
And the end of the film has a crappy pat ending where the married couple we've been following shares a drink at the New Year and makes a toast to "the spirit of gallantry", their dead sons, their country, blah blah blah. It's easy to see why the Academy fell all over it, but it's mediocrity personified in and of itself.
Score: 6/10
Monday, February 28, 2011
#58 - Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2008)
For the first time this year, I am actually a movie behind. I still blame Twin Peaks for losing me the lead I had (damn David Lynch and his magnificently woven drama!) and I now can add The Mary Tyler Moore Show to the list of blame, since I have also been working my way through the 24-episode fourth season over the last week or so, just finally finishing it today. And, finally, I blame the Oscars for being yesterday and taking up all my time with both the boring telecast, and the hours and hours of prepwork that I (and my friends Erika and Parviz) put into the little soirée we put together. For shame, all of you pop culture things that aren't movies for this blog. For shame.
While I was doing this party prep work, two of my brothers were watching a movie that has just recently become known to me: Birdemic: Shock and Terror. It was featured on an episode of The Soup the other night, which showed two different parts of the movie: one featured the worst CGI birds ever, hovering about before dive-bombing buildings and exploding; the other featured "the boardroom scene" which lasts minutes longer than it should, all the time is spent focusing on people clapping. It was atrocious. At one point yesterday I walked into the room where they were watching the movie and caught one line that was so poorly written and delivered that I laughed myself hoarse. I just know I'm in for a treat right now.
The movie starts even less auspiciously than I might have thought, with the several-minute intro shot from inside a moving car, with the background score playing a 50-second track on loop. Oh my God, the main actor doesn't even know how to walk normally. I can already tell that this main actor is likely the worst actor in the film. Which is saying something, because we haven't met anyone else, yet.
He just made a $1 million sale over the phone in about ten seconds. What the hell does he do?
The main female is model? 'Cause that didn't look like a real photoshoot at all.
Yikes, the audio is terrible. Half the people sound like they're in a wind tunnel.
You're not allowed to complain about how hot the weather is when you're wearing a long-sleeved tee under another tee.
This movie is vomitally (sure I just made it up) green: arguments for solar panels, lingering for several seconds on high gas prices, news broadcasts about global warming, etc.
We have the first bird sighting about 30 minutes in. Nothing to do with the title, yet, though.
How did that woman birth that chick as a daughter? Also, that mother figure has some of the exact same advice for her daughter as Claudette in The Room.
The boardroom scene I mentioned in my intro? Worse. I think the main actor had a stroke: he becomes less and less coherent as the movie goes on.
GREEN ALERT: His Mustang's a hybrid? That gets 100 miles to the gallon?
GREEN ALERT: Actual quote: "Man, that was a great movie. An Inconvenient Truth." Horrible syntax AND completely unnecessary.
Nice jump in the scene. More birds, but not Birdemic @ 37 minutes.
Wow, this dialogue is great: "I like traveling. I like to cruise. I like watching television." Hum.
I cannot believe how awful this actor is. Not even an actor. Also, his white-boy-dancing is worse than mine. No kidding.
Why did he take her to a hotel when he owns his own home, with brand new solar panels and everything?
AHHH BIRDEMIC @ 47 minutes in. And they show up unbelievably abruptly, with the most ungodly and unbelievable screeching noises. And they just explode after dive-bombing buildings. Not that we see the aftermath at this point. No, instead, we go back to the hotel room.
I'm guessing they didn't have sex, despite the implication, because not only is Rod (that's the lead) fully clothed, his belt is fastened, too.
Oh. My. God. This movie is so bad. I can't even go on with the blogging. Get your friends together, find a copy of this movie (preferably a free bootleg, because you don't want to pay money for this shit), and prepare to laugh.
Yay! It's the first
Score: 1/10
While I was doing this party prep work, two of my brothers were watching a movie that has just recently become known to me: Birdemic: Shock and Terror. It was featured on an episode of The Soup the other night, which showed two different parts of the movie: one featured the worst CGI birds ever, hovering about before dive-bombing buildings and exploding; the other featured "the boardroom scene" which lasts minutes longer than it should, all the time is spent focusing on people clapping. It was atrocious. At one point yesterday I walked into the room where they were watching the movie and caught one line that was so poorly written and delivered that I laughed myself hoarse. I just know I'm in for a treat right now.
The movie starts even less auspiciously than I might have thought, with the several-minute intro shot from inside a moving car, with the background score playing a 50-second track on loop. Oh my God, the main actor doesn't even know how to walk normally. I can already tell that this main actor is likely the worst actor in the film. Which is saying something, because we haven't met anyone else, yet.
He just made a $1 million sale over the phone in about ten seconds. What the hell does he do?
The main female is model? 'Cause that didn't look like a real photoshoot at all.
Yikes, the audio is terrible. Half the people sound like they're in a wind tunnel.
You're not allowed to complain about how hot the weather is when you're wearing a long-sleeved tee under another tee.
This movie is vomitally (sure I just made it up) green: arguments for solar panels, lingering for several seconds on high gas prices, news broadcasts about global warming, etc.
We have the first bird sighting about 30 minutes in. Nothing to do with the title, yet, though.
How did that woman birth that chick as a daughter? Also, that mother figure has some of the exact same advice for her daughter as Claudette in The Room.
The boardroom scene I mentioned in my intro? Worse. I think the main actor had a stroke: he becomes less and less coherent as the movie goes on.
GREEN ALERT: His Mustang's a hybrid? That gets 100 miles to the gallon?
GREEN ALERT: Actual quote: "Man, that was a great movie. An Inconvenient Truth." Horrible syntax AND completely unnecessary.
Nice jump in the scene. More birds, but not Birdemic @ 37 minutes.
Wow, this dialogue is great: "I like traveling. I like to cruise. I like watching television." Hum.
I cannot believe how awful this actor is. Not even an actor. Also, his white-boy-dancing is worse than mine. No kidding.
Why did he take her to a hotel when he owns his own home, with brand new solar panels and everything?
AHHH BIRDEMIC @ 47 minutes in. And they show up unbelievably abruptly, with the most ungodly and unbelievable screeching noises. And they just explode after dive-bombing buildings. Not that we see the aftermath at this point. No, instead, we go back to the hotel room.
I'm guessing they didn't have sex, despite the implication, because not only is Rod (that's the lead) fully clothed, his belt is fastened, too.
Oh. My. God. This movie is so bad. I can't even go on with the blogging. Get your friends together, find a copy of this movie (preferably a free bootleg, because you don't want to pay money for this shit), and prepare to laugh.
Yay! It's the first
Score: 1/10
Saturday, February 26, 2011
#57 - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
My brother Mike is home for the weekend working on something for school (yay!) and my brother Matt has the day off work, so we decided to sit down, the three of us, and watch a movie for my blog. I suggested that we watch something Oscar-y from our DVR (thank you 31 Days of Oscar) and Matt chose today's film: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
This is one of those old movies that I've known about, it being one of the AFI's Top 100, and having the cachet of being the first (only?) movie to earn an Oscar for a son (John Huston) directing his father (Walter Huston) to an Oscar, as well. The movie also stars Humphrey Bogart asRick Dobbs.
The movie takes awhile to get going (despite the extremely quick speech yielded by several of the characters-- Matt said that in this day and age, you'd expect the movie to last another hour just based on the dialogue), but once it does, it becomes very much a movie about paranoia. Dobbs is clearly the least trusting (and trustworthy) character of the three prospectors, and seems to forget later on in the movie that one of the others, Curtin, saved his life when a mine collapsed on him, when the latter could have just left him there.
It's not a flawless movie: sometimes the acting is rollercoaster-y, the story isn't that interesting for the first 45 minutes or so, and the dialogue is forced and rushed and stilted at times. But once it gets going, the film is really first-rate.
Score: 8/10
This is one of those old movies that I've known about, it being one of the AFI's Top 100, and having the cachet of being the first (only?) movie to earn an Oscar for a son (John Huston) directing his father (Walter Huston) to an Oscar, as well. The movie also stars Humphrey Bogart as
The movie takes awhile to get going (despite the extremely quick speech yielded by several of the characters-- Matt said that in this day and age, you'd expect the movie to last another hour just based on the dialogue), but once it does, it becomes very much a movie about paranoia. Dobbs is clearly the least trusting (and trustworthy) character of the three prospectors, and seems to forget later on in the movie that one of the others, Curtin, saved his life when a mine collapsed on him, when the latter could have just left him there.
It's not a flawless movie: sometimes the acting is rollercoaster-y, the story isn't that interesting for the first 45 minutes or so, and the dialogue is forced and rushed and stilted at times. But once it gets going, the film is really first-rate.
Score: 8/10
Friday, February 25, 2011
#56 - The Blue Lagoon (1980)
Now, I know that this movie has never appeared on any "Best of..." lists, but every once in awhile it gets bantered about in conversation and I always have to admit that I've never seen it. This admission doesn't elicit much shock (like when I tell people I've never seen The Matrix, for example) from the listeners, but I have been told several times that I should see it, if for nothing else than its elaborate and odd coming-of-age-ness. This is in addition to a very young Brooke Shields and a very naked slash almost naked Christopher Atkins.
LOL. Mr. Feeny is in the movie in the first few minutes, too.
I really like the part where they're trying to sing Christmas carols and they keep stopping after the first line. It made me think of the years of language acquisition they've lost, as they only have some pictures with captions on them to increase their vocabulary. Otherwise, the only words they can use are the ones they acquired before being shipwrecked on the island.
Some of the parts of the movie have this "nature documentary" feel to them, like the octopus eating the crap, or the big fish attacking the smaller fish Richard is trying to reel in, or the crab crawling out of the dead man's mouth. I kinda wanted there to be a voice-over narration during those parts. Yeah, I'm probably the only one.
Of course, the kind of the big picture is the young pair's realization and subsequent exploration of their burgeoning sexuality. It makes sense that the film spends about fifteen consecutive minutes on it, since what else is there to do on the island, really, once you've discovered what sex is?
Overall, I mean I know that it's never been presented as some sort of great movie, but I don't know... I really liked it. There was some beautiful scenery, a nice score, a story that was interesting and not at all hackneyed.... I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the acting was pretty great, too. I mean, they sucked, they really did. But when your x years old but you have the vocabulary, social skills, and ideologues of y years old when you were shipwrecked, you're not going to be totally couth and refined all the time. And the ridiculous temper outburst with the forced dialogue and weird intonation? Sounded like a y year-old kid to me.
This is one of the neat things about this blog; I absolutely guarantee that I wasn't supposed to like this movie as much as I did, but I'm sure as hell not going to make any apologies for it.
Score: 8.5/10
LOL. Mr. Feeny is in the movie in the first few minutes, too.
I really like the part where they're trying to sing Christmas carols and they keep stopping after the first line. It made me think of the years of language acquisition they've lost, as they only have some pictures with captions on them to increase their vocabulary. Otherwise, the only words they can use are the ones they acquired before being shipwrecked on the island.
Some of the parts of the movie have this "nature documentary" feel to them, like the octopus eating the crap, or the big fish attacking the smaller fish Richard is trying to reel in, or the crab crawling out of the dead man's mouth. I kinda wanted there to be a voice-over narration during those parts. Yeah, I'm probably the only one.
Of course, the kind of the big picture is the young pair's realization and subsequent exploration of their burgeoning sexuality. It makes sense that the film spends about fifteen consecutive minutes on it, since what else is there to do on the island, really, once you've discovered what sex is?
Overall, I mean I know that it's never been presented as some sort of great movie, but I don't know... I really liked it. There was some beautiful scenery, a nice score, a story that was interesting and not at all hackneyed.... I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the acting was pretty great, too. I mean, they sucked, they really did. But when your x years old but you have the vocabulary, social skills, and ideologues of y years old when you were shipwrecked, you're not going to be totally couth and refined all the time. And the ridiculous temper outburst with the forced dialogue and weird intonation? Sounded like a y year-old kid to me.
This is one of the neat things about this blog; I absolutely guarantee that I wasn't supposed to like this movie as much as I did, but I'm sure as hell not going to make any apologies for it.
Score: 8.5/10
Thursday, February 24, 2011
#55 - Of Mice and Men (1992)
This is the second of two movies that I have watched with my students because we're doing the novels in class, and of the two it's the one I liked less. I suppose it all comes from the fact that I find the book pretty simplistic (at 107 pages, it's a quick read, even for me) and while it's interesting, I don't find it much deeper. And for me, that makes any possible screen adaptation rely SO much on the characters that it's easy for it to go wrong.
Gary Sinise is a very mediocre George, but John Malkovich is a pretty good Lennie. The character of Lennie, especially, is a tricky one. The character is obviously mentally challenged, but in among the things he immediately forgets and his inability to know his own strength or fully appreciate the consequences of his actions, there lies an occasional lucidity that shows itself whenever his good buddy George tells him something. Beyond this, neither the novel nor the movie are that complicated.
The pair has been together for a while now, and we learn that they've been run out of the last place they were working because of an unspecified "bad thing" that Lennie did. It is obvious that despite all the talk these two of getting their own place and living off "the fat of the land" that this is never going to come to fruition. Enter Sherilynn Fenn (she was in Twin Peaks! This is funny because I didn't know her from Adam before these simultaneous viewings) just to cause trouble. Fie, Audrey Horn!
We just watched it and I'm amazed they were able to stretch it out to 110 minutes. Mostly this happens because of several scenes of the teams actually working, which doesn't really happen in the novel at all. At least, not in any sort of detail. It did give the movie time to showcase the awful awful score, as well. It smacks of all the crappy guitar-twanging country ballads from western movies that sound all the same.
Overall, it's just okay. If it weren't part of the curriculum, I wouldn't have even cared if my kids saw it or not, and for the most part they didn't like it. This is mostly because a dog died. I know this because they all went "Awwwww" and proceeded to exclaim that now they hated the movie. Ah, children.
Score: 6/10
Gary Sinise is a very mediocre George, but John Malkovich is a pretty good Lennie. The character of Lennie, especially, is a tricky one. The character is obviously mentally challenged, but in among the things he immediately forgets and his inability to know his own strength or fully appreciate the consequences of his actions, there lies an occasional lucidity that shows itself whenever his good buddy George tells him something. Beyond this, neither the novel nor the movie are that complicated.
The pair has been together for a while now, and we learn that they've been run out of the last place they were working because of an unspecified "bad thing" that Lennie did. It is obvious that despite all the talk these two of getting their own place and living off "the fat of the land" that this is never going to come to fruition. Enter Sherilynn Fenn (she was in Twin Peaks! This is funny because I didn't know her from Adam before these simultaneous viewings) just to cause trouble. Fie, Audrey Horn!
We just watched it and I'm amazed they were able to stretch it out to 110 minutes. Mostly this happens because of several scenes of the teams actually working, which doesn't really happen in the novel at all. At least, not in any sort of detail. It did give the movie time to showcase the awful awful score, as well. It smacks of all the crappy guitar-twanging country ballads from western movies that sound all the same.
Overall, it's just okay. If it weren't part of the curriculum, I wouldn't have even cared if my kids saw it or not, and for the most part they didn't like it. This is mostly because a dog died. I know this because they all went "Awwwww" and proceeded to exclaim that now they hated the movie. Ah, children.
Score: 6/10
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
#54 - The Great Gatsby (1974)
I'm back, after a brief hiatus! I'm in the middle of a few other things right now, so at the moment, I'm going to try to keep exactly on track between days and movies, until a time when I can jump a little ahead. (I like having that cushion.) Today's entry is another movie I've actually seen before (this makes four in all, to this point), but I come at it from a completely different viewpoint than previously.
I saw The Great Gatsby when I was in high school, and I hated it. I mean, really loathed it. At the time, I read reviews about it that were glowing and laudatory and thought that such things had never been written more untrue. The movie seemed interminable, I found the characters dull, the Harpy Mia Farrow I couldn't stand (which hasn't entirely changed, though now I can recognize the distinction), and I didn't even care for or understand the dancing and party scenes. And I had actually really liked the novel!
Things change.
In retrospect, I think the difficulty I never got over was that the picture in my head didn't gel with what I got onscreen. It's only now that I can truly appreciate this translation onto film.
It still feels a bit long, and Mia is still screechy and aloof to the point of exasperation, but annoying as she is, she is Daisy. The other characters are on-the-money, as well: Robert Redford's Gatsby is a romantic and has a one-track-mind; Sam Waterston's Nick is bland and slightly more moralistic, and captures perfectly the duality between scorn and appreciation for Gatsby's world; Tom is brutish and racist, devoted and stupid; Jordan is often-present and rarely-heard.
My students were confused as to why the movie went on so long after Gatsby was shot, but that's because most of them weren't paying enough attention to know that the story is only, in part, Gatsby's. The infinitely less exciting Nick Carraway is the true eyes of most of the novel (think Tommy Lee Jones's Ed Tom Bell from No Country for Old Men), though as it happens, Nick's story revolves very much around his devotion to Gatsby.
I'm really glad I had this opportunity to re-discover this film (I guess I should be even luckier that it's part of the mandatory English 12 curriculum!) because (and yes, I can admit this) I missed this film the first time around. It's far better than I ever gave it credit for and I can still admit that I am not looking forward to the new adaptation that's in the works. Hogwash.
Score: 8.5/10
I saw The Great Gatsby when I was in high school, and I hated it. I mean, really loathed it. At the time, I read reviews about it that were glowing and laudatory and thought that such things had never been written more untrue. The movie seemed interminable, I found the characters dull, the Harpy Mia Farrow I couldn't stand (which hasn't entirely changed, though now I can recognize the distinction), and I didn't even care for or understand the dancing and party scenes. And I had actually really liked the novel!
Things change.
In retrospect, I think the difficulty I never got over was that the picture in my head didn't gel with what I got onscreen. It's only now that I can truly appreciate this translation onto film.
It still feels a bit long, and Mia is still screechy and aloof to the point of exasperation, but annoying as she is, she is Daisy. The other characters are on-the-money, as well: Robert Redford's Gatsby is a romantic and has a one-track-mind; Sam Waterston's Nick is bland and slightly more moralistic, and captures perfectly the duality between scorn and appreciation for Gatsby's world; Tom is brutish and racist, devoted and stupid; Jordan is often-present and rarely-heard.
My students were confused as to why the movie went on so long after Gatsby was shot, but that's because most of them weren't paying enough attention to know that the story is only, in part, Gatsby's. The infinitely less exciting Nick Carraway is the true eyes of most of the novel (think Tommy Lee Jones's Ed Tom Bell from No Country for Old Men), though as it happens, Nick's story revolves very much around his devotion to Gatsby.
I'm really glad I had this opportunity to re-discover this film (I guess I should be even luckier that it's part of the mandatory English 12 curriculum!) because (and yes, I can admit this) I missed this film the first time around. It's far better than I ever gave it credit for and I can still admit that I am not looking forward to the new adaptation that's in the works. Hogwash.
Score: 8.5/10
Monday, February 21, 2011
#53 - Vertigo (1958)
I am very excited! On the heels of the three-hour adventure that was Heat, I am now sitting down to one of the last great Hitchcock films I've yet to see, the highest-ranking suspense film on the AFI Top 100 list: Vertigo.
I'm very honored to count among my friends Jessica, whose love for Hitchcock spilled over while we lived together. Most of the following we watched together, or I watched on her suggestion: Rebecca, Suspicion, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, Rope, Strangers on a Train, Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy. Vertigo is my 14th film, and there's not a one among them I haven't really liked.
That being said, one hour into this film, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. I mean, it's fine but not spectacular.
And of course, seconds-- literally, seconds-- after finishing that sentence, we got a nice "Huh?" moment that kind of turned things around for now.
"But we're not here to pass judgment..." LOL.
Hitchcock was of course a genius when it came to filmmaking, and I found out that Vertigo is remembered for Hitch's use of zooming in and combining it with reverse tracking to create the "vertigo effect" that so many directors have used since.
There is agreement here that while it's a fine movie, it's a little slow moving. I don't doubt that some of the seemingly endless scenes of Jimmy Stewart as the worst "tailer" of a detective ever could have been truncated. The final rising action and climax/denouement/unraveling were pretty sweet. Very Hitchcockian. But overall, I'd sooner rewatch quite a few of the other films that I prize more highly.
Score: 7.5/10
I'm very honored to count among my friends Jessica, whose love for Hitchcock spilled over while we lived together. Most of the following we watched together, or I watched on her suggestion: Rebecca, Suspicion, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, Rope, Strangers on a Train, Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy. Vertigo is my 14th film, and there's not a one among them I haven't really liked.
That being said, one hour into this film, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. I mean, it's fine but not spectacular.
And of course, seconds-- literally, seconds-- after finishing that sentence, we got a nice "Huh?" moment that kind of turned things around for now.
"But we're not here to pass judgment..." LOL.
Hitchcock was of course a genius when it came to filmmaking, and I found out that Vertigo is remembered for Hitch's use of zooming in and combining it with reverse tracking to create the "vertigo effect" that so many directors have used since.
There is agreement here that while it's a fine movie, it's a little slow moving. I don't doubt that some of the seemingly endless scenes of Jimmy Stewart as the worst "tailer" of a detective ever could have been truncated. The final rising action and climax/denouement/unraveling were pretty sweet. Very Hitchcockian. But overall, I'd sooner rewatch quite a few of the other films that I prize more highly.
Score: 7.5/10
#52 - Heat (1995)
Loving my day off! Spent a majority of the day Sporcling and playing games and just overall relaxing. Tomorrow will be a lot of the same, with some driving and lesson planning thrown in. You know, just for variety. Ha.
Unless I'm mistaken, this movie-- which comes in at a somewhat stifling 171 minutes-- holds the current record for longest film of the list to this point. One of the reasons I'm watching the film is that it's always held a certain cachet in the film industry as the first movie that ever had a scene where DeNiro and Pacino chew the scenery simultaneously. In addition, it's also supposed to be a pretty great movie.
And really, one notices during the opening credits that there is a large number of very recognizable (and, in many cases, good) actors and actresses in the movie. Among them: DeNiro and Pacino, Natalie Portman, Tom Sizemore, Val Kilmer, Danny Trejo, Jon Voight, Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd, Ted Levine, Dennis Haysbert. Really, who's not in this movie? While this does not always make for a good movie (I'm looking at you, Valentine's Day), I feel much more confident that this will go well.
The nice thing about Heat is that, despite its length (and yes, at times it feels a bit long, but that's not really the overall feeling) and its complexity of plot, it feels neither too impossible and convoluted to follow nor so simple as to make the audience feel they've been cheated out of actual plot. At its heart, it's quite simple: good guys (mostly one) versus bad guys. Like most movies of this genre, there are several subplots, especially those centered around loved ones, but I wouldn't have minded slightly more time spent with them, too. (Just don't make the movie 200 minutes, please.)
And the final touching handhold between RD and AP is what true love is all about.
Score: 8/10
Unless I'm mistaken, this movie-- which comes in at a somewhat stifling 171 minutes-- holds the current record for longest film of the list to this point. One of the reasons I'm watching the film is that it's always held a certain cachet in the film industry as the first movie that ever had a scene where DeNiro and Pacino chew the scenery simultaneously. In addition, it's also supposed to be a pretty great movie.
And really, one notices during the opening credits that there is a large number of very recognizable (and, in many cases, good) actors and actresses in the movie. Among them: DeNiro and Pacino, Natalie Portman, Tom Sizemore, Val Kilmer, Danny Trejo, Jon Voight, Amy Brenneman, Ashley Judd, Ted Levine, Dennis Haysbert. Really, who's not in this movie? While this does not always make for a good movie (I'm looking at you, Valentine's Day), I feel much more confident that this will go well.
The nice thing about Heat is that, despite its length (and yes, at times it feels a bit long, but that's not really the overall feeling) and its complexity of plot, it feels neither too impossible and convoluted to follow nor so simple as to make the audience feel they've been cheated out of actual plot. At its heart, it's quite simple: good guys (mostly one) versus bad guys. Like most movies of this genre, there are several subplots, especially those centered around loved ones, but I wouldn't have minded slightly more time spent with them, too. (Just don't make the movie 200 minutes, please.)
And the final touching handhold between RD and AP is what true love is all about.
Score: 8/10
Sunday, February 20, 2011
#51 - The Jerk (1979)
Hello again, all! It's cool that I'm watching this movie so late in the day, because I have the next two days off school for "midwinter break", whatever that means. We'll finish off our day today with a nice comedy I haven't seen before and apparently everyone things I should have: The Jerk. And I'm glad I don't necessarily have to leave the house tomorrow, because the ice storm outside is really terrible. I don't envy those who are going to have to drive on the treacherous roads tomorrow. Poor poor people.
If ever there were a really popular actor who is much beloved among many people whose canon I am startlingly deficient in viewing, it has to be Steve Martin. This is only the third movie I've ever seen of his (other than half of Father of the Bride), and since those other two are the mediocre drama Novocaine and a small part in Baby Mama, this might seem a little criminal. But then again, I've never really had the impetus. Zany, silly comedies that border on the absurd aren't really my thing.
Thoughts on the film:
I've, of course, since I don't live under a rock, heard the "I was born a poor black child" line and known it was from this movie, but it was nice to finally comprehend the premise from whence it came.
The aviator cap and goggles are a nice touch. Calling the dog Shithead is not.
Navin is so simple. I get it, I do, but I find it a little hard to relate. I guess that's part of the "charm"?
My mother has, more than once, alluded to the part about winning erasers and rulers from the carnival games' shelves when we've been at amusement parks. She has also been exasperated more than once when I didn't understand her reference. I guess I get it, now.
Bernadette Peters is pretty great. :)
It feels like I go too long between really great parts of the movie. I didn't really find the part where he almost got shot that funny. But at least I get it. Unlike some movies where I don't understand why stupid things happen because there actually isn't a reason. See: Due Date. Blech.
So the would-be shootist comes back as a P.I. delivering a letter? Okay.
Those glasses are precious. And so is that huge feather in his cap. Is that pheasant? It's a great impression of a fop.
What happens when you give a shitload of money to a simpleton? Bad things. Big surprise there.
What cute kitties!
So many gold chains. So many rings. So little posistication.
The "handle" on the glasses causes eyes to become cross-eyed? Uh-huh. Should I still just be rolling with things?
Oh yeah, the cornet is a cute motif.
The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and the matches, etc. reminds me of the scene in My Fair Lady where Eliza goes to Professor Higgins's and she sends for her things: her birdcage and her Chinese fan. LOL. Love that movie. Of course, these movies have nothing to do with one another. Nothing.
Why are his pants down around his ankles?
I'm positive my favorite part of the movie is Navin's family.
---------------------------------
Alright, I can finally say I've watched this movie. I can pretty much assure my readers that it is unlikely it will happen again. It was fine. Nothing special. Thanks for staying with me :)
Score: 5/10
If ever there were a really popular actor who is much beloved among many people whose canon I am startlingly deficient in viewing, it has to be Steve Martin. This is only the third movie I've ever seen of his (other than half of Father of the Bride), and since those other two are the mediocre drama Novocaine and a small part in Baby Mama, this might seem a little criminal. But then again, I've never really had the impetus. Zany, silly comedies that border on the absurd aren't really my thing.
Thoughts on the film:
I've, of course, since I don't live under a rock, heard the "I was born a poor black child" line and known it was from this movie, but it was nice to finally comprehend the premise from whence it came.
The aviator cap and goggles are a nice touch. Calling the dog Shithead is not.
Navin is so simple. I get it, I do, but I find it a little hard to relate. I guess that's part of the "charm"?
My mother has, more than once, alluded to the part about winning erasers and rulers from the carnival games' shelves when we've been at amusement parks. She has also been exasperated more than once when I didn't understand her reference. I guess I get it, now.
Bernadette Peters is pretty great. :)
It feels like I go too long between really great parts of the movie. I didn't really find the part where he almost got shot that funny. But at least I get it. Unlike some movies where I don't understand why stupid things happen because there actually isn't a reason. See: Due Date. Blech.
So the would-be shootist comes back as a P.I. delivering a letter? Okay.
Those glasses are precious. And so is that huge feather in his cap. Is that pheasant? It's a great impression of a fop.
What happens when you give a shitload of money to a simpleton? Bad things. Big surprise there.
What cute kitties!
So many gold chains. So many rings. So little posistication.
The "handle" on the glasses causes eyes to become cross-eyed? Uh-huh. Should I still just be rolling with things?
Oh yeah, the cornet is a cute motif.
The ashtray, the paddle game, and the remote control, and the matches, etc. reminds me of the scene in My Fair Lady where Eliza goes to Professor Higgins's and she sends for her things: her birdcage and her Chinese fan. LOL. Love that movie. Of course, these movies have nothing to do with one another. Nothing.
Why are his pants down around his ankles?
I'm positive my favorite part of the movie is Navin's family.
---------------------------------
Alright, I can finally say I've watched this movie. I can pretty much assure my readers that it is unlikely it will happen again. It was fine. Nothing special. Thanks for staying with me :)
Score: 5/10
Saturday, February 19, 2011
#50 - Galaxy Quest (1999)
My friends Dan and Marianne have been telling me about how totally underrated and funny this movie is and basically how it would behoove me not to believe all the naysaying and actually give it a chance myself. First off: Alan Rickman, Sigourney Weaver, Enrico Colantoni, Tony Shalhoub, Sam Rockwell, and Buzz Lightyear are in it (awesome), as well as small appearances by Rainn Wilson and Justin Long (who, despite being attached to Drew Barrymore and starring in things like Herbie: Fully Loaded will always hold a dear place in my heart from his being in Happy Campers, one of my favorite surprise movies of all time). As long as the movie isn't terrible, how could I not like it?
The best part of the movie early on is definitely Keith Mars (if you don't know this reference, shame on you) as the head liaison from the alien ship. He's seriously hysterical; actually all the Klaatu (you should also know that reference) are amazing. And basically the premise of the movie is that these people think that the stars of the titular TV show are real space captains who can save them from their own difficult "space war". Of course, since they are actors in a TV show, they are completely unprepared for this "real life" situation.
LOL @ "Look around. Can you form some sort of rudimentary lathe?"
I think that the most successful parts of the movie are the ones that spoof the space genre/movies in general. Case in point: the ship where the movie is "set" is an exact replica of the one used in the TV show. At one point, Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver have to stop the core from imploding, which they do by pushing a button, but when the timer doesn't stop, they think they're in peril. However, the timer stops at 1 second remaining because, as Weaver points out, "it always stops at one second on the show." The parts like this are the most successful.
Pretty great film. Certainly better than most of the shit that pretends to parody things but falls impossibly short.
Score: 8/10
The best part of the movie early on is definitely Keith Mars (if you don't know this reference, shame on you) as the head liaison from the alien ship. He's seriously hysterical; actually all the Klaatu (you should also know that reference) are amazing. And basically the premise of the movie is that these people think that the stars of the titular TV show are real space captains who can save them from their own difficult "space war". Of course, since they are actors in a TV show, they are completely unprepared for this "real life" situation.
LOL @ "Look around. Can you form some sort of rudimentary lathe?"
I think that the most successful parts of the movie are the ones that spoof the space genre/movies in general. Case in point: the ship where the movie is "set" is an exact replica of the one used in the TV show. At one point, Tim Allen and Sigourney Weaver have to stop the core from imploding, which they do by pushing a button, but when the timer doesn't stop, they think they're in peril. However, the timer stops at 1 second remaining because, as Weaver points out, "it always stops at one second on the show." The parts like this are the most successful.
Pretty great film. Certainly better than most of the shit that pretends to parody things but falls impossibly short.
Score: 8/10
Friday, February 18, 2011
#49 - Robocop (1987)
Hey all - blogging from Kalamazoo where I'm here for movie night.
Today's adventure: the apparently-becoming-culturally-significant-in-moviedom Detroit-set Robocop.
A quick glance at IMDb tells me something remarkable that keeps showing up: Twin Peaks stars in other things! Miguel Ferrer (FBI Agent Albert), Ray Wise (Leland Palmer), and Dan O'Herlihy (Andrew Packard). Ilooked it up because I didn't even know who starred in this movie. It's amazing that a movie that has been so much in the consciousness of people around me could have passed by me without my knowing anything about. And so, here we go!
This fully automated man seems like a terrible idea.
Oh, well that man that was just gunned down all to hell in a "trial" proves my point.
Aw man, she just had to look, didn't she? That's why she got punched off the balcony.
It was kind of stupid to have gone in there after them. Two against, what, six? With huge guns? I think you failed math. Cause I did this problem, and I got the same solution as them.
Looks like we're setting ourselves up for a really nice and neat revenge fantasy.
I love Miguel Ferrer.
I see, he does that twirling thing still, so he must have retained some aspect of his personality and now his old partner knows who RoboCop is.
WHAT IS DIRECTIVE NUMBER 4? Duh duh duuuuh.
Apparently RoboCop was directed by the same man who did Showgirls. Guess which movie is better.
Mechanized warfare? Sure, why not?
Those huge guns are obviously compensating for something...
And the movie's surprise ending: RoboCop becomes a poet and accidentally electrocutes himself while his original murderers rule the world.
That laugh is sooo annoying.
Nice ending. Totally predictable, but you gotta love when a movie doesn't drag it out for half an hour afterward.
Pretty great film overall, thoroughly enjoyable.
Score: 8/10
Today's adventure: the apparently-becoming-culturally-significant-in-moviedom Detroit-set Robocop.
A quick glance at IMDb tells me something remarkable that keeps showing up: Twin Peaks stars in other things! Miguel Ferrer (FBI Agent Albert), Ray Wise (Leland Palmer), and Dan O'Herlihy (Andrew Packard). Ilooked it up because I didn't even know who starred in this movie. It's amazing that a movie that has been so much in the consciousness of people around me could have passed by me without my knowing anything about. And so, here we go!
This fully automated man seems like a terrible idea.
Oh, well that man that was just gunned down all to hell in a "trial" proves my point.
Aw man, she just had to look, didn't she? That's why she got punched off the balcony.
It was kind of stupid to have gone in there after them. Two against, what, six? With huge guns? I think you failed math. Cause I did this problem, and I got the same solution as them.
Looks like we're setting ourselves up for a really nice and neat revenge fantasy.
I love Miguel Ferrer.
I see, he does that twirling thing still, so he must have retained some aspect of his personality and now his old partner knows who RoboCop is.
WHAT IS DIRECTIVE NUMBER 4? Duh duh duuuuh.
Apparently RoboCop was directed by the same man who did Showgirls. Guess which movie is better.
Mechanized warfare? Sure, why not?
Those huge guns are obviously compensating for something...
And the movie's surprise ending: RoboCop becomes a poet and accidentally electrocutes himself while his original murderers rule the world.
That laugh is sooo annoying.
Nice ending. Totally predictable, but you gotta love when a movie doesn't drag it out for half an hour afterward.
Pretty great film overall, thoroughly enjoyable.
Score: 8/10
Thursday, February 17, 2011
#48 - Triumph of the Will (1935)
I've known about this movie for years, but just this Tuesday it became available for instant streaming on Netflix, which is great. For those who don't know, this is director Leni Riefenstahl's documentary about the rise of Adolf Hitler to Fuhrer, and the stirring up of the Nazi Party in Germany. It was hand-selected by Hitler himself to be used for the purposes of propaganda. Until her death in 2003, at the age of 101, Riefenstahl continued to deny that she had made the film for the purposes of propaganda. Indeed, she admits that she made the documentary because she was so impressed by Hitler's oratory abilities, but was mortified when it was used as a tool to further the support of racial purity.
Some of my thoughts:
1. I had to remember that this documentary is completely different from everything else I've seen or read or heard. It changes from "So everyone thought Hitler was this great guy, but..." to "So everyone thought Hitler was this great guy, and..."
2.Riefenstahl's direction is superb. It is immediately clear from the beginning, as she has cameras mounted to aircraft and is rewarded with beautiful shots of Nuremberg from the air, that her techniques were revolutionary.
3. The palpable indoctrination of people of all ages and the near frenzy that everyone finds themselves whipped into when Hitler speaks (or, even is present) is scary.
4. I wish my students listened to me this well.
5. The precision and uniformity of the marchers and youth workers was scary.
This makes the third documentary I've watched, and they've all been markedly different, though this picture is so different from anything I've ever seen that there's no basis for comparison. Riefenstahl's capture of the spirit of the German nation and Hitler in 1934 is both fascinating and horrifying. Because we of course know what would happen five years later.
It almost feels wrong to do this, but
Score: 9.5/10
Some of my thoughts:
1. I had to remember that this documentary is completely different from everything else I've seen or read or heard. It changes from "So everyone thought Hitler was this great guy, but..." to "So everyone thought Hitler was this great guy, and..."
2.Riefenstahl's direction is superb. It is immediately clear from the beginning, as she has cameras mounted to aircraft and is rewarded with beautiful shots of Nuremberg from the air, that her techniques were revolutionary.
3. The palpable indoctrination of people of all ages and the near frenzy that everyone finds themselves whipped into when Hitler speaks (or, even is present) is scary.
4. I wish my students listened to me this well.
5. The precision and uniformity of the marchers and youth workers was scary.
This makes the third documentary I've watched, and they've all been markedly different, though this picture is so different from anything I've ever seen that there's no basis for comparison. Riefenstahl's capture of the spirit of the German nation and Hitler in 1934 is both fascinating and horrifying. Because we of course know what would happen five years later.
It almost feels wrong to do this, but
Score: 9.5/10
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
#47 - Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (2007)
Hey all!
Yes, I'm fine. No worries. I actually am very grateful that, due to my illness, I got so far ahead on my goal, because for the last four days or so I have been spending pretty much all my spare time watching the entire series (thirty 45-minute episodes) of Twin Peaks. It's truly amazing. At some point (probably next year) I will rewatch the entire series just to start picking up on the things I missed. I have also come to the realization that watching these entire series of television shows is really hard to do concurrently with this blog! Perhaps I should rethink my no-TV-series addendum from a few entries ago. Oh well.
Today's entry is the third previously-viewed entry on the countdown (I'll have another one for you tomorrow, as well), but the reason behind it is simple: the RiffTrax audio file came out today (see http://www.rifftrax.com) so my brother and I giddily synced it up to the DVD and prepared to enjoy. For those of you who aren't familiar with RiffTrax, it is from several of the people who did MST3K, and they poke fun at more current movies. They are pretty hysterical.
The movie itself is my second-favorite HP film (behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1), but even in the pantheon of filmdom, it falls into the "good, not great" category. Certainly it's enjoyable (Emma Watson does a passable job at acting, for a change), but the real standout of the film is Harry being hot. I mean, Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge. She personifies the character we all hated to hate, in all of her evil-ness. Between her little hem hems, her penchant for pink, and her sad-face intonation when disciplining Harry, she totally nails it.
Despite the good performances in the film, RiffTrax still had plenty of fodder. As it usually does, there is one motif that rears itself throughout the film and this movie's was "Wands are a euphemism for penis". And since wands are kind of an important part of the film, there was a lot of fodder. Some of the funniest parts I can't do any justice here because the lines themselves aren't as funny as the way they're delivered, but my favorite standard line from the movie is this response from Harry after asked why he's kind of dejected:
"Ladies' Home Journal rejected my flan recipe."
Beautiful.
Movie Score: 8.0
Score w/RiffTrax: 9.0
Yes, I'm fine. No worries. I actually am very grateful that, due to my illness, I got so far ahead on my goal, because for the last four days or so I have been spending pretty much all my spare time watching the entire series (thirty 45-minute episodes) of Twin Peaks. It's truly amazing. At some point (probably next year) I will rewatch the entire series just to start picking up on the things I missed. I have also come to the realization that watching these entire series of television shows is really hard to do concurrently with this blog! Perhaps I should rethink my no-TV-series addendum from a few entries ago. Oh well.
Today's entry is the third previously-viewed entry on the countdown (I'll have another one for you tomorrow, as well), but the reason behind it is simple: the RiffTrax audio file came out today (see http://www.rifftrax.com) so my brother and I giddily synced it up to the DVD and prepared to enjoy. For those of you who aren't familiar with RiffTrax, it is from several of the people who did MST3K, and they poke fun at more current movies. They are pretty hysterical.
The movie itself is my second-favorite HP film (behind Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1), but even in the pantheon of filmdom, it falls into the "good, not great" category. Certainly it's enjoyable (Emma Watson does a passable job at acting, for a change), but the real standout of the film is Harry being hot. I mean, Imelda Staunton as Dolores Umbridge. She personifies the character we all hated to hate, in all of her evil-ness. Between her little hem hems, her penchant for pink, and her sad-face intonation when disciplining Harry, she totally nails it.
Despite the good performances in the film, RiffTrax still had plenty of fodder. As it usually does, there is one motif that rears itself throughout the film and this movie's was "Wands are a euphemism for penis". And since wands are kind of an important part of the film, there was a lot of fodder. Some of the funniest parts I can't do any justice here because the lines themselves aren't as funny as the way they're delivered, but my favorite standard line from the movie is this response from Harry after asked why he's kind of dejected:
"Ladies' Home Journal rejected my flan recipe."
Beautiful.
Movie Score: 8.0
Score w/RiffTrax: 9.0
Thursday, February 10, 2011
#46 - An Unmarried Woman (1978)
It's been a couple of days since my last post, and in the interim I've mostly just been sick (and I ventured into work for a half day, as well) but I've also been watching Twin Peaks. I got through the first season (8 episodes) in about a day and am LOVING it. Kyle MacLachlan, especially, is magnificent. I have decided not to include TV series, after all. I'm doing so well that I can do this list with just movies. (Note to everyone: You need to help keep me on track!)
I actually just had a very short conversation about this movie with my friend Jeff over a Facebook status about how good Jill Clayburgh is. Coincidentally, it was right near the top of my Netflix queue, ever since I placed a couple of Mazursky films in there (there was a retrospective at the Traverse City Film Festival last year, but none of his movies were playing at times conducive to seeing them), so I just quick moved one up to the top since I had one coming, anyway.
One of my prevailing thoughts while watching the movie was how it seemed almost like the original Sex and the City. And I mean that in the best possible way. (Mostly in premise, and not in terribleness like the second movie...) Jill Clayburgh plays a happily married woman whose husband divorces her for a younger woman, and part of the solace she finds, post-separation, comes from her "club" that consists of her three female friends and her. They're not all SatC single, but each one has their idiosyncrasy and their baggage, and they all help each other through their problems. (Without any of the ridiculousness.)
I can understand what I've heard about this film that, for its time, it was pretty groundbreaking. Divorce was nothing new of course, but how Clayburgh's Erica finds strength after it was probably very ahead of its time. Her relationship with her daughter (they openly chat about abortion, bisexuality, marijuana, and mom's sex life among other things), she sees a therapist (some of my favorite parts of the movie, though they aren't at all the most interesting), and she follows her suggestion to re-start her sex life. Erica discovers the joy of a little NSA sex to help her "get back in the game". It's sexy without being raunchy and voyeuristic.
Funnily enough, as I was writing this review, I've talked myself into a better score than I was planning to give it, and I realized that I enjoyed it even more than I'd thought.
Score: 8.5/10
I actually just had a very short conversation about this movie with my friend Jeff over a Facebook status about how good Jill Clayburgh is. Coincidentally, it was right near the top of my Netflix queue, ever since I placed a couple of Mazursky films in there (there was a retrospective at the Traverse City Film Festival last year, but none of his movies were playing at times conducive to seeing them), so I just quick moved one up to the top since I had one coming, anyway.
One of my prevailing thoughts while watching the movie was how it seemed almost like the original Sex and the City. And I mean that in the best possible way. (Mostly in premise, and not in terribleness like the second movie...) Jill Clayburgh plays a happily married woman whose husband divorces her for a younger woman, and part of the solace she finds, post-separation, comes from her "club" that consists of her three female friends and her. They're not all SatC single, but each one has their idiosyncrasy and their baggage, and they all help each other through their problems. (Without any of the ridiculousness.)
I can understand what I've heard about this film that, for its time, it was pretty groundbreaking. Divorce was nothing new of course, but how Clayburgh's Erica finds strength after it was probably very ahead of its time. Her relationship with her daughter (they openly chat about abortion, bisexuality, marijuana, and mom's sex life among other things), she sees a therapist (some of my favorite parts of the movie, though they aren't at all the most interesting), and she follows her suggestion to re-start her sex life. Erica discovers the joy of a little NSA sex to help her "get back in the game". It's sexy without being raunchy and voyeuristic.
Funnily enough, as I was writing this review, I've talked myself into a better score than I was planning to give it, and I realized that I enjoyed it even more than I'd thought.
Score: 8.5/10
The Best Picture Nominees - Ranked
As promised, here is my ranking of this year's ten Best Picture nominees. I am going to finish my list of the top 10 movies of the year at a later date.
1. The Social Network
2. Toy Story 3
3. True Grit
4. The Fighter
5. The King's Speech
6. 127 Hours
7. Black Swan
8. Inception
9. The Kids Are All Right
10. Winter's Bone
All in all, a very good year for the nominees. (No The Blind Sides in the bunch...)
Stay tuned for movie #46.
1. The Social Network
2. Toy Story 3
3. True Grit
4. The Fighter
5. The King's Speech
6. 127 Hours
7. Black Swan
8. Inception
9. The Kids Are All Right
10. Winter's Bone
All in all, a very good year for the nominees. (No The Blind Sides in the bunch...)
Stay tuned for movie #46.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
#45 - 127 Hours (2010)
I know that I said I probably wouldn't get in a movie today, but watching one today is awesome because it means I'm exactly 1/8 of the way done! Also, with this movie, I get to finish a different task: this is the final one of this year's 10 Best Picture nominees to watch. The next post will be my ranking of the 10 Best Picture nominees, followed by my favorite 10 of the year.
I'm going to "liveblog" this one, because I won't have a lot of time to finish a writeup when it's done. You know what this means...
**SPOILER ALERT** I'll be honest... I just may ruin it for you if you haven't seen it and you want to be surprised by every turn when and if you do see it. You've been warned.
Onward!
First things first: you can pretty much tell it's a Danny Boyle movie right off the bat because of his crazy music choices. A.R. Rahman, his music director from Slumdog Millionaire and Simon Beaufoy, his screenwriter, are also credited on this film. Obviously one of those why-ruin-a-bad-thing collaborations.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: James Franco needs to shave off that sorry excuse for a moustache. He's not a bad-looking guy, really, but it does him no favors whatsoever.
Aron Ralston meets up a couple of chicks, rom-com style, one of whom is Joan of Arcadia. Weird, but we're moving on.
Okay, so... we're like 15 minutes into this movie and James Franco isn't trapped yet. I didn't think there was anything other than that in this movie. (Okay, not really.)
Oop, there we are! He's stuck now. And, actually, it's kind of funny when it first happens. He just kind of stares at it.
I've been talking to several people on the tennis website recently about...
Product Placement- Capital One card. What's in your wallet? Old condom, perhaps? Three crumpled up singles?
...movies with primarily one setting. (Not sorry for the last digression.) We'll see how this measures up against my very high standards.
Oh, he dropped the knife he was using to hammer at the rock. Now there's an ant crawling on it. Matt (my brother, with whom I'm watching the movie) said that the ant is going to help him get out because he can commune with nature. LOL.
He got it back with a stick with a curve at the end, using his foot. Awesome.
Dude, you can do it... only 95 hours left! Oh, wait, this isn't a "wait out the clock situation". Am I entirely certain I actually know what this is about? ;)
Hey, I have a headlamp that looks really similar to that one, with like, three LCDs. Matt tells me they're LEDs. What the hell is LCD, then? Moving on.
Awww, he's been at one with nature ever since he was little and his dad took him to the rocks and...*yawn*
24 hours down. He's started recording himself.
"Descending Bluejohn" That sounds dirty.
Good thing he didn't tell anyone where he was going. You know, or leave an itinerary or something.
He's running out of water. I wonder if he resorts to urine anytime soon. Not that I want to see that or anything, you know, but isn't that like in any survivalist's handbook?
Oh, see, just how like in Slumdog where all his memories forged all the answers to all the questions in his brain, so, too, is Aron making connections between the past and present, like how his contact lens reminds him of when he didn't pick up the phone when his mom was calling him.
Bet he wishes he took that Gatorade, now, huh? No, I'm not being flippant... it's pretty obvious in that scene.
Oh, he just pissed. First time we saw that. Hah, he just said he saved some, from before, and that it smells bad. Big surprise.
Gah, he's trying to saw with this dull knife and not even breaking the skin. I could barely watch. Now I'm starting to wonder how I'm going to deal with it when it actually comes to pass.
Dude, you just spilled the last of what little water you had! That suuuuuucks.
Ants again. Maybe Matt's right. Maybe the actual story is that he tells them to go get help. And that's the actual way he gets out of this.
Fleur Delacour?!
Mother Nature declares "No more thinking about Fleur Delacour touching your schlong! Here's a rainstorm you get to deal with now! MWAHAHA!" See people: sex is bad and the work of the devil and if you have premarital sex, you will die. What you all didn't know was that this movie's initial title was: 127 Hours of Sin: A Morality Tale.
And the weird thing is: he actually drowns. Not how I thought this was going to end. Kidding.
Oh, a hallucination. We figured that, when he crawled out of the cave with two arms.
He's coming to grips with his individuality. LOL. I find this exasperating and hilarious. I am probably in the minority on this. And before you all get pissed, I would always be hoping he gets out of the cave. I'm not evil, for goodness sakes.
Just had a thought: I bet Bear Grylls would have gotten out by now and had a barbecue for all his friends. Let's go, Aron Ralston.
Shit, he just totally plunged that knife into his forearm!
And finally we have urine consumption. It's about damn time. Bear probably would have given up on the water a long time ago and just tried to aim his stream at his mouth. On another note, I just drank some of my bottled water and thought, meanly, "Wow, how easy was that?"
Wouldn't this movie be awesome if it turned into The Descent?! LOL.
Lizzy Caplan is his sister. Sweeet. We love you, Janis Ian.
You know, the human body is surprisingly resilient and will stay alive a lot longer than you think it will.
GAH! His arm just broke. Groooooss.
The surgery has started. Ew. Matt just made me LOL: "Actually, he was stuck down there for 300 hours; it just took him 127 to cut off his arm."
He's free! Of course, now he needs to make his way out. That kinda sucks, it's like "You win! But to earn your prize, he have to find your way out of this labyrinth." Just don't touch the Portkey that takes you to the cemetery where Voldemort is waiting to kill you.
(My mind often goes off on strange tangents...)
He's doing a strange little jig, which is nice and all, but he should probably be using that strength to get to civilization. Ew, don't drink that water; it's probably all dysentery.
Okay, definitely got a little teary when the helicopter came. I blame the presence of other people and the music and the good camerawork. Oh, and the story, too, I guess.
I liked this actually a lot more than I thought I was going to. Well played, Danny Boyle. Well played. And yes, James Franco deserves his Oscar nomination.
Score: 8.5/10
I usually don't provide commentary for my scores (other than what I've already written), but I will include that this could, after some rumination, be a 9 or a 9.5 movie. It could also be an 8. So I'm going with how I felt as I watched, which is a solid 8.5
I'm going to "liveblog" this one, because I won't have a lot of time to finish a writeup when it's done. You know what this means...
**SPOILER ALERT** I'll be honest... I just may ruin it for you if you haven't seen it and you want to be surprised by every turn when and if you do see it. You've been warned.
Onward!
First things first: you can pretty much tell it's a Danny Boyle movie right off the bat because of his crazy music choices. A.R. Rahman, his music director from Slumdog Millionaire and Simon Beaufoy, his screenwriter, are also credited on this film. Obviously one of those why-ruin-a-bad-thing collaborations.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: James Franco needs to shave off that sorry excuse for a moustache. He's not a bad-looking guy, really, but it does him no favors whatsoever.
Aron Ralston meets up a couple of chicks, rom-com style, one of whom is Joan of Arcadia. Weird, but we're moving on.
Okay, so... we're like 15 minutes into this movie and James Franco isn't trapped yet. I didn't think there was anything other than that in this movie. (Okay, not really.)
Oop, there we are! He's stuck now. And, actually, it's kind of funny when it first happens. He just kind of stares at it.
I've been talking to several people on the tennis website recently about...
Product Placement- Capital One card. What's in your wallet? Old condom, perhaps? Three crumpled up singles?
...movies with primarily one setting. (Not sorry for the last digression.) We'll see how this measures up against my very high standards.
Oh, he dropped the knife he was using to hammer at the rock. Now there's an ant crawling on it. Matt (my brother, with whom I'm watching the movie) said that the ant is going to help him get out because he can commune with nature. LOL.
He got it back with a stick with a curve at the end, using his foot. Awesome.
Dude, you can do it... only 95 hours left! Oh, wait, this isn't a "wait out the clock situation". Am I entirely certain I actually know what this is about? ;)
Hey, I have a headlamp that looks really similar to that one, with like, three LCDs. Matt tells me they're LEDs. What the hell is LCD, then? Moving on.
Awww, he's been at one with nature ever since he was little and his dad took him to the rocks and...*yawn*
24 hours down. He's started recording himself.
"Descending Bluejohn" That sounds dirty.
Good thing he didn't tell anyone where he was going. You know, or leave an itinerary or something.
He's running out of water. I wonder if he resorts to urine anytime soon. Not that I want to see that or anything, you know, but isn't that like in any survivalist's handbook?
Oh, see, just how like in Slumdog where all his memories forged all the answers to all the questions in his brain, so, too, is Aron making connections between the past and present, like how his contact lens reminds him of when he didn't pick up the phone when his mom was calling him.
Bet he wishes he took that Gatorade, now, huh? No, I'm not being flippant... it's pretty obvious in that scene.
Oh, he just pissed. First time we saw that. Hah, he just said he saved some, from before, and that it smells bad. Big surprise.
Gah, he's trying to saw with this dull knife and not even breaking the skin. I could barely watch. Now I'm starting to wonder how I'm going to deal with it when it actually comes to pass.
Dude, you just spilled the last of what little water you had! That suuuuuucks.
Ants again. Maybe Matt's right. Maybe the actual story is that he tells them to go get help. And that's the actual way he gets out of this.
Fleur Delacour?!
Mother Nature declares "No more thinking about Fleur Delacour touching your schlong! Here's a rainstorm you get to deal with now! MWAHAHA!" See people: sex is bad and the work of the devil and if you have premarital sex, you will die. What you all didn't know was that this movie's initial title was: 127 Hours of Sin: A Morality Tale.
And the weird thing is: he actually drowns. Not how I thought this was going to end. Kidding.
Oh, a hallucination. We figured that, when he crawled out of the cave with two arms.
He's coming to grips with his individuality. LOL. I find this exasperating and hilarious. I am probably in the minority on this. And before you all get pissed, I would always be hoping he gets out of the cave. I'm not evil, for goodness sakes.
Just had a thought: I bet Bear Grylls would have gotten out by now and had a barbecue for all his friends. Let's go, Aron Ralston.
Shit, he just totally plunged that knife into his forearm!
And finally we have urine consumption. It's about damn time. Bear probably would have given up on the water a long time ago and just tried to aim his stream at his mouth. On another note, I just drank some of my bottled water and thought, meanly, "Wow, how easy was that?"
Wouldn't this movie be awesome if it turned into The Descent?! LOL.
Lizzy Caplan is his sister. Sweeet. We love you, Janis Ian.
You know, the human body is surprisingly resilient and will stay alive a lot longer than you think it will.
GAH! His arm just broke. Groooooss.
The surgery has started. Ew. Matt just made me LOL: "Actually, he was stuck down there for 300 hours; it just took him 127 to cut off his arm."
He's free! Of course, now he needs to make his way out. That kinda sucks, it's like "You win! But to earn your prize, he have to find your way out of this labyrinth." Just don't touch the Portkey that takes you to the cemetery where Voldemort is waiting to kill you.
(My mind often goes off on strange tangents...)
He's doing a strange little jig, which is nice and all, but he should probably be using that strength to get to civilization. Ew, don't drink that water; it's probably all dysentery.
Okay, definitely got a little teary when the helicopter came. I blame the presence of other people and the music and the good camerawork. Oh, and the story, too, I guess.
I liked this actually a lot more than I thought I was going to. Well played, Danny Boyle. Well played. And yes, James Franco deserves his Oscar nomination.
Score: 8.5/10
I usually don't provide commentary for my scores (other than what I've already written), but I will include that this could, after some rumination, be a 9 or a 9.5 movie. It could also be an 8. So I'm going with how I felt as I watched, which is a solid 8.5
Monday, February 7, 2011
#44 - The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie (1969)
There will probably not be an update tomorrow, as I have an all-day meeting, then an after-school meeting, then tomorrow evening, I will be taking the Online Jeopardy test! I last took the test in 2005, and succeeded in getting a "callback". Very exciting. Ergo, there might not be time for a movie tomorrow. This is fine, since I am now six movies to the good. Haha!
I love Minerva McGonagall, er, Maggie Smith. Ever since the first time I saw her in a movie, likely as the Mother Superior in Sister Act, I've been enamored with her. She always plays such headstrong women (in the same way that most of Judy Greer's earliest roles were as timid little things), and it was a pleasure to watch her in her first of two Oscar-winning roles (her second was as, ironically, an Oscar loser in California Suite) as a teacher "in her prime" whose unconventional teaching gets her into trouble. And, frankly, I was astounded by the ending. Of course, it was all leading up to it proper (British alert!), but it still caught me by surprise. Smith's Oscar is well-earned.
Score: 8.5/10
I love Minerva McGonagall, er, Maggie Smith. Ever since the first time I saw her in a movie, likely as the Mother Superior in Sister Act, I've been enamored with her. She always plays such headstrong women (in the same way that most of Judy Greer's earliest roles were as timid little things), and it was a pleasure to watch her in her first of two Oscar-winning roles (her second was as, ironically, an Oscar loser in California Suite) as a teacher "in her prime" whose unconventional teaching gets her into trouble. And, frankly, I was astounded by the ending. Of course, it was all leading up to it proper (British alert!), but it still caught me by surprise. Smith's Oscar is well-earned.
Score: 8.5/10
#43 - Paul's Case (1980)
Several years ago, I had to do a 15-minute presentation on a female author for my Women in Literature class (I loved this class: it was six girls and me and we read Shelley (I heart Frankenstein), Munro (one of the greatest short story writers ever), Oates (not so much love for Oates), Wharton (The House of Mirth = Blech. I've been told The Age of Innocence is much better), Morrison (love), and a couple others). There weren't many stipulations (other than it should be neither solely a book report or a lame biography) and we were allowed to choose the author on whom we wanted to present, as long as it was okayed beforehand.
I picked Willa Cather, an author I knew almost nothing about, other than randomly, a few years before I gave that presentation, while I was working at the library, I happened upon a book of Cather's works, picked it up, and read "Paul's Case", one of the singlemost fantastic short stories I've ever had the fortune to read. At the time, it probably resonated even more with me as I was struggling to figure out my own sexuality. For those of you who have never read it (and that's going to be most of you, I guarantee it): DO SO. Your lives will be enriched, emotionally and literarily.
To move away from the short story to talk about the film is a short step: the latter mirrors the former most nicely. As a matter of fact, at the very first seconds of the film, as we see Eric Roberts sitting outside the "principal's" office, I knew I was in for something special. Roberts is the Paul I had always envisioned. From his figure, mien, and comportment down to the way he bows, the tightening of this jaw, and the red carnation in his lapel, it was an inspired casting decision. (It probably helps that Roberts at the time was still relatively unknown, but for a role in King of the Gypsies.) The rest of the cast matters a whole lot less, because it really is all about Paul.
The subtitle of Cather's story is "A Study in Temperament", which is then elucidated for all the pages to come. Paul is somewhat enigmatic: a boy who didn't "mean to be polite or impolite, either" but merely just to say what he felt, at that time. Some of his teachers find him completely appalling, while others are intrigued. It matters not to Paul, though. All that does are the times he can appreciate what he considers the finer things. He is a lover of-- nay, verily consumed by his love for-- art, music, and high society. He ushers on weekends at a concert hall, where he is allowed to be "swept up" in opera, the symphony, and drama. He also goes backstage at a nearby theatre where he is friends to an actor and allowed to watch the performances at night. This is his life, and it's all he wants.
The rest of the story, I'll leave up to you to discover, and I'll merely tell you that the one thing I disliked about the film was that, while it is understated in the short story, Paul's likely homosexuality is REALLY understated in the film, almost to the point of it not mattering. And if it does is up to the reader/viewer, but at least let us make that decision.
Score: 9/10
P.S. Because I love you so, and I really want you to read it, here is a link to an online copy of "Paul's Case: A Story in Temperament" I found:
http://www.shsu.edu/~eng_wpf/authors/Cather/Pauls-Case.htm
I picked Willa Cather, an author I knew almost nothing about, other than randomly, a few years before I gave that presentation, while I was working at the library, I happened upon a book of Cather's works, picked it up, and read "Paul's Case", one of the singlemost fantastic short stories I've ever had the fortune to read. At the time, it probably resonated even more with me as I was struggling to figure out my own sexuality. For those of you who have never read it (and that's going to be most of you, I guarantee it): DO SO. Your lives will be enriched, emotionally and literarily.
To move away from the short story to talk about the film is a short step: the latter mirrors the former most nicely. As a matter of fact, at the very first seconds of the film, as we see Eric Roberts sitting outside the "principal's" office, I knew I was in for something special. Roberts is the Paul I had always envisioned. From his figure, mien, and comportment down to the way he bows, the tightening of this jaw, and the red carnation in his lapel, it was an inspired casting decision. (It probably helps that Roberts at the time was still relatively unknown, but for a role in King of the Gypsies.) The rest of the cast matters a whole lot less, because it really is all about Paul.
The subtitle of Cather's story is "A Study in Temperament", which is then elucidated for all the pages to come. Paul is somewhat enigmatic: a boy who didn't "mean to be polite or impolite, either" but merely just to say what he felt, at that time. Some of his teachers find him completely appalling, while others are intrigued. It matters not to Paul, though. All that does are the times he can appreciate what he considers the finer things. He is a lover of-- nay, verily consumed by his love for-- art, music, and high society. He ushers on weekends at a concert hall, where he is allowed to be "swept up" in opera, the symphony, and drama. He also goes backstage at a nearby theatre where he is friends to an actor and allowed to watch the performances at night. This is his life, and it's all he wants.
The rest of the story, I'll leave up to you to discover, and I'll merely tell you that the one thing I disliked about the film was that, while it is understated in the short story, Paul's likely homosexuality is REALLY understated in the film, almost to the point of it not mattering. And if it does is up to the reader/viewer, but at least let us make that decision.
Score: 9/10
P.S. Because I love you so, and I really want you to read it, here is a link to an online copy of "Paul's Case: A Story in Temperament" I found:
http://www.shsu.edu/~eng_wpf/authors/Cather/Pauls-Case.htm
#42 - La belle et la bête (1946)
Here we have our second foreign language film (the other was The Diving Bell and the Butterfly; Mala Noche doesn't count because it was mostly English with a lot of Spanish in it) of the list: the definitive live-action Beauty and the Beast, the French version, directed by Jean Cocteau. Interestingly enough, The Beast (always "The" Beast, as that is what Belle calls him, and he, to her, The Beauty) and Avenant, Belle's "suitor", were both played by the same person, Jean Marais, who was Jean Cocteau's partner for the last 25 or so years of the director's life.
There are a ton of differences between this movie and the super-popular Disney version, but the main story remains, obviously, much the same: Belle's father becomes a prisoner of the Beast and Belle takes his place; he's horrible, but she learns to love him; there is a separate faction who wants to see the best dead, and a man who wants Belle for his own. The Beast looks awesome; he's wild-looking with a wide torso, but his clothes are reminiscent of the title song scene from the animated version (the one where Angela Lansbury is singing while Belle and the Beast are dancing). The look of the movie is surprisingly good for such an old film, obviously shot with a smallish budget. Belle's sisters (yes, she has two of them) are screeching harpies (this entire relationship is very King Lear) and her brother (yes, she has one of those, too) is somewhat of a rogue who is friends with Avenant.
There is a subcontext that provides for a different reason for wanting to kill The Beast, other than Avenant's wanting Belle: the family has fallen into a bit of ruin when their merchant father's ships were lost at sea. The sisters (who banish Belle to the task of taking care of the family-- think Cinderella) are concerned most about their loss of status and wealth, so they want The Beast killed for, we presume, his money.
I love the ending and how it uses the difference between life and death (and requires the Prince that The Beast turns into to also be Marais) to its advantage. It is a great duality and one that makes a typically pat ending better than it could have been. And no, the last line of the film is not, "Do I still have to sleep in the cupboard?". Yecch.
Score: 9.5/10
There are a ton of differences between this movie and the super-popular Disney version, but the main story remains, obviously, much the same: Belle's father becomes a prisoner of the Beast and Belle takes his place; he's horrible, but she learns to love him; there is a separate faction who wants to see the best dead, and a man who wants Belle for his own. The Beast looks awesome; he's wild-looking with a wide torso, but his clothes are reminiscent of the title song scene from the animated version (the one where Angela Lansbury is singing while Belle and the Beast are dancing). The look of the movie is surprisingly good for such an old film, obviously shot with a smallish budget. Belle's sisters (yes, she has two of them) are screeching harpies (this entire relationship is very King Lear) and her brother (yes, she has one of those, too) is somewhat of a rogue who is friends with Avenant.
There is a subcontext that provides for a different reason for wanting to kill The Beast, other than Avenant's wanting Belle: the family has fallen into a bit of ruin when their merchant father's ships were lost at sea. The sisters (who banish Belle to the task of taking care of the family-- think Cinderella) are concerned most about their loss of status and wealth, so they want The Beast killed for, we presume, his money.
I love the ending and how it uses the difference between life and death (and requires the Prince that The Beast turns into to also be Marais) to its advantage. It is a great duality and one that makes a typically pat ending better than it could have been. And no, the last line of the film is not, "Do I still have to sleep in the cupboard?". Yecch.
Score: 9.5/10
#41 - Marple: Why Didn't They Ask Evans? (2009)
I'm home from work today because I got sick yesterday, got no work done, then woke up feeling just as bad. I think I'm getting better, but that's hard to say because I have alternating periods of hot flashes (menopause!) and chills. It's pretty awesome, I must say.
Now, you are all very lucky (as am I, of course) that I am still around, in my weakened condition, to give you another entry. This movie should have had a warning attached to it: In the words of "Weevil" Navarro, you "could be bored to death."
This movie was dreadfully dull. My word. And it was convoluted, too, so that even when Marple "wrapped everything up", I was like... really? Not at all satisfactory. And much of the acting was ARG! First off, where the hell is Geraldine McEwan, the real Miss Marple? She was glorious, the perfect amount of eye-winking and straightforwardness that any Christie fan loves from her popular character. This new version leaves a lot to be desired, rushing through all her lines and just standing there all the time and doing nothing. BLECH. (Btw, IMDb tells me that McEwan retired from the role two years ago. So very sad.) The daughter was exactly like every overwrought high school actress, the son was completely placid until there was some tension, so of course, he began to shake and "show nerves" by talking quickly (oh my god), and the "inspector" was blustery (big shock) and the horticulturist (yes, there was one) was odd, and the main female protagonist was "full of fire and music" (do you know the movie reference?). I was so over it. The one bright spot was Oliver Wood (the actor who played him in the Harry Potter series) who was pretty and actually perfect for his role. Agatha would have been pleased. But, really, only with him.
The movie was irksome in more ways, as well: characters appear out of nowhere-- for dramatic effect, it is to be assumed-- but under the most improbable circumstances. You mean to tell me that none of the three characters talking in a field could see the approach of the person they were talking about until he was two feet from them? Fer chrissakes. Other characters appear at doorways and on balconies as though jettisoning them into the scenery apparently au moment was the only possible way of misleading the audience or increasing suspense.
I'm sure I'll watch more Christie adaptations: I'll need to in order to right this horrible horrible wrong.
Score: 3.5/10
Now, you are all very lucky (as am I, of course) that I am still around, in my weakened condition, to give you another entry. This movie should have had a warning attached to it: In the words of "Weevil" Navarro, you "could be bored to death."
This movie was dreadfully dull. My word. And it was convoluted, too, so that even when Marple "wrapped everything up", I was like... really? Not at all satisfactory. And much of the acting was ARG! First off, where the hell is Geraldine McEwan, the real Miss Marple? She was glorious, the perfect amount of eye-winking and straightforwardness that any Christie fan loves from her popular character. This new version leaves a lot to be desired, rushing through all her lines and just standing there all the time and doing nothing. BLECH. (Btw, IMDb tells me that McEwan retired from the role two years ago. So very sad.) The daughter was exactly like every overwrought high school actress, the son was completely placid until there was some tension, so of course, he began to shake and "show nerves" by talking quickly (oh my god), and the "inspector" was blustery (big shock) and the horticulturist (yes, there was one) was odd, and the main female protagonist was "full of fire and music" (do you know the movie reference?). I was so over it. The one bright spot was Oliver Wood (the actor who played him in the Harry Potter series) who was pretty and actually perfect for his role. Agatha would have been pleased. But, really, only with him.
The movie was irksome in more ways, as well: characters appear out of nowhere-- for dramatic effect, it is to be assumed-- but under the most improbable circumstances. You mean to tell me that none of the three characters talking in a field could see the approach of the person they were talking about until he was two feet from them? Fer chrissakes. Other characters appear at doorways and on balconies as though jettisoning them into the scenery apparently au moment was the only possible way of misleading the audience or increasing suspense.
I'm sure I'll watch more Christie adaptations: I'll need to in order to right this horrible horrible wrong.
Score: 3.5/10
Saturday, February 5, 2011
#40 - Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931)
No movies yesterday, which is fine, because we went out to B-Dubs for my "birthday" dinner. Per usual, we gorged and still brought some home. Then, because of work and a glut of food, I did nothing but lounge around and read. I finished The Abstinence Teacher, a work from the author of the mediocre Election (the movie was better) and the better Little Children (though the movie was still better than the novel).
I'm going to open up this particular movie review with a little-known fact about myself: I really love the actor Fredric March. My opinion is that for a two-time Oscar winner, he doesn't get discussed enough among the pantheon of great acting. Now, up to this point, my opinion of his ability is based on the 2.5 movies I'd seen him in: Anna Karenina, the good Inherit the Wind, and the first half of The Best Years of Our Lives (a movie I was really enjoying before I had to turn it off and still haven't gotten back to...10 years later. LOL. This will be one of the 365). And, I don't mind saying, had I been living at the time, I would certainly have found him among the dreamiest of actors (though he's not exceptional looking). As it is, I have a bit of a crush on him. It's cool that he was cute 79 years ago, right?
As for the movie, it's a good thing someone as capable as March was in it, playing both parts, because he saved it from being an overwrought, melodramatic schlockfest. Also, director Rouben Mamoulian's use of POV shots, especially at the beginning of the movie, certainly seem avant garde, and, far from distracting the viewer, enhance his/her perspective. He also uses diagonals to show simultaneous scenes (think Pillow Talk, but diagonal), but does it in a way that we can appreciate the juxtaposition instead of write it off as cheesy and unnecessary.
We are treated to a very distinct Jekyll and Hyde: Jekyll (pronounced jee'-cull) is consumed by both science (and his idea that the soul can be split into two parts: the good side and the bad side) and his love for his fiancée, Muriel (who is just awful, but I digress). He has a pleasant disposition, and March imbues the character with soft smiles to accentuate the sumptuous and highfalutin dialogue the character is given. At one point, he sits on a park bench to watch a bird singing. Aww. But when the bird is mauled by a cat, Hyde emerges. This is the first time we see that Jekyll is not capable of controlling this alter ego and that it doesn't require his consuming a potion to transmogrify anymore. This, as you can imagine, leads to complication.
Hyde, on the other hand, is truly a brute. The first scene in which we witness him, he follows a pretty guttersnipe to a bar and proceeds to trip and beat his server with a cane. He then calls the woman over and thus begins her servitude to him. He beats and whips her and veritably destroys her emotionally, reading her mind and telling her her own thoughts (the devil's work, it is) and asserting his hold over her. These performances are truly the great parts of the movie. Thank goodness Mamoulian recognizes this and revolves the movie around his Oscar-winning performance, and thus saves it from intense mediocrity.
Score: 8.5/10
I'm going to open up this particular movie review with a little-known fact about myself: I really love the actor Fredric March. My opinion is that for a two-time Oscar winner, he doesn't get discussed enough among the pantheon of great acting. Now, up to this point, my opinion of his ability is based on the 2.5 movies I'd seen him in: Anna Karenina, the good Inherit the Wind, and the first half of The Best Years of Our Lives (a movie I was really enjoying before I had to turn it off and still haven't gotten back to...10 years later. LOL. This will be one of the 365). And, I don't mind saying, had I been living at the time, I would certainly have found him among the dreamiest of actors (though he's not exceptional looking). As it is, I have a bit of a crush on him. It's cool that he was cute 79 years ago, right?
As for the movie, it's a good thing someone as capable as March was in it, playing both parts, because he saved it from being an overwrought, melodramatic schlockfest. Also, director Rouben Mamoulian's use of POV shots, especially at the beginning of the movie, certainly seem avant garde, and, far from distracting the viewer, enhance his/her perspective. He also uses diagonals to show simultaneous scenes (think Pillow Talk, but diagonal), but does it in a way that we can appreciate the juxtaposition instead of write it off as cheesy and unnecessary.
We are treated to a very distinct Jekyll and Hyde: Jekyll (pronounced jee'-cull) is consumed by both science (and his idea that the soul can be split into two parts: the good side and the bad side) and his love for his fiancée, Muriel (who is just awful, but I digress). He has a pleasant disposition, and March imbues the character with soft smiles to accentuate the sumptuous and highfalutin dialogue the character is given. At one point, he sits on a park bench to watch a bird singing. Aww. But when the bird is mauled by a cat, Hyde emerges. This is the first time we see that Jekyll is not capable of controlling this alter ego and that it doesn't require his consuming a potion to transmogrify anymore. This, as you can imagine, leads to complication.
Hyde, on the other hand, is truly a brute. The first scene in which we witness him, he follows a pretty guttersnipe to a bar and proceeds to trip and beat his server with a cane. He then calls the woman over and thus begins her servitude to him. He beats and whips her and veritably destroys her emotionally, reading her mind and telling her her own thoughts (the devil's work, it is) and asserting his hold over her. These performances are truly the great parts of the movie. Thank goodness Mamoulian recognizes this and revolves the movie around his Oscar-winning performance, and thus saves it from intense mediocrity.
Score: 8.5/10
Thursday, February 3, 2011
#39 - What's Up, Tiger Lily? (1966)
A young Woody Allen's directorial debut, What's Up, Tiger Lily? is certainly a unique experience: Allen found a terrible Japanese con movie, removed the entire soundtrack and all the dialogue, and replaced it with his own. The new premise: three different people are on a very dangerous search mission to own a top-secret egg salad recipe. Hilarity ensues.
What makes the movie work so well is that the source material (the Japanese film sans soundtrack) is awful. At one point, the movie stops and a man asks Allen if he can explain what's going on because it's a little hard to awful. That's an understatement. There are so many characters who have absolutely no discernible purpose in the film. One man at one point throws what looks like an oxygen tank full of pink smoke down a boat hatch. It makes even less sense as you're watching the film. There's also a guest appearance by The Lovin' Spoonful. I'll have to get back to you on that, too.
P.S. The real premise of the movie seems to be the retrieval of some sort of secret code. Maybe. This is also open to discussion and I will hear all sides.
The actual film, the Allen film, is a bit like MST3K, but with the jokes built in. There are parts that had me rolling ("20...30...40..." "Are you going to go through the entire alphabet"?) but some are very hollow and don't ring like they've held up well. A quick glance at IMDb tells me that there may be more than one version of the film, perhaps an older version that was funnier, and a newer DVD version with some obvious changes that isn't quite as good. I couldn't tell you which one I watched, but it certainly was absurd.
This is not one I believe I'd ever watch again (especially since there's a good 35+ other Allen movies I'd like to get to), but at least it was, for the most part, enjoyable.
Score: 7/10
What makes the movie work so well is that the source material (the Japanese film sans soundtrack) is awful. At one point, the movie stops and a man asks Allen if he can explain what's going on because it's a little hard to awful. That's an understatement. There are so many characters who have absolutely no discernible purpose in the film. One man at one point throws what looks like an oxygen tank full of pink smoke down a boat hatch. It makes even less sense as you're watching the film. There's also a guest appearance by The Lovin' Spoonful. I'll have to get back to you on that, too.
P.S. The real premise of the movie seems to be the retrieval of some sort of secret code. Maybe. This is also open to discussion and I will hear all sides.
The actual film, the Allen film, is a bit like MST3K, but with the jokes built in. There are parts that had me rolling ("20...30...40..." "Are you going to go through the entire alphabet"?) but some are very hollow and don't ring like they've held up well. A quick glance at IMDb tells me that there may be more than one version of the film, perhaps an older version that was funnier, and a newer DVD version with some obvious changes that isn't quite as good. I couldn't tell you which one I watched, but it certainly was absurd.
This is not one I believe I'd ever watch again (especially since there's a good 35+ other Allen movies I'd like to get to), but at least it was, for the most part, enjoyable.
Score: 7/10
#38 - Wall-E (2008)
In my previous post, I mentioned that this was also a movie I've seen before. But unlike the previous film, this is an absolutely amazing film. I love how the main love story (between two robots, no less) is set against a backdrop of bleakness and trash, and yet this juxtaposition of ideas is completely at heart with the story. PIXAR really took a chance with this film and its startling lack of dialogue, interspersed with pieces of two songs from the musical Hello, Dolly (certainly not in the knowledge of a large percentage of its viewership).
The result: a timeless animated movie that is just as much a bitter attack on those who would, through selfishness, see our planet fall into irrevocable disrepair, as it is a hopeful love story about beings from "opposite sides of the tracks". In addition, there is a hopeful community ready to rebound against the insolence of the past. I can't possibly say more. A lovely film that any true movie lover should be able to appreciate.
Score: 10/10
The result: a timeless animated movie that is just as much a bitter attack on those who would, through selfishness, see our planet fall into irrevocable disrepair, as it is a hopeful love story about beings from "opposite sides of the tracks". In addition, there is a hopeful community ready to rebound against the insolence of the past. I can't possibly say more. A lovely film that any true movie lover should be able to appreciate.
Score: 10/10
#37 - Up (2009)
A quick word: at the start of this blog, I did say that I would allow myself to count movies that I've never seen before. (#38 will also fit into this category.) A couple reasons for this: I didn't want to have to preclude myself from viewings of movies (especially with friends) that I've seen before; and, there are some movies that I watch about once a year. Frankly, my goal is lofty enough as it is without adding in a whole lot of stipulations. (Though all 365 movies will, at least, be different). I'm planning a trip out to Kalamazoo in a few weeks' time, and one of the things we're going to do is have an awesomely-bad movie viewing party with lots of cheese and other goodies. Troll 2 was one of those, but the next one will be a movie I have actually seen a few times before, and it is horrendous and awesome all at the same time.
This leads me to my newest selection: Up. To know me is to know my deep, abiding love of all things PIXAR. I have seen all 11 movies, anywhere between once (A Bug's Life) and at least 25 times (Toy Story), and they're all marvelous. That being said, Up was a rare blip in the PIXAR discography to me. I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous feature (Wall-E), or the succeeding (Toy Story 3), and thought it, somehow, despite how much everyone loved it, just a tad above mediocre.
Visually, it's gorgeous, of course, the animation among the very best the industry has to offer, and the story is cute, but it rather stops there. The visual gags and witticisms so prevalent in many of the earlier features are less present here. Take out Dug (Doug?) and you have almost none at all. There is the underlying, heartwarming story, and yes, the six-minute-or-so montage of the Fredericks is nice, but I didn't tear up the way every one else seemed to. (And I'm certainly not devoid of emotion.) Russell is a capable-- but not extraordinary-- sidekick, Ed Asner as the curmudgeonly octogenarian is rather limited (fully admitting he is a round character nonetheless), Christopher Plummer as Charles Muntz, the villain, is... was he in it at all? Half the movie had gone by before that conflict kicked in at all.
I'm being overly critical here, I'm sure, and nitpicking a bit, but guys, this is out of love. PIXAR stirs my emotions like few films are ever capable of doing, and the fact that I only moderately enjoyed this movie is a testament to how, in at least my eyes, it's not that special. I watched it again to give it another chance (and I will do so again in the future, I'm quite sure), and came away with the same feeling: that was nice, but I guess I don't get why it makes people pee their pants in excitement. Maybe one day I'll grow a heart and figure it out.
Score: 8/10
This leads me to my newest selection: Up. To know me is to know my deep, abiding love of all things PIXAR. I have seen all 11 movies, anywhere between once (A Bug's Life) and at least 25 times (Toy Story), and they're all marvelous. That being said, Up was a rare blip in the PIXAR discography to me. I didn't enjoy it as much as the previous feature (Wall-E), or the succeeding (Toy Story 3), and thought it, somehow, despite how much everyone loved it, just a tad above mediocre.
Visually, it's gorgeous, of course, the animation among the very best the industry has to offer, and the story is cute, but it rather stops there. The visual gags and witticisms so prevalent in many of the earlier features are less present here. Take out Dug (Doug?) and you have almost none at all. There is the underlying, heartwarming story, and yes, the six-minute-or-so montage of the Fredericks is nice, but I didn't tear up the way every one else seemed to. (And I'm certainly not devoid of emotion.) Russell is a capable-- but not extraordinary-- sidekick, Ed Asner as the curmudgeonly octogenarian is rather limited (fully admitting he is a round character nonetheless), Christopher Plummer as Charles Muntz, the villain, is... was he in it at all? Half the movie had gone by before that conflict kicked in at all.
I'm being overly critical here, I'm sure, and nitpicking a bit, but guys, this is out of love. PIXAR stirs my emotions like few films are ever capable of doing, and the fact that I only moderately enjoyed this movie is a testament to how, in at least my eyes, it's not that special. I watched it again to give it another chance (and I will do so again in the future, I'm quite sure), and came away with the same feeling: that was nice, but I guess I don't get why it makes people pee their pants in excitement. Maybe one day I'll grow a heart and figure it out.
Score: 8/10
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
#36 - Mala Noche (1986)
Snow day movie #3!
It's a little difficult to type this entry, because my thumbs are breaking open again, so I've got steroid cream on them and I don't want it to get all over my keyboard (okay, the space bar, since that's the only button I hit with my thumbs, but still), but I'm still going to try to hash out what I just watched.
A little background: I added several Criterion Collection features to my Netflix queue, since many of the titles from this most prestigious collection are interesting or important or exceptional, often in ways different from many other aspects of filmmaking. Mala Noche fits into the category of "Okay, I guess..." as opposed to what I would constitute as exceptional filmmaking. (See also: Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom)
Truthfully, though, the direction of gay director Gus van Sant (he of Good Will Hunting and Milk fame, as well as the vomit-inducing Psycho remake, but we won't discuss this...) and the movie's cinematography is by far the best part of the movie. The film is autobiographical, taken from a story by the protagonist that centers on his lovelust for a young Mexican immigrant who does not deign respond to his "advances" but nonetheless becomes a sort of acquaintaincefriend. No, that's not a word, but I find it quite an exact sentiment.
Van Sant captures the city, the poorer quarters, and the actors in the correct light always. Our protagonist is not a perfect creature, and he lives far from a perfect life. He is by no means wealthy, though he is consistently employed, and many of the interactions between himself and his "friends" happen in the store where he is a clerk. His lack of money is evinced early on when he offers the friends of his lust 15 dollars to sleep with him (though he admits he wishes he had 100). We believe all that happens and all that we see to be true because of the semi-grittiness of the decor/scene. We cannot believe much of the acting, as it is pretty bad. I have a hard time choosing exactly how I feel about the framing device of the protagonist speaking, much as though he's writing in a diary. The vocals sound forced, contrived, and full of irresponsibility, but his character might just be a little like that, too. He doesn't always make the best decisions, and by the end, the viewer is really left to wonder if he is happy, or even alright with everything that has happened.
Despite my inability to decide exactly how much of what happened in the movie is believable or not, it's something I know I will be able to ruminate on. It is unlikely, however, that I'd watch the movie again. I'm happy with the images and the good that stuck with me, and I have no desire to sit through the bad again. Anyone who wants to know more, just ask. At this point, I'm even torn between feeling that I'm not doing this movie justice and that I'm giving it too much credit. Hmmm.
Score: 6.5/10
It's a little difficult to type this entry, because my thumbs are breaking open again, so I've got steroid cream on them and I don't want it to get all over my keyboard (okay, the space bar, since that's the only button I hit with my thumbs, but still), but I'm still going to try to hash out what I just watched.
A little background: I added several Criterion Collection features to my Netflix queue, since many of the titles from this most prestigious collection are interesting or important or exceptional, often in ways different from many other aspects of filmmaking. Mala Noche fits into the category of "Okay, I guess..." as opposed to what I would constitute as exceptional filmmaking. (See also: Salò, or the 120 Days of Sodom)
Truthfully, though, the direction of gay director Gus van Sant (he of Good Will Hunting and Milk fame, as well as the vomit-inducing Psycho remake, but we won't discuss this...) and the movie's cinematography is by far the best part of the movie. The film is autobiographical, taken from a story by the protagonist that centers on his lovelust for a young Mexican immigrant who does not deign respond to his "advances" but nonetheless becomes a sort of acquaintaincefriend. No, that's not a word, but I find it quite an exact sentiment.
Van Sant captures the city, the poorer quarters, and the actors in the correct light always. Our protagonist is not a perfect creature, and he lives far from a perfect life. He is by no means wealthy, though he is consistently employed, and many of the interactions between himself and his "friends" happen in the store where he is a clerk. His lack of money is evinced early on when he offers the friends of his lust 15 dollars to sleep with him (though he admits he wishes he had 100). We believe all that happens and all that we see to be true because of the semi-grittiness of the decor/scene. We cannot believe much of the acting, as it is pretty bad. I have a hard time choosing exactly how I feel about the framing device of the protagonist speaking, much as though he's writing in a diary. The vocals sound forced, contrived, and full of irresponsibility, but his character might just be a little like that, too. He doesn't always make the best decisions, and by the end, the viewer is really left to wonder if he is happy, or even alright with everything that has happened.
Despite my inability to decide exactly how much of what happened in the movie is believable or not, it's something I know I will be able to ruminate on. It is unlikely, however, that I'd watch the movie again. I'm happy with the images and the good that stuck with me, and I have no desire to sit through the bad again. Anyone who wants to know more, just ask. At this point, I'm even torn between feeling that I'm not doing this movie justice and that I'm giving it too much credit. Hmmm.
Score: 6.5/10
#35 - Charade (1963)
Snow day movie #2!
But since we didn't get nearly as much snow as they'd said we would, I'm pretty sure this is the only day off we're going to get, so I have to get some major relaxation in today :) My condolences to all of you who did get hit as badly as they forecasted. The only reason I'm not abhorring the snow right now is because my neighbor with a snow plow did our walk and I got the day off. The first moment I have to drive in this junk, I'll be pissed off, too.
I love Audrey Hepburn and think Cary Grant is pretty great, too, so this movie has been on my radar (ever since The Truth About Charlie came out in 2002 or 3 or something and I heard it was terrible, but the movie it was based on was very popular in its day. And good. Charade is a movie by Stanley Donen, the director of Singin' in the Rain. A thoroughly enjoyable movie.
One of the things I most appreciated about the film was its script and its witty dialogue. There are some genuinely funny, and at times, quite raunchy, parts. Among the best was a scene where several people at a club are formed into two teams, and the object is to pass an apple or an orange down the line of team members without using their hands. The fruit starts nestled between the chin and neck. There's an awful lot of quasi-frottage going on in this scene. LOL.
There are identity issues abound throughout the film, but handled under Donen's skilled hand (as well as that of screenwriter Peter Stone, who also wrote one of my favorite crappy movies, Who's Killing All the Great Chefs of Europe? in addition to one of my all-time favorite feelgood films, Father Goose, also with Cary Grant, but Leslie Caron this time), the movie is a marvel. Shyamalan, take a hint.
Score: 8.5/10
But since we didn't get nearly as much snow as they'd said we would, I'm pretty sure this is the only day off we're going to get, so I have to get some major relaxation in today :) My condolences to all of you who did get hit as badly as they forecasted. The only reason I'm not abhorring the snow right now is because my neighbor with a snow plow did our walk and I got the day off. The first moment I have to drive in this junk, I'll be pissed off, too.
I love Audrey Hepburn and think Cary Grant is pretty great, too, so this movie has been on my radar (ever since The Truth About Charlie came out in 2002 or 3 or something and I heard it was terrible, but the movie it was based on was very popular in its day. And good. Charade is a movie by Stanley Donen, the director of Singin' in the Rain. A thoroughly enjoyable movie.
One of the things I most appreciated about the film was its script and its witty dialogue. There are some genuinely funny, and at times, quite raunchy, parts. Among the best was a scene where several people at a club are formed into two teams, and the object is to pass an apple or an orange down the line of team members without using their hands. The fruit starts nestled between the chin and neck. There's an awful lot of quasi-frottage going on in this scene. LOL.
There are identity issues abound throughout the film, but handled under Donen's skilled hand (as well as that of screenwriter Peter Stone, who also wrote one of my favorite crappy movies, Who's Killing All the Great Chefs of Europe? in addition to one of my all-time favorite feelgood films, Father Goose, also with Cary Grant, but Leslie Caron this time), the movie is a marvel. Shyamalan, take a hint.
Score: 8.5/10
#34 - Cat Among the Pigeons - Agatha Christie's Poirot (2008)
Like MST3K, this is technically an episode of a TV Series (Agatha Christie's Poirot), but as it's a feature-length presentation that's virtually a made-for-TV movie/miniseries. So it counts.
Today's installment is similar to all the other episodes of the show I've seen: David Suchet is marvelous as Poirot (Christie's renown Belgian detective), and most of the other acting varies between mildly atrocious to pretty amusing to actually quite good. In this case, the role of Bulstrode (I kept thinking of Millicent Bulstrode, lol) the headmistress at the girls' school was played by Harriet Walter, who has had bit parts in many movies in the last several years, including Babel and The Young Victoria. Others, like the French teacher, the nosy games mistress, and the detective-cum-gardener, likely fall into the category of "knows somebody who..."
Also like most Christie mysteries, the story is somewhat convoluted, full of red herrings and apparent holes, until the detective neatly ties everything up at the end. And, like the novels themselves, all the evidence was actually there. I almost had it this time. I had my suspicion, but couldn't put it all together. Poirot, did, though. There were some pretty neat and opportune deaths, too: death by javelin, for example. Though the angle of the impalement was all wrong. Thanks, CSI.
Next week, there's a Miss Marple episode that I'll probably watch, too, so stay tuned for Why Didn't They Ask Evans?. I'm glad I've seen so few of these; I'll be able to count more.
Score: 8.0
Today's installment is similar to all the other episodes of the show I've seen: David Suchet is marvelous as Poirot (Christie's renown Belgian detective), and most of the other acting varies between mildly atrocious to pretty amusing to actually quite good. In this case, the role of Bulstrode (I kept thinking of Millicent Bulstrode, lol) the headmistress at the girls' school was played by Harriet Walter, who has had bit parts in many movies in the last several years, including Babel and The Young Victoria. Others, like the French teacher, the nosy games mistress, and the detective-cum-gardener, likely fall into the category of "knows somebody who..."
Also like most Christie mysteries, the story is somewhat convoluted, full of red herrings and apparent holes, until the detective neatly ties everything up at the end. And, like the novels themselves, all the evidence was actually there. I almost had it this time. I had my suspicion, but couldn't put it all together. Poirot, did, though. There were some pretty neat and opportune deaths, too: death by javelin, for example. Though the angle of the impalement was all wrong. Thanks, CSI.
Next week, there's a Miss Marple episode that I'll probably watch, too, so stay tuned for Why Didn't They Ask Evans?. I'm glad I've seen so few of these; I'll be able to count more.
Score: 8.0
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
#33 - Zombie Nightmare - MST3K (1986)
Snow day tomorrow, what?! Haha. I'm planning on watching several movies tomorrow, but Matt and I wanted to watch a terrible movie and make fun of it, so we chose Zombie Nightmare starring Adam West and Tia Carrere. Already awesome.
We're just minutes into it before the plot starts improbably: there's a knifing in Canada. There's no crime in rural Canada, so this must be fiction. There's also a voodoo priestess and violent hooligan teenagers. Also fiction. Then the son of the man who was killed in the beginning is run over by a car by the hooligans. This is proceeded by about seven minutes of the voodoo priestess apparently reviving the second victim so that he could exact revenge on his killer(s). Oh yeah, this is an Oscar-winning script. And did I mention the heavy metal soundtrack that comes in and goes out at random times? Hell yes!
Hey, there's a really awesome tennis scene!
Also, probably the best ever baseball bat-wielding zombie with what looked like a broken ankle chasing a "briskly jogging" girl scene.
Wow, we actually have the worst actors in the movie in the coroner and the lead police officers. And that's saying something, considering the voodoo priestess, hooligans, and, well, everyone else in the movie.
The ice cream place is called, you guessed it, the Twist & Crème. A Google search tells me that there actually is a Twist et Crème in Pierrefonds, Québec. Probably the same one. You Québecois and your funny names for things.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable affair with the MST3K cast (with Mike Nelson).
Movie: 2/10
w/MST3K: 8.5/10
We're just minutes into it before the plot starts improbably: there's a knifing in Canada. There's no crime in rural Canada, so this must be fiction. There's also a voodoo priestess and violent hooligan teenagers. Also fiction. Then the son of the man who was killed in the beginning is run over by a car by the hooligans. This is proceeded by about seven minutes of the voodoo priestess apparently reviving the second victim so that he could exact revenge on his killer(s). Oh yeah, this is an Oscar-winning script. And did I mention the heavy metal soundtrack that comes in and goes out at random times? Hell yes!
Hey, there's a really awesome tennis scene!
Also, probably the best ever baseball bat-wielding zombie with what looked like a broken ankle chasing a "briskly jogging" girl scene.
Wow, we actually have the worst actors in the movie in the coroner and the lead police officers. And that's saying something, considering the voodoo priestess, hooligans, and, well, everyone else in the movie.
The ice cream place is called, you guessed it, the Twist & Crème. A Google search tells me that there actually is a Twist et Crème in Pierrefonds, Québec. Probably the same one. You Québecois and your funny names for things.
All in all, a thoroughly enjoyable affair with the MST3K cast (with Mike Nelson).
Movie: 2/10
w/MST3K: 8.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)