Today is the last day of the month, but in terms of the whole year, after tomorrow, the year (and thus the blog) will be one-quarter over. And what a ninety days it's been! Over the next couple of days, I will be publishing a short list of statistics about the blog as a whole (visitors, the movies, actors, etc.) that I hope you find interesting.
A very short write-up today, as I wanted to watch a film to stay close to my goal, but definitely have to get to sleep. I felt like a little Hitchcock today, so I watched one of his early, British films, The 39 Steps, which one can gather is some sort of secret counter-intelligence group. very early on, Robert Donat learns this from a woman who is subsequently killed, so he tries to solve the case she was trying to complete, while proving his own innocence in her death. Good stuff, but still falls near the bottom of Hitchcock films, as I've seen them. Donat, especially, is terrific. (What a surprise.)
Score: 8/10
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
#88 - Juno (2007)
Okay, so I decided, after I made the decision to re-watch Up in the Air that I'd make it a Jason Reitman duo and finally watch Juno, a movie I just never happened to get around to, despite its Oscar for Best Original Screenplay, positive press, and the adoration of a lot of my friends. So let's dive in!
Okay, Diablo Cody's screenplay Oscar must not have been for the dialogue, which comes across as completely perforated and unbelievably. Truth be told, I was rolling my eyes during the initial phone conversation between newly-pregnant Juno and her BFF. Phuket, Thailand? Really? Not to mention, the "Ph" is not a diphthong in the pronunciation of the city. Then Juno pulls out "cavalier" and "fo shizz" within seconds of one another, which while not completely out of the realm of possibility, when combined with talking on her hamburger phone, drinking a gallon of Sunny D, and transporting a living room set to the front lawn of her baby daddy's house so that when he egresses, she, smoking a pipe, and sitting in an armchair next to a lamp and a tiger rug, is the first thing he sees, is obviously trying way too hard. "Hey, everybody, look how quirky Juno is! She marches to her own drummer!! She's a total original, just like her character writer Diablo Cody!!!"
The whole movie's not a waste, though. Allison Janney is terrific (as usual) as Juno's stepmother, JK Simmons tones down his curmudgeonliness enough to be more than just tolerable, Jennifer Garner is the perfect foil for Page's rock-solidness as the would-be adopter, andMichael Bluth Jason Bateman is good as her husband, but honestly, could they have given him a stupider job (that shows up stupidly from time to time)?
As long as I'm talking about characters, it really irritates me that Juno is at all times the "heroine" of this movie. Wait, did we watch the same movie? Juno is often unapologetic, unnecessarily crude, and kind of a bitch. Pregnancy is not the big excuse this movie seems to be making itself out to be. But it's all okay because she's carrying an oops.
BTW, 100 things of Tic-Tacs = at least 50 bucks. It's a cute sentiment, though. (Except it's really lame and just one example of the plot being so contrived as to be cloying. I mean, seriously, enough is enough is enough.)
Yup, it's overblown, unrealistic, and unpolished. I guess I understand the appeal, but frankly, if I want some Ellen Page action, I'll go watch Inception. Or even Hard Candy.
Oh, and one final word: the score = blech. Individual songs were sometimes okay, but the score was so intrusive that it was all I could focus on at many points of the movie.
Score: 6/10
Okay, Diablo Cody's screenplay Oscar must not have been for the dialogue, which comes across as completely perforated and unbelievably. Truth be told, I was rolling my eyes during the initial phone conversation between newly-pregnant Juno and her BFF. Phuket, Thailand? Really? Not to mention, the "Ph" is not a diphthong in the pronunciation of the city. Then Juno pulls out "cavalier" and "fo shizz" within seconds of one another, which while not completely out of the realm of possibility, when combined with talking on her hamburger phone, drinking a gallon of Sunny D, and transporting a living room set to the front lawn of her baby daddy's house so that when he egresses, she, smoking a pipe, and sitting in an armchair next to a lamp and a tiger rug, is the first thing he sees, is obviously trying way too hard. "Hey, everybody, look how quirky Juno is! She marches to her own drummer!! She's a total original, just like her character writer Diablo Cody!!!"
The whole movie's not a waste, though. Allison Janney is terrific (as usual) as Juno's stepmother, JK Simmons tones down his curmudgeonliness enough to be more than just tolerable, Jennifer Garner is the perfect foil for Page's rock-solidness as the would-be adopter, and
As long as I'm talking about characters, it really irritates me that Juno is at all times the "heroine" of this movie. Wait, did we watch the same movie? Juno is often unapologetic, unnecessarily crude, and kind of a bitch. Pregnancy is not the big excuse this movie seems to be making itself out to be. But it's all okay because she's carrying an oops.
BTW, 100 things of Tic-Tacs = at least 50 bucks. It's a cute sentiment, though. (Except it's really lame and just one example of the plot being so contrived as to be cloying. I mean, seriously, enough is enough is enough.)
Yup, it's overblown, unrealistic, and unpolished. I guess I understand the appeal, but frankly, if I want some Ellen Page action, I'll go watch Inception. Or even Hard Candy.
Oh, and one final word: the score = blech. Individual songs were sometimes okay, but the score was so intrusive that it was all I could focus on at many points of the movie.
Score: 6/10
#87 - Up in the Air (2009)
My girls had their first tennis match of the season last night and even though we got destroyed by a very good team, the girls had, for the most part, a good outing. (In spite of the 38 degree weather....) On my lunch break today, I wanted to get out of the building, so I drove around a bit, got some lunch, and found myself at a used bookstore, browsing. This is actually the inspiration for my movie idea today.
I found a copy of Walter Kirn's Up in the Air for 96 cents (I bought it. Raise your hand if you saw that coming...) and it reminded me of how badly I've wanted to re-watch the movie based on it. I first saw the film with some of my family and friends at the theatre and we all knew we were seeing something special.
Time to see if my favorite movie of 2009 holds up another viewing.
Beyond the great acting (George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick all give excellent, Oscar-nominated performances) and the excellent direction, there is a heart to the story that warms and mystifies simultaneously, asking the viewer to believe Clooney's life choices and accept the circumstances surrounding him. We are entreated to admire and cheer for the relationship between Farmiga and him, and we are astounded that Twilight star Anna Kendrick can make us laugh and cheer and yet, sometimes, sort of despise who she is, what with her life goals and personal philosophies.
Clooney is a loner; he doesn't cultivate relationships. As he tells us his story very early on, we are not surprised that airport terminals and hotel suites are more comfortable to him than his austerely furnished Omaha apartment. Who needs beauty and comfort when you only spend 50 days a year there, right? And yet he finds himself in the divergent paths of these two women, and we can love the nuances of their relationships. And what's more, despite his proposed self-alienation, we believe it all. Everything is crafted so seamlessly that the movie feels as though its unaware of its own power. This is not a movie of ersatz contrivances, this is a film of depth and logic (and illogic) and, God forbid, actual human beings in actual human situations. It's a true masterpiece, and as such, it deserves so rightly only the third of my blog's
Score: 10/10
P.S. Look for another post today that is related to this one, in a way, of a movie I haven't seen yet. That part will surprise some people, no doubt.
I found a copy of Walter Kirn's Up in the Air for 96 cents (I bought it. Raise your hand if you saw that coming...) and it reminded me of how badly I've wanted to re-watch the movie based on it. I first saw the film with some of my family and friends at the theatre and we all knew we were seeing something special.
Time to see if my favorite movie of 2009 holds up another viewing.
Beyond the great acting (George Clooney, Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick all give excellent, Oscar-nominated performances) and the excellent direction, there is a heart to the story that warms and mystifies simultaneously, asking the viewer to believe Clooney's life choices and accept the circumstances surrounding him. We are entreated to admire and cheer for the relationship between Farmiga and him, and we are astounded that Twilight star Anna Kendrick can make us laugh and cheer and yet, sometimes, sort of despise who she is, what with her life goals and personal philosophies.
Clooney is a loner; he doesn't cultivate relationships. As he tells us his story very early on, we are not surprised that airport terminals and hotel suites are more comfortable to him than his austerely furnished Omaha apartment. Who needs beauty and comfort when you only spend 50 days a year there, right? And yet he finds himself in the divergent paths of these two women, and we can love the nuances of their relationships. And what's more, despite his proposed self-alienation, we believe it all. Everything is crafted so seamlessly that the movie feels as though its unaware of its own power. This is not a movie of ersatz contrivances, this is a film of depth and logic (and illogic) and, God forbid, actual human beings in actual human situations. It's a true masterpiece, and as such, it deserves so rightly only the third of my blog's
Score: 10/10
P.S. Look for another post today that is related to this one, in a way, of a movie I haven't seen yet. That part will surprise some people, no doubt.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
#86 - Manhattan Murder Mystery (1993)
Today's been a good, lazy day. Planning for this week's classes (not really that big a deal, the week before Spring Break begins) happened in the middle of watching movies and tennis, and eating. Despite the fact that it was a good day, it does bother me just a little bit that I was able to summarize the entirety of the day in about 17 words.
I must really love Woody Allen. Or mysteries. Or the both. This is my third Allen movie on the list and I'm planning a few more, as well, including re-watching Match Point, a movie I've had an urge to see again for awhile now. Thankfully, however, this picture is very different from the previous two: Interiors was a classic Allen talky about a dysfunctional family, What's Up, Tiger Lily? was pure intelligence taking a swing at terrible movies for a decidedly campy feel, and Manhattan Murder Mystery splits the difference. It is unbelievably light, even in its most tense moments, and is incredibly droll, even for an Allen comedy.
Its beginning is simple enough: Allen is a somewhat neurotic New Yorker married to someone completely out of his league (in this case, Diane Keaton) and they talk talk talk and meet their neighbors, a charming older couple, and with them they talk talk talk, but the twist comes soon enough: the wife in the couple dies of a coronary and Keaton is immediately suspicious, since they spent the whole previous night talking about how healthy she was. Enter amateur detective Keaton, abetted by her friend played by Alan Alda, who decides to get to the bottom of what she supposes is actually a murder.
Allen initially boohoos the whole idea, but his neuroses lead him to think that more is going on between his wife and Alda, so he decides to assist in the "investigation". Let's bring Anjelica Huston into the fold as well, as a witty and upper-crust author whose editor is Allen, and make it a plot square when Keaton thinks something is going on with her and her husband. Fast forward to a lot of following the widowed husband around, inventing wild accusations and possibilities, and watching the whole situation comically unravel to its ending.
When I saw that this film was made in 1993, I was a little worried, since it preceded a very good Mighty Aphrodite and a fantastic Bullets over Broadway ("Don't speak.") and has a lot to live up to from that era. This movie falls squarely between the two (it's not as funny as BoB and doesn't have quite the heart of MA, but the overall effect is grander than MA) and ably toes the line between intellectual comedy and procedural dramatic mystery.
Score: 9/10
I must really love Woody Allen. Or mysteries. Or the both. This is my third Allen movie on the list and I'm planning a few more, as well, including re-watching Match Point, a movie I've had an urge to see again for awhile now. Thankfully, however, this picture is very different from the previous two: Interiors was a classic Allen talky about a dysfunctional family, What's Up, Tiger Lily? was pure intelligence taking a swing at terrible movies for a decidedly campy feel, and Manhattan Murder Mystery splits the difference. It is unbelievably light, even in its most tense moments, and is incredibly droll, even for an Allen comedy.
Its beginning is simple enough: Allen is a somewhat neurotic New Yorker married to someone completely out of his league (in this case, Diane Keaton) and they talk talk talk and meet their neighbors, a charming older couple, and with them they talk talk talk, but the twist comes soon enough: the wife in the couple dies of a coronary and Keaton is immediately suspicious, since they spent the whole previous night talking about how healthy she was. Enter amateur detective Keaton, abetted by her friend played by Alan Alda, who decides to get to the bottom of what she supposes is actually a murder.
Allen initially boohoos the whole idea, but his neuroses lead him to think that more is going on between his wife and Alda, so he decides to assist in the "investigation". Let's bring Anjelica Huston into the fold as well, as a witty and upper-crust author whose editor is Allen, and make it a plot square when Keaton thinks something is going on with her and her husband. Fast forward to a lot of following the widowed husband around, inventing wild accusations and possibilities, and watching the whole situation comically unravel to its ending.
When I saw that this film was made in 1993, I was a little worried, since it preceded a very good Mighty Aphrodite and a fantastic Bullets over Broadway ("Don't speak.") and has a lot to live up to from that era. This movie falls squarely between the two (it's not as funny as BoB and doesn't have quite the heart of MA, but the overall effect is grander than MA) and ably toes the line between intellectual comedy and procedural dramatic mystery.
Score: 9/10
#85 - Platoon (1986)
I knew I was going to have to watch this movie sometime this year (hopefully) because it is one of the Academy Awards' Best Picture winners, and one of my goals-within-a-goal is to watch as many of the ones I haven't seen as I can. The reason I decided on this one today is that its license for streaming from Netflix is up at the end of the month (as are several Woody Allen films that must have been some sort of package deal), so it was either watch it this week or wait even longer until I feel like putting the DVD in the queue.
I know absolutely nothing about this film (save the iconic image from the ad box) and that Tom Berenger and Charlie Sheen (MOG.) were in it. Pretty excited to see Willem Dafoe among the main names, too, since he's pretty awesome. Oh yeah, and it's like, a war movie, or something.
The framing device for this specific war movie seems to be Charlie Sheen dictating to his grandma detailing the people in his camp and the day-to-day realities of the group. It's believable enough, what with all the correspondence that happens during the war.
Oh my goodness, Golden Girls sighting! The lieutenant is the actor who played Blanche's husband's illegitimate child with another woman. Haha. His name was David, and the episode title was "An Illegitimate Concern." Yes, I know way too much about The Golden Girls.
Platoon is a good example of a what's-right-what's-wrong war movie that challenges the viewers conceptions of what the "normal" human being would do in the most trying of circumstances. The acting is fairly believable - Dafoe and Berenger are excellent, and Sheen is pretty good, too. (Johnny Depp, Forest Whitaker, and John C. McGinley have minor roles, as well.) The story is even and suspenseful in the right places, and it focuses most ably on the human condition. What started out to me as a typical war movie became more archetypal. Think Jarhead, with action. Of course, when I finally see Saving Private Ryan, that'll leap to the head of the class, but that's for another day.
Score: 8.5/10
I know absolutely nothing about this film (save the iconic image from the ad box) and that Tom Berenger and Charlie Sheen (MOG.) were in it. Pretty excited to see Willem Dafoe among the main names, too, since he's pretty awesome. Oh yeah, and it's like, a war movie, or something.
The framing device for this specific war movie seems to be Charlie Sheen dictating to his grandma detailing the people in his camp and the day-to-day realities of the group. It's believable enough, what with all the correspondence that happens during the war.
Oh my goodness, Golden Girls sighting! The lieutenant is the actor who played Blanche's husband's illegitimate child with another woman. Haha. His name was David, and the episode title was "An Illegitimate Concern." Yes, I know way too much about The Golden Girls.
Platoon is a good example of a what's-right-what's-wrong war movie that challenges the viewers conceptions of what the "normal" human being would do in the most trying of circumstances. The acting is fairly believable - Dafoe and Berenger are excellent, and Sheen is pretty good, too. (Johnny Depp, Forest Whitaker, and John C. McGinley have minor roles, as well.) The story is even and suspenseful in the right places, and it focuses most ably on the human condition. What started out to me as a typical war movie became more archetypal. Think Jarhead, with action. Of course, when I finally see Saving Private Ryan, that'll leap to the head of the class, but that's for another day.
Score: 8.5/10
Saturday, March 26, 2011
#84 - Suddenly, Last Summer (1959)
I'm very excited to be blogging to you from the home of Erika and Parviz Movahedan (the fourth different location from which I've written entries) as we bring you a form of "intermingling" blog. Since mine is a movie blog focusing mostly on those I've not yet seen, and hers is an homage to the work of the inimitable Katharine Hepburn, it only makes sense that we should, at times, get together for a mutually beneficial movie viewing from time to time.
In Suddenly, Last Summer, Hepburn plays the mother of a young man whose death is the reference of the movie title. Hepburn's niece is played by Elizabeth Taylor, who is in a mental institution based on her part in the suddenness of last summer. Erika had actually DVRed this movie prior to Liz Taylor's recent death, so it only seemed fitting to watch this film as a combined tribute to the now-lost geniuses of Hepburn and Taylor.
And what a tribute to Hepburn. Most of the first 30 minutes are a completely open-ended (it may as well had been un-directed) "Go ahead, do what you do best, Kate" series of shots in one scene that looks completely unedited. It's all about her (forgetting the completely interrupting swells of music that do their damnedest to break up the dialogue between her and Clift) and the movie is the better for it. We learn that Hepburn has called Clift, a doctor, over because he performs lobotomies. It does not become immediately apparent why exactly Hepburn wants her niece lobotomized, but I'm guessing we're going to learn. The "reasons" she gives are very transparent and contrived.
The next 30 minutes are yet another dialogue, this time between Taylor and Clift, as he tries to "diagnose" her to see if she would actually be a candidate for a lobotomy. (He, too, has seen the correlation between Hepburn wanting to donate money to his institution and the fact that she thinks Taylor would "benefit" from the procedure.) Taylor is terrific and gorgeous, and we learn that she knows a secret that she doesn't want to remember (and that it is likely this secret that Hepburn is also concerned with).
The first scene with both Hepburn and Taylor is pure majesty. Taylor wins with fire, as Hepburn's character must resort to a vulnerability we know she can fake, but have heretofore not yet seen. During this scene, we also understand more of the true relationship between the women and the dead man, Sebastian. It's pretty awesome. And by awesome I mean weird.
The final 10-minute revelation of Sebatian's death (a wonderful monologue of Taylor) and the unraveling of both female characters is both incredibly strange and incredibly moving. It is interesting that the movie is based on a Tennessee Williams play, and it makes the dialogue seem much more understandable. I believe very strongly that the play resembles very strongly the film, but I bet Williams's is more explicitly stated in many ways. I definitely recommend the film, for its fantastic all-around acting and the suspense level it builds. Just ignore the music.
Score: 9/10
In Suddenly, Last Summer, Hepburn plays the mother of a young man whose death is the reference of the movie title. Hepburn's niece is played by Elizabeth Taylor, who is in a mental institution based on her part in the suddenness of last summer. Erika had actually DVRed this movie prior to Liz Taylor's recent death, so it only seemed fitting to watch this film as a combined tribute to the now-lost geniuses of Hepburn and Taylor.
And what a tribute to Hepburn. Most of the first 30 minutes are a completely open-ended (it may as well had been un-directed) "Go ahead, do what you do best, Kate" series of shots in one scene that looks completely unedited. It's all about her (forgetting the completely interrupting swells of music that do their damnedest to break up the dialogue between her and Clift) and the movie is the better for it. We learn that Hepburn has called Clift, a doctor, over because he performs lobotomies. It does not become immediately apparent why exactly Hepburn wants her niece lobotomized, but I'm guessing we're going to learn. The "reasons" she gives are very transparent and contrived.
The next 30 minutes are yet another dialogue, this time between Taylor and Clift, as he tries to "diagnose" her to see if she would actually be a candidate for a lobotomy. (He, too, has seen the correlation between Hepburn wanting to donate money to his institution and the fact that she thinks Taylor would "benefit" from the procedure.) Taylor is terrific and gorgeous, and we learn that she knows a secret that she doesn't want to remember (and that it is likely this secret that Hepburn is also concerned with).
The first scene with both Hepburn and Taylor is pure majesty. Taylor wins with fire, as Hepburn's character must resort to a vulnerability we know she can fake, but have heretofore not yet seen. During this scene, we also understand more of the true relationship between the women and the dead man, Sebastian. It's pretty awesome. And by awesome I mean weird.
The final 10-minute revelation of Sebatian's death (a wonderful monologue of Taylor) and the unraveling of both female characters is both incredibly strange and incredibly moving. It is interesting that the movie is based on a Tennessee Williams play, and it makes the dialogue seem much more understandable. I believe very strongly that the play resembles very strongly the film, but I bet Williams's is more explicitly stated in many ways. I definitely recommend the film, for its fantastic all-around acting and the suspense level it builds. Just ignore the music.
Score: 9/10
#83 - The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
I absolutely love the Coen Brothers (see my True Grit review from January for another Coen feature) and have made it an extra goal of mine to include a few of their films I haven't seen as part of this countdown. Today's, The Hudsucker Proxy, I picked mostly because it was available for instant streaming, but also because I felt like a comedy, and it has Tim Robbins, who's pretty great.
This makes the sixth (sadly, only the seventh) of their films I've seen, and, also sadly, it's the one I've liked the least. Now, when you're up against old standbys No Country for Old Men, Fargo, and The Big Lebowski, as well as the underrated Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing and the exceptional, little-known Blood Simple, you have a lot to live up to. And this movie fell victim to its own pacing. It felt much longer than its 106 minutes, which is surprising when you consider that there's very little lead-up at all to the main premise of the story: Norville Barnes (Robbins) is hired as a low-level employee of Hudsucker Industries and is promoted to president as a patsy when his moronity shows through.
He does, however, have an idea for the invention of the hula hoop ("You know... for kids!") that brings him both success and the expectation of more ideas. When they are not forthcoming and all the pressure goes to his idea, difficulties (and 70 percent of the film) ensue. Unfortunately, the movie lags and suffers a bit under its own weight of rising action and ennouement. Robbins is overall fine, Paul Newman is fine in a role he could have done in his sleep, and Jennifer Jason Leigh has bits of brilliance in a role often as monotonous as her character's intonation. Overall, not a must-see, but you could do a lot worse.
Score: 6.5/10
This makes the sixth (sadly, only the seventh) of their films I've seen, and, also sadly, it's the one I've liked the least. Now, when you're up against old standbys No Country for Old Men, Fargo, and The Big Lebowski, as well as the underrated Raising Arizona and Miller's Crossing and the exceptional, little-known Blood Simple, you have a lot to live up to. And this movie fell victim to its own pacing. It felt much longer than its 106 minutes, which is surprising when you consider that there's very little lead-up at all to the main premise of the story: Norville Barnes (Robbins) is hired as a low-level employee of Hudsucker Industries and is promoted to president as a patsy when his moronity shows through.
He does, however, have an idea for the invention of the hula hoop ("You know... for kids!") that brings him both success and the expectation of more ideas. When they are not forthcoming and all the pressure goes to his idea, difficulties (and 70 percent of the film) ensue. Unfortunately, the movie lags and suffers a bit under its own weight of rising action and ennouement. Robbins is overall fine, Paul Newman is fine in a role he could have done in his sleep, and Jennifer Jason Leigh has bits of brilliance in a role often as monotonous as her character's intonation. Overall, not a must-see, but you could do a lot worse.
Score: 6.5/10
Friday, March 25, 2011
#82 - A Patch of Blue (1965)
I've only ever seen the great Mr. Sidney Poitier in exactly one movie (the extremely well-done In the Heat of the Night) and while doing some research for movies, I found that he starred in A Patch of Blue, one of two movies for which the wonderful Shelley Winters won an Oscar.
Poitier plays an intelligent man who reaches out to a young blind woman who don't know many things. She certainly never goed to one of those schools for the blind. We learn early on-- after we meet the girl's brash, uncaring mother, played by Shelley Winters-- that her mother accidentally blinded her by throwing some chemical into her eyes at a young age. We also learn later on that the reason her mother acts the way she does is out of good, old-fashioned resentment mixed with a little anger. This is certainly the kind of role the Academy loves to award, especially in its supporting categories: the "big" role, replete with yelling and all kinds of drama.
Moving away from the mother, we get to focus on Elizabeth Hartman as the young woman, Selina. She plays the role exceedingly well, the perfect amount of vulnerable and shy, interspersed with moments of self-assuredness and light candor. At first, I found it all a bit hokey and I didn't believe the relationship between her and Poitier, but as the movie goes on, it is impossible not to be drawn into the relationship as something honest and authentic. It makes no large jumps in its emotional range; it doesn't ask you to suspend all disbelief for a union, of sorts, that would never be actually existent.
The movie's sense of suspense, based around the growing the pair does, both separately and together, is what keeps the movie going. And when you combine that suspense with the knowledge that Winters's character is seriously deranged, it makes for consecutive moments of a settling and unsettling nature. It certainly gets better and better as the movie goes on. If the ending was a little abrupt, that would be its only criticism. Personally, I think it is the most likely and somewhat most obvious ending; trying to do too much more would have seemed forced and inauthentic. All in all, a great movie, and one that I just know will continue to grow on me upon more reflection.
Score: 8.5/10
Poitier plays an intelligent man who reaches out to a young blind woman who don't know many things. She certainly never goed to one of those schools for the blind. We learn early on-- after we meet the girl's brash, uncaring mother, played by Shelley Winters-- that her mother accidentally blinded her by throwing some chemical into her eyes at a young age. We also learn later on that the reason her mother acts the way she does is out of good, old-fashioned resentment mixed with a little anger. This is certainly the kind of role the Academy loves to award, especially in its supporting categories: the "big" role, replete with yelling and all kinds of drama.
Moving away from the mother, we get to focus on Elizabeth Hartman as the young woman, Selina. She plays the role exceedingly well, the perfect amount of vulnerable and shy, interspersed with moments of self-assuredness and light candor. At first, I found it all a bit hokey and I didn't believe the relationship between her and Poitier, but as the movie goes on, it is impossible not to be drawn into the relationship as something honest and authentic. It makes no large jumps in its emotional range; it doesn't ask you to suspend all disbelief for a union, of sorts, that would never be actually existent.
The movie's sense of suspense, based around the growing the pair does, both separately and together, is what keeps the movie going. And when you combine that suspense with the knowledge that Winters's character is seriously deranged, it makes for consecutive moments of a settling and unsettling nature. It certainly gets better and better as the movie goes on. If the ending was a little abrupt, that would be its only criticism. Personally, I think it is the most likely and somewhat most obvious ending; trying to do too much more would have seemed forced and inauthentic. All in all, a great movie, and one that I just know will continue to grow on me upon more reflection.
Score: 8.5/10
Thursday, March 24, 2011
#81 - Chocolat (2000)
I watched this movie with one of my classes, as kind of a post-test reward. I've shown it to a few of my classes in the past and it's been largely a success. It's easy to get the girls behind the film, because they all swoon at Johnny Depp. The guys are a tougher sell (despite her gorgeousness, the guys don't really "go for" Juliette Binoche) but everyone pretty much tends to pay attention (which actually says a lot).
When I first saw this movie ten years ago (I still remember being in high school when I saw it), I remember loving it. I thought it was beautiful, endearing, well-acted. I liked it a lot more than Erin Brockovich and, actually, Gladiator (not an opinion I still hold), but not as much as Chicken Run. Weird what I remember, but I distinctly had conversations about these movies with my friend in the band room during lunch, so without looking them up, I know they all came out around the same time.
In any case, I've seen this film probably a good dozen or so times since then and I have come to the conclusion that it comes much closer to mediocreland than I thought upon first viewing. Don't get me wrong: it's a very nice movie. The acting is good, the cinematography is very nice, the movie has a pleasant feel to it, the story is passable... it's just that there's nothing that is exceptional. Roberts beat Binoche for the Oscar in 2000, which I was pissed about then. Now, I'm pissed, armed with the knowledge that she also beat Ellen Burstyn's pill-popping Grandma in Requiem for a Dream. But I'm digressing.
There's nothing really wrong with Chocolat, which makes it a better movie than many, as well as one that can easily be recommended to a large range of people (nothing to offend, alienate, or otherwise mystify in here, at all). It requires little thought (though viewers who pay close attention will be drawn, like me, into the story of Vienne's (Binoche's) lineage) and follows a well-known, much-loved formula. Pariahdom begets welcoming, I guess. Overall, I had a tough time scoring this one, for all the different facets this movie means for/to me, so regardless of whether you feel my score matches my synopsis is of the least concern to me (as it should be for you in all cases).
Score: 8/10
When I first saw this movie ten years ago (I still remember being in high school when I saw it), I remember loving it. I thought it was beautiful, endearing, well-acted. I liked it a lot more than Erin Brockovich and, actually, Gladiator (not an opinion I still hold), but not as much as Chicken Run. Weird what I remember, but I distinctly had conversations about these movies with my friend in the band room during lunch, so without looking them up, I know they all came out around the same time.
In any case, I've seen this film probably a good dozen or so times since then and I have come to the conclusion that it comes much closer to mediocreland than I thought upon first viewing. Don't get me wrong: it's a very nice movie. The acting is good, the cinematography is very nice, the movie has a pleasant feel to it, the story is passable... it's just that there's nothing that is exceptional. Roberts beat Binoche for the Oscar in 2000, which I was pissed about then. Now, I'm pissed, armed with the knowledge that she also beat Ellen Burstyn's pill-popping Grandma in Requiem for a Dream. But I'm digressing.
There's nothing really wrong with Chocolat, which makes it a better movie than many, as well as one that can easily be recommended to a large range of people (nothing to offend, alienate, or otherwise mystify in here, at all). It requires little thought (though viewers who pay close attention will be drawn, like me, into the story of Vienne's (Binoche's) lineage) and follows a well-known, much-loved formula. Pariahdom begets welcoming, I guess. Overall, I had a tough time scoring this one, for all the different facets this movie means for/to me, so regardless of whether you feel my score matches my synopsis is of the least concern to me (as it should be for you in all cases).
Score: 8/10
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
#80 - The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
The Shamrocks of East Detroit High School played their last game of the season yesterday evening, giving a powerful Southfield team a run for their money, but ultimately succumbing. They made it two rounds farther than last year, to make it to the illustrious final eight in the whole state in Class A. I'm very proud of them, and I'm sad that I won't be going to East Lansing this weekend for the state semis and finals. I guess that leaves more time for movies, but it's not exactly joyous.
Tonight I actually had time for a film or two, but I had to finish season one of Community on DVD first. Great show; I watched it for awhile when it first came on air, but dropped it because I was busy. Dumb. Now I have to catch up on this season to get completely caught up. A much better idea.
Today's film is one that I feel I should have seen before. After all, "The Most Dangerous Game" is a common fixture in ninth-grade English class curricula, as it was in my own high school days. But instead of watching this version of the film (that others have told me is pretty great, and was worthy enough for a Criterion Collection restore), we watched The Pest, an absolutely wretched movie starring John Leguizamo, that I vaguely remember had a vaguely similar premise to the novel.
For those who are unaware, it's all about the hunter vs. the hunted, and in this case (and I don't remember all the particulars, mind you) the hunter is an eccentric man and the hunted is another man who, at least in the film, finds himself shipwrecked on the former man's land and thus finds himself prey to the, um, idiosyncrasy, of the other.
The beginning of the film is a bit hysterical, what with all the obvious overtones of peril ahead (a card player flipping over the queen of spades, or black lady, "three times!"; a discussion about hunting and sport; constant conversation about how dangerous the water is: rocky, choppy, cursed) before we are lead into meeting two of the other "houseguests", one of whom is the most annoying character I've come across in awhile.
Then there is the standoff between two men who are hunters. Great closeups on their faces as the hunter realizes the stubbornness of the to-be-hunted and the roles are set in place. I also don't remember the hunter hunting two people simultaneously. Were there actually a man and a female companion in the short story? I'm skeptical. It is Fay Wray, though.
And I don't remember any dogs. I actually don't remember much, I guess. Probably I'll find the short story and re-read it to see how close the movie actually is. All this, however, is not to say that the film is that bad. It certainly is somewhat typical of old suspense movies, in that some scenes seem deliberately and deliberately posed. I'm guessing if the people are really being chased, they're not going to stop for a moment atop the log, in the fog, for the perfect man/woman shot. And the camera was moving awfully slowly through the leaves... were they just jogging to get away? Pretty scary head-on shot of the predator, though. Ah, and there was the obligatory "Now I know how it feels to be the animal" line. Mais bien sûr.
And if that was how the story actually ended, then I don't remember anything. Good thing I'm not judging the two against one another, or the score would be even lower.
As it was, there wasn't really much to it. Lots of lead-up, which was fine, but then the inevitable Final Battle began and it was really pretty boring. I remember being much more intrigued by the story.
Score: 6/10
Tonight I actually had time for a film or two, but I had to finish season one of Community on DVD first. Great show; I watched it for awhile when it first came on air, but dropped it because I was busy. Dumb. Now I have to catch up on this season to get completely caught up. A much better idea.
Today's film is one that I feel I should have seen before. After all, "The Most Dangerous Game" is a common fixture in ninth-grade English class curricula, as it was in my own high school days. But instead of watching this version of the film (that others have told me is pretty great, and was worthy enough for a Criterion Collection restore), we watched The Pest, an absolutely wretched movie starring John Leguizamo, that I vaguely remember had a vaguely similar premise to the novel.
For those who are unaware, it's all about the hunter vs. the hunted, and in this case (and I don't remember all the particulars, mind you) the hunter is an eccentric man and the hunted is another man who, at least in the film, finds himself shipwrecked on the former man's land and thus finds himself prey to the, um, idiosyncrasy, of the other.
The beginning of the film is a bit hysterical, what with all the obvious overtones of peril ahead (a card player flipping over the queen of spades, or black lady, "three times!"; a discussion about hunting and sport; constant conversation about how dangerous the water is: rocky, choppy, cursed) before we are lead into meeting two of the other "houseguests", one of whom is the most annoying character I've come across in awhile.
Then there is the standoff between two men who are hunters. Great closeups on their faces as the hunter realizes the stubbornness of the to-be-hunted and the roles are set in place. I also don't remember the hunter hunting two people simultaneously. Were there actually a man and a female companion in the short story? I'm skeptical. It is Fay Wray, though.
And I don't remember any dogs. I actually don't remember much, I guess. Probably I'll find the short story and re-read it to see how close the movie actually is. All this, however, is not to say that the film is that bad. It certainly is somewhat typical of old suspense movies, in that some scenes seem deliberately and deliberately posed. I'm guessing if the people are really being chased, they're not going to stop for a moment atop the log, in the fog, for the perfect man/woman shot. And the camera was moving awfully slowly through the leaves... were they just jogging to get away? Pretty scary head-on shot of the predator, though. Ah, and there was the obligatory "Now I know how it feels to be the animal" line. Mais bien sûr.
And if that was how the story actually ended, then I don't remember anything. Good thing I'm not judging the two against one another, or the score would be even lower.
As it was, there wasn't really much to it. Lots of lead-up, which was fine, but then the inevitable Final Battle began and it was really pretty boring. I remember being much more intrigued by the story.
Score: 6/10
My Friends' Blogs
Hello followers :)
And if you're not a regular follower, that's okay. I love you, too. Please poke around!
After some searching on Blogspot, I found a way to list my other friends' blogs on the right-hand side of the page (I did some rearranging and added a profile, too, for fun) so you should absolutely check them out.
Don't tell them I told you, but they're way more creative than me, and better at blogging; i.e. you're in for a treat. They, too, are movie-themed, but don't worry about being glutted: we're all different, and different is good.
Check out my friend Dan's "One True Haiku Review" (love the assonance) for very brief synopsis in a poetic format, usually accompanied by more information about the film, as well. He does a great job of keeping up with DVD and theatrical releases, as well, which can be extremely helpful for figuring out where you can see the movies he's seeing.
The other blog, my friend Jake's "Z at the Movies", is like mine, but with way more information and indexing, and none of the goal-setting. So basically, it's like mine in that it has movies on it. Gotcha!
Both blogs have been operational in one form or another for longer than mine, as well, so really, they deserve your patronage. And since it's me saying it and not them, you don't have to feel bullied.
I'll keep you posted on other sites you should be visiting, as well, since I do believe there is another blog in the works. Huzzah! (Of course, I always push Netflix, Amazon, IMDb, and Metacritic as my drugs of choice.)
Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for another (film) entry.
Phil
And if you're not a regular follower, that's okay. I love you, too. Please poke around!
After some searching on Blogspot, I found a way to list my other friends' blogs on the right-hand side of the page (I did some rearranging and added a profile, too, for fun) so you should absolutely check them out.
Don't tell them I told you, but they're way more creative than me, and better at blogging; i.e. you're in for a treat. They, too, are movie-themed, but don't worry about being glutted: we're all different, and different is good.
Check out my friend Dan's "One True Haiku Review" (love the assonance) for very brief synopsis in a poetic format, usually accompanied by more information about the film, as well. He does a great job of keeping up with DVD and theatrical releases, as well, which can be extremely helpful for figuring out where you can see the movies he's seeing.
The other blog, my friend Jake's "Z at the Movies", is like mine, but with way more information and indexing, and none of the goal-setting. So basically, it's like mine in that it has movies on it. Gotcha!
Both blogs have been operational in one form or another for longer than mine, as well, so really, they deserve your patronage. And since it's me saying it and not them, you don't have to feel bullied.
I'll keep you posted on other sites you should be visiting, as well, since I do believe there is another blog in the works. Huzzah! (Of course, I always push Netflix, Amazon, IMDb, and Metacritic as my drugs of choice.)
Thanks for reading, and stay tuned for another (film) entry.
Phil
Sunday, March 20, 2011
#79 - Before Sunrise (1995)
When I watched the movie Sunrise a few weeks ago, I promised that Richard Linklater's unrelated Before Sunrise was on my agenda of things to finally watch. Then, last week, I was sitting down to watch it, but the DVD made the player sound like a fork in the garbage disposal, so my attempt was thwarted. Now, I have my replacement DVD from Netflix, it's in my computer, and I'm ready to enjoy. This is my sixth movie of the weekend, which was my goal so that I could catch up to the one-movie-per-day average. Huzzah! (This is also a good way to spend the interim between my last movie and a new episode of "The Amazing Race".
I've long known about this movie as having a terrific, mostly-two-person screenplay, where all the action happens in a day (think Hello, Dolly, but all the action actually feels like it could actually happen in one day), and I'm excited about finally sitting down to watch it.
I'm going to give a bit of a shout out to my friend Maya, who I met on a plane and we spent the entire two-and-a-half hour flight chatting (probably drove the people around us nuts, but ask me if I care...) and when the flight was over and we were taxiing to the terminal, we finally introduced ourselves. You know, cause what's a name when you're just having a great conversation? But in reality, it was a good thing we did at the end, because it allowed her to stalk me on Facebook and send me a friend request. And before you all go "Um, that's weird," the only reason I didn't do the same thing first is because my hotel didn't have Internet access. So there. :D
What made me think of the above is that after Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy) meet on the train, they have this big conversation in the lounge car and right after they get off the train together, they introduce themselves and I laughed a little.
This movie is definitely one of those films my mom tends to describe as "one that's just talking and talking" where not much really goes on. And okay, this would be a quasi-accurate assessment, with the exception that amidst all this conversation, things actually do happen; life happens.
In the day they spend together in Vienna, they walk around and do somewhat cool, but not too cool, things and meet some interesting characters, like a starving artist who writes poems for spare change and a palm reader who tells the main characters that they are "stardust".
I love how, despite the fact that this takes place in Vienna, it reminded me so much of the time I spent in France, especially the getting the red wine and taking it to some place (like along the Saône) and sharing it with friends and doing little else other than talking and sharing stories and having a good time.
Hawke and Delpy have great chemistry, and yes, a lot of it is aided by the wonderful screenplay and direction, but with less accomplished actors, this movie would have absolutely sucked. Both are quirky, have their own faults and positives, and they feed off of one another for 100 minutes. Time well spent, as much for them as it is for us as the viewers.
Score: 9/10
I've long known about this movie as having a terrific, mostly-two-person screenplay, where all the action happens in a day (think Hello, Dolly, but all the action actually feels like it could actually happen in one day), and I'm excited about finally sitting down to watch it.
I'm going to give a bit of a shout out to my friend Maya, who I met on a plane and we spent the entire two-and-a-half hour flight chatting (probably drove the people around us nuts, but ask me if I care...) and when the flight was over and we were taxiing to the terminal, we finally introduced ourselves. You know, cause what's a name when you're just having a great conversation? But in reality, it was a good thing we did at the end, because it allowed her to stalk me on Facebook and send me a friend request. And before you all go "Um, that's weird," the only reason I didn't do the same thing first is because my hotel didn't have Internet access. So there. :D
What made me think of the above is that after Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy) meet on the train, they have this big conversation in the lounge car and right after they get off the train together, they introduce themselves and I laughed a little.
This movie is definitely one of those films my mom tends to describe as "one that's just talking and talking" where not much really goes on. And okay, this would be a quasi-accurate assessment, with the exception that amidst all this conversation, things actually do happen; life happens.
In the day they spend together in Vienna, they walk around and do somewhat cool, but not too cool, things and meet some interesting characters, like a starving artist who writes poems for spare change and a palm reader who tells the main characters that they are "stardust".
I love how, despite the fact that this takes place in Vienna, it reminded me so much of the time I spent in France, especially the getting the red wine and taking it to some place (like along the Saône) and sharing it with friends and doing little else other than talking and sharing stories and having a good time.
Hawke and Delpy have great chemistry, and yes, a lot of it is aided by the wonderful screenplay and direction, but with less accomplished actors, this movie would have absolutely sucked. Both are quirky, have their own faults and positives, and they feed off of one another for 100 minutes. Time well spent, as much for them as it is for us as the viewers.
Score: 9/10
#78 - Wait Until Dark (1967)
I've had this one at home for awhile, and it's just time to watch it, dammit. I love Audrey Hepburn, and I've heard from a few people that it's a pretty great movie. I've also heard it's laughable, so I guess you can't always go by what you hear. I'm being optimistic, though. I'm sure it will be better than the preceding movie I watched, the largely unnecessary Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me. This will be my second Audrey Hepburn film, after the pretty great Charade. All I actually know about this film is that Hepburn is blind, and some people think she has something (drugs, maybe?) hidden in her house and things don't go well for her because of it. The movie also stars also-Oscar winner Alan Arkin and character actor Richard Crenna.
Okay, so the movie is not at all laughable; it's really a taut thriller (hooray for suspenseful one-setting dramas!) wonderfully acted by all three leads. The intro paragraph of the review is basically the film's entire premise, but skillfully drawn out. The wonderful thing about the film is the way its tension just keeps growing and growing and is pretty unrelenting. And it's not done like 1408 where things just keep getting stupider and stupider, but rather more like a Hitchcock thriller where the plot actually makes sense and the psychological suspense can hit its viewers at a personal level. Really a pretty great job.
Score: 9/10
Okay, so the movie is not at all laughable; it's really a taut thriller (hooray for suspenseful one-setting dramas!) wonderfully acted by all three leads. The intro paragraph of the review is basically the film's entire premise, but skillfully drawn out. The wonderful thing about the film is the way its tension just keeps growing and growing and is pretty unrelenting. And it's not done like 1408 where things just keep getting stupider and stupider, but rather more like a Hitchcock thriller where the plot actually makes sense and the psychological suspense can hit its viewers at a personal level. Really a pretty great job.
Score: 9/10
#77 - Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me (1992)
So after a brief hiatus (I was a little Twin Peaksed out... it's such a mindfuck that I need a little time off) I am ready and eager to watch the movie that is supposed to establish, though it was originally filmed as a prequel, some kind of "closure" or conclusion to the second season of the show. We'll see how it goes.
For starters, the movie is definitely inferior to the television show. Of course, it worked better as a show because the audience was allowed to really grow attached to (or unattached to) the personae of Twin Peaks over the course of many episodes. But for me, the real reason I couldn't get as attached to the film as the show is that Kyle MacLachlan has an extremely small part. This makes sense, as he's a character who is brought in right at the beginning of the show who has no ties to the community beforehand. So then, for the sake of bringing some resolution, we have to follow the very mediocre Sheryl Lee (the doomed Laura Palmer). Let's give Lee props, though: she failed to impress much during the show (where she was Laura in flashbacks and played her doppelganger cousin Maddie) but does a much better job here. The problem is that she's just not that interesting, really. Certainly not as off-the-wall as MacLachlan or The Log Lady.
This brings me to the larger problem, as a whole. The movie fails to evoke the wit and charm so prevalent in the show. The outrageous characters and neat (though confusing) triangles of relationships are lost to the story of Laura Palmer. If you think it's unfair that the review is mostly a comparison of the movie to the show as a whole, I have to submit that it's not applicable to completely separate the two. It's a continuation, not a stand-alone project.
Other things I wondered/felt:
1. What the hell could have been so important for Lara Flynn Boyle that she couldn't reprise her role as Laura's best friend Donna?
2. Could James, an integral role of Laura's life, pre-murder, been relegated to any less and less interesting screen time?
3. Ray Wise is creeeeeeeeeepyyyyyyyyyyyy (and so good as Leland Palmer).
4. Chris Isaak was in a movie other than the five minutes he was in Silence of the Lambs? Huh.
5. OMG. The cheesy, screamed "I LOVE YOU JAMES!" What an unnecessary, LOL moment.
Altogether, only a somewhat satisfactory "conclusion" that didn't teach me much that I hadn't already known or hadn't already guessed/inferred. Perhaps there were more particulars than possibilities, but it wasn't mindblowing. It was unfortunately nothing that I couldn't have lived without, and what we weren't privy to was any sort of culmination of MacLachlan's post-red-curtain transformation. Quelle dommage.
Score: 5/10
For starters, the movie is definitely inferior to the television show. Of course, it worked better as a show because the audience was allowed to really grow attached to (or unattached to) the personae of Twin Peaks over the course of many episodes. But for me, the real reason I couldn't get as attached to the film as the show is that Kyle MacLachlan has an extremely small part. This makes sense, as he's a character who is brought in right at the beginning of the show who has no ties to the community beforehand. So then, for the sake of bringing some resolution, we have to follow the very mediocre Sheryl Lee (the doomed Laura Palmer). Let's give Lee props, though: she failed to impress much during the show (where she was Laura in flashbacks and played her doppelganger cousin Maddie) but does a much better job here. The problem is that she's just not that interesting, really. Certainly not as off-the-wall as MacLachlan or The Log Lady.
This brings me to the larger problem, as a whole. The movie fails to evoke the wit and charm so prevalent in the show. The outrageous characters and neat (though confusing) triangles of relationships are lost to the story of Laura Palmer. If you think it's unfair that the review is mostly a comparison of the movie to the show as a whole, I have to submit that it's not applicable to completely separate the two. It's a continuation, not a stand-alone project.
Other things I wondered/felt:
1. What the hell could have been so important for Lara Flynn Boyle that she couldn't reprise her role as Laura's best friend Donna?
2. Could James, an integral role of Laura's life, pre-murder, been relegated to any less and less interesting screen time?
3. Ray Wise is creeeeeeeeeepyyyyyyyyyyyy (and so good as Leland Palmer).
4. Chris Isaak was in a movie other than the five minutes he was in Silence of the Lambs? Huh.
5. OMG. The cheesy, screamed "I LOVE YOU JAMES!" What an unnecessary, LOL moment.
Altogether, only a somewhat satisfactory "conclusion" that didn't teach me much that I hadn't already known or hadn't already guessed/inferred. Perhaps there were more particulars than possibilities, but it wasn't mindblowing. It was unfortunately nothing that I couldn't have lived without, and what we weren't privy to was any sort of culmination of MacLachlan's post-red-curtain transformation. Quelle dommage.
Score: 5/10
#76 - Sabotage (1936)
Went to Jen's and played Catan tonight... got killed in two games, got beaten less soundly in two others. Not a good night. Add this to last week's pinochle, and I have not had the best time with games the last couple of days, unfortunately.
Got home about 2 and decided that I wanted to finish the movie I started earlier, before I left. It's one of Hitchcock's British films, before he came to the U.S. It's pretty standard Hitchcock, really, but it is really dark. The pacing is pretty slow for most of it, but it really picks up toward the end once the practically unconscionable happens. Short writeup, I know, but it's a simple film, so it deserves a simple summation.
Score: 6.5/10
Got home about 2 and decided that I wanted to finish the movie I started earlier, before I left. It's one of Hitchcock's British films, before he came to the U.S. It's pretty standard Hitchcock, really, but it is really dark. The pacing is pretty slow for most of it, but it really picks up toward the end once the practically unconscionable happens. Short writeup, I know, but it's a simple film, so it deserves a simple summation.
Score: 6.5/10
Friday, March 18, 2011
#75 - Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953)
I want to thank my friend Maya for putting this film back on my radar, as she knows my taste in movies and insisted I watched this film to experience the joy that is Jane Russell (and Marilyn Monroe). I've only seen two Monroe movies (and since her very minor role in "All About Eve" is one, it only barely counts, and I've never seen anything with Jane Russell in it. Also a travesty.
As for this film, I was hooked in the first eight minutes:
"I don't know what you do, honey, unless you use Novocaine in your lipstick."
"Is this the way to Europe, France?"
A thoroughly enjoyable comedy with some very nice musical numbers thrown in. The two leads-- yes, especially Russell-- are absolutely terrific. Not a terribly even movie, but it's fun enough that it doesn't matter much.
BTW, I loved finally seeing the inspiration for Madonna's "Material Girl" music video. They nailed the look.
And I'll leave you with one of my favorite exchanges of the film:
"You gotta get the money out of him."
"How much does a diamond tiara cost?"
"15,000 dollars at least."
"That'll take an hour and 45 minutes"
Score: 8/10
As for this film, I was hooked in the first eight minutes:
"I don't know what you do, honey, unless you use Novocaine in your lipstick."
"Is this the way to Europe, France?"
A thoroughly enjoyable comedy with some very nice musical numbers thrown in. The two leads-- yes, especially Russell-- are absolutely terrific. Not a terribly even movie, but it's fun enough that it doesn't matter much.
BTW, I loved finally seeing the inspiration for Madonna's "Material Girl" music video. They nailed the look.
And I'll leave you with one of my favorite exchanges of the film:
"You gotta get the money out of him."
"How much does a diamond tiara cost?"
"15,000 dollars at least."
"That'll take an hour and 45 minutes"
Score: 8/10
#74 - High Noon (1952)
The East Detroit Shamrocks are regional champs, and are in the Elite Eight of the State Championship in boys basketball. Go Shams! The quarterfinals are this coming Tuesday, and are being held at Calihan Hall on the campus of the University of Detroit Mercy. Combine this event with the fact that tennis season is starting, and it's going to put my weekends at a premium for movie watching! The goal this weekend (including this one) is six. Only five left to go.
In High Noon, we have two-time Oscar winner Gary Cooper playing Marshall Will Kane, a man who comes back to the town he once reigned over as lawman when he founds out that the courts have pardoned his old nemesis, Frank Miller, a man he put away. Miller's back for vengeance, and neither the town, nor Kane especially, is safe.
This film has long been held in high regard, as one of the great westerns, led by superb acting and a tense story. And while I see all these things, I find it to be overrated. As Kane, Cooper is an aging lawman, once most highly regarded in his town, but when he comes back to head off Miller, he finds that the entire town (including his new wife) has chosen to abandon him and leave him to either fight Miller alone, or get out of Dodge. Ninety percent of the movie is Kane trying to get support, and the conflicted emotions of the great majority of the town. There is quite a bit of tension, but the more and more it becomes apparent that nobody's just dying to help Kane, the more I just wanted it to be over.
You know who I thought was really outstanding? Mexican actress Katy Jurado, who played in a large number of both westerns and Spanish language films throughout six decades, was phenomenal as a likely former lover of Kane who has to skip town also to avoid the wrath of Miller. She tells the new Mrs. Kane that she basically sucks for leaving and that if Will Kane were still her man, you better believe she'd get a gun and fight with him. She's the perfect amount of believable, hard and understanding. Her scenes are among the best in the film.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not dying to re-watch it. Cooper was Oscar-nomination-worthy to be sure, but whether or not this was the best performance of the year, I really can't say. I'll tell you one thing, though: this was the year that The Quiet Man won a couple of Oscars (though stars John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara weren't nominated. Hmmm...) and when I had to watch this movie during my internship because the students were reading the short story... It was awful. The kids thought it was hysterical. And I heard that it wasn't appreciated in its own time. And it certainly doesn't hold up well, so I'm wondering where the hell this cachet comes from. I might re-watch it this year to see if I missed something (but at 150-some minutes, you can bet I won't be getting it done anytime soon.)
Score: 8/10
In High Noon, we have two-time Oscar winner Gary Cooper playing Marshall Will Kane, a man who comes back to the town he once reigned over as lawman when he founds out that the courts have pardoned his old nemesis, Frank Miller, a man he put away. Miller's back for vengeance, and neither the town, nor Kane especially, is safe.
This film has long been held in high regard, as one of the great westerns, led by superb acting and a tense story. And while I see all these things, I find it to be overrated. As Kane, Cooper is an aging lawman, once most highly regarded in his town, but when he comes back to head off Miller, he finds that the entire town (including his new wife) has chosen to abandon him and leave him to either fight Miller alone, or get out of Dodge. Ninety percent of the movie is Kane trying to get support, and the conflicted emotions of the great majority of the town. There is quite a bit of tension, but the more and more it becomes apparent that nobody's just dying to help Kane, the more I just wanted it to be over.
You know who I thought was really outstanding? Mexican actress Katy Jurado, who played in a large number of both westerns and Spanish language films throughout six decades, was phenomenal as a likely former lover of Kane who has to skip town also to avoid the wrath of Miller. She tells the new Mrs. Kane that she basically sucks for leaving and that if Will Kane were still her man, you better believe she'd get a gun and fight with him. She's the perfect amount of believable, hard and understanding. Her scenes are among the best in the film.
Overall, I'm glad I saw it, but I'm not dying to re-watch it. Cooper was Oscar-nomination-worthy to be sure, but whether or not this was the best performance of the year, I really can't say. I'll tell you one thing, though: this was the year that The Quiet Man won a couple of Oscars (though stars John Wayne and Maureen O'Hara weren't nominated. Hmmm...) and when I had to watch this movie during my internship because the students were reading the short story... It was awful. The kids thought it was hysterical. And I heard that it wasn't appreciated in its own time. And it certainly doesn't hold up well, so I'm wondering where the hell this cachet comes from. I might re-watch it this year to see if I missed something (but at 150-some minutes, you can bet I won't be getting it done anytime soon.)
Score: 8/10
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
#73 - Carnival of Souls (1962)
I decided to watch this movie after it was batted about on TaT and a couple people had mentioned that they'd seen it, but that it falls (despite its being chosen for a Criterion Collection transfer) into the "awesomely/hilariously bad" subgenre of moviedom. This film is not nearly as bad as many of the films that MST3K has chosen to lambaste, but neither was it good.
This is all very confusing to me, because I just watched it and I don't know that it was much of a movie. I mean, I get the "plot" (what there is of it) and I got the "ending" (what there is of that) and I basically understand what I just watched, but it's almost as though I didn't watch anything at all. There were a couple of moments that were somewhat noteworthy, but all the rest in between may just as well not have ever happened. Very weird. At least it was only 76 minutes.
Huh.
Score 4/10
This is all very confusing to me, because I just watched it and I don't know that it was much of a movie. I mean, I get the "plot" (what there is of it) and I got the "ending" (what there is of that) and I basically understand what I just watched, but it's almost as though I didn't watch anything at all. There were a couple of moments that were somewhat noteworthy, but all the rest in between may just as well not have ever happened. Very weird. At least it was only 76 minutes.
Huh.
Score 4/10
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
#72 - Helvetica (2007)
Okay, so I'm pretty excited. I've been taking advantage of free two-day shipping through Amazon Prime ever since I forgot to cancel my free trial membership last August and I got billed $79 (whoops!) for one year of membership. And I thought that was basically its only perk (beyond letting others in your house share the account with you). But then today, I was reading an article about how Netflix, over the next year and a half or so, is going to be losing some of its digital media rights due to companies losing money. In the article, there was mentioned that some other companies were also starting to get into the streaming scene, and one of those was Amazon Prime.
Say what?
I've known for awhile that Amazon had an instant movie streaming ability, but I don't know for how long many of the downloads have been free to we established Prime members. Awesome. I took a quick glance earlier and I noticed that while many of them are also common to Netflix (of which I have been a member for about three years now), there are a few that are unique (Amadeus, for instance). Pretty cool.
I finally, after much perusal, decided that I wanted to watch a documentary, so I clicked on the doc tab and one of the first results was this entry: Helvetica. I'm already fascinated by a documentary about a typeface (though, granted, not as excited as I am about typography itself) and even though-- I found out later-- it has been languishing in my Netflix instant queue for quite some time, I decided to check out the abilities of the Amazon Prime viewer.
I won't spend any time on it, other than it worked just fine.
On to the documentary:
Helvetica is apparently the most common typeface worldwide and by far the most ubiquitous. I love how the interviewees' names are onscreen in Helvetica. Obvious, but cool.
One graphic designer from Amsterdam said-- which really surprised me, though I think there's something very interesting and real about it-- that he really loved the Helvetica font because of its "neutralism". He liked the fact that the font itself doesn't "say" anything to detract or distract the viewer from the words themselves. There's no underlying message in the font. Another man worked with Microsoft on Verdana and Georgia fonts, and it struck me as a bit neat because I really like both Helvetica and Verdana.
Weirdos like me will love the part where typographer looks at the Helvetica letters and discusses things like the "ascender" and "terminus" and the thickness of letters and their heights, etc. It's really really neat. And, apparently, a typeface is more about the spaces between and within the letters than the dark parts of the letters themselves. Makes sense.
Oh my goodness, the extended metaphor with the Amalgamated Widget Company needs to stop. It lasts far too long. You can tell he's passionate about typefaces and advertisement. In contrast, the probably gay typeface designer who talks about how a type needs to look "less like a Saturn V rocket" and "more like Debussy" is hysterical. And so is his co-worker who remembers that the restaurant is "two blocks down from the sign with the terrible letter spacing."
People who work with fonts have trouble watching historical movies because of the oft-presence of anachronistic typefaces. Weird. And awesome.
These people are a bit nuts, but damn if I don't really want to work with typefaces. Like right now. I also blame, in part, my love of words.
The neutralism of the font really divides people into two factions: those (corporations, etc.) who prefer cleanliness and orderliness and modernism versus those who prefer that a typeface augment the meaning of the words on the page (or poster, etc.).
And that angry dude can be angry all he wants, but I'm still going to like my Arial, thank you very much.
To say that this is among the nerdiest documentaries ever made is probably an understatement of the highest order (as I assume King of Kong is among the dorkiest) but that doesn't make it bad, or the subject un-understandable.
Score: 8.5/10
Say what?
I've known for awhile that Amazon had an instant movie streaming ability, but I don't know for how long many of the downloads have been free to we established Prime members. Awesome. I took a quick glance earlier and I noticed that while many of them are also common to Netflix (of which I have been a member for about three years now), there are a few that are unique (Amadeus, for instance). Pretty cool.
I finally, after much perusal, decided that I wanted to watch a documentary, so I clicked on the doc tab and one of the first results was this entry: Helvetica. I'm already fascinated by a documentary about a typeface (though, granted, not as excited as I am about typography itself) and even though-- I found out later-- it has been languishing in my Netflix instant queue for quite some time, I decided to check out the abilities of the Amazon Prime viewer.
I won't spend any time on it, other than it worked just fine.
On to the documentary:
Helvetica is apparently the most common typeface worldwide and by far the most ubiquitous. I love how the interviewees' names are onscreen in Helvetica. Obvious, but cool.
One graphic designer from Amsterdam said-- which really surprised me, though I think there's something very interesting and real about it-- that he really loved the Helvetica font because of its "neutralism". He liked the fact that the font itself doesn't "say" anything to detract or distract the viewer from the words themselves. There's no underlying message in the font. Another man worked with Microsoft on Verdana and Georgia fonts, and it struck me as a bit neat because I really like both Helvetica and Verdana.
Weirdos like me will love the part where typographer looks at the Helvetica letters and discusses things like the "ascender" and "terminus" and the thickness of letters and their heights, etc. It's really really neat. And, apparently, a typeface is more about the spaces between and within the letters than the dark parts of the letters themselves. Makes sense.
Oh my goodness, the extended metaphor with the Amalgamated Widget Company needs to stop. It lasts far too long. You can tell he's passionate about typefaces and advertisement. In contrast, the probably gay typeface designer who talks about how a type needs to look "less like a Saturn V rocket" and "more like Debussy" is hysterical. And so is his co-worker who remembers that the restaurant is "two blocks down from the sign with the terrible letter spacing."
People who work with fonts have trouble watching historical movies because of the oft-presence of anachronistic typefaces. Weird. And awesome.
These people are a bit nuts, but damn if I don't really want to work with typefaces. Like right now. I also blame, in part, my love of words.
The neutralism of the font really divides people into two factions: those (corporations, etc.) who prefer cleanliness and orderliness and modernism versus those who prefer that a typeface augment the meaning of the words on the page (or poster, etc.).
And that angry dude can be angry all he wants, but I'm still going to like my Arial, thank you very much.
To say that this is among the nerdiest documentaries ever made is probably an understatement of the highest order (as I assume King of Kong is among the dorkiest) but that doesn't make it bad, or the subject un-understandable.
Score: 8.5/10
#71 - Nothing But the Truth (2008)
I'll be honest: the reason that I really wanted to watch this movie, even though I figured it would probably be formulaic though vaguely interesting, is the smoking hot Vera Farmiga. She also happens to be a pretty great actress. From her object of a ventriloquist's affection in the little-watched indie Dummy, to the end-is-near Matt Damon's girlfriend in The Departed, and the easy-to love, impossible-to-have frequent flier in Up in the Air, she has been on my radar for several years. Unfortunately, I was misled to believe she was one of the main actors in the movie, when, in fact, her screen time is much more limited than that.
Enter main actress Kate Beckinsale, who I've actually never seen in a movie before, though I've seen her in interviews-- where she's very well-spoken and delightful-- and I know that she is well-liked among many of my friends, so I was also optimistic of her acting duties. Of Matt Dillon I'm a little more dubious, though for no real reason. Beckinsale and Farmiga are good, as is co-star Alan Alda, though Dillon is, admittedly, stiff and a bit inarticulate.
The film itself is quite will-she-won't-she and ends up seeming a bit longer than it's 100 minute screen time, though, to its credit, it doesn't drag on incessantly. Basically, the movie follows a reporter (Beckinsale) who "outs" Farmiga as a CIA operative. But because she won't reveal her source for this piece (though she's correct), she finds herself in a world of hurt as a "special prosecutor" (Dillon) attempts to extract from her the source's identity. She stays resolute, even as her family (including "Novelist Ross" David Schwimmer) falls around her and she remains enjailed (not a real word, I'm guessing, but I'm sure it's appeared in a New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle at least once) until she gives up the information.
The movie is basically the above, forward, back, and forward again, though buoyed by some decent performances. Watch out for the ending though; it almost makes you want your 100 minutes back. Super lame.
Score: 7/10
Enter main actress Kate Beckinsale, who I've actually never seen in a movie before, though I've seen her in interviews-- where she's very well-spoken and delightful-- and I know that she is well-liked among many of my friends, so I was also optimistic of her acting duties. Of Matt Dillon I'm a little more dubious, though for no real reason. Beckinsale and Farmiga are good, as is co-star Alan Alda, though Dillon is, admittedly, stiff and a bit inarticulate.
The film itself is quite will-she-won't-she and ends up seeming a bit longer than it's 100 minute screen time, though, to its credit, it doesn't drag on incessantly. Basically, the movie follows a reporter (Beckinsale) who "outs" Farmiga as a CIA operative. But because she won't reveal her source for this piece (though she's correct), she finds herself in a world of hurt as a "special prosecutor" (Dillon) attempts to extract from her the source's identity. She stays resolute, even as her family (including "Novelist Ross" David Schwimmer) falls around her and she remains enjailed (not a real word, I'm guessing, but I'm sure it's appeared in a New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle at least once) until she gives up the information.
The movie is basically the above, forward, back, and forward again, though buoyed by some decent performances. Watch out for the ending though; it almost makes you want your 100 minutes back. Super lame.
Score: 7/10
Sunday, March 13, 2011
#70 - Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1983 (2009)
Oh my goodness, stupid life getting in the way of me watching movies! I spent the better part of today planning for this week's classes (three weeks left in the marking period and that's all!) including getting ready for my twelfth and final observation as a non-tenured teacher. I'm nervous, because it's not exactly my most well-behaved class, and also, I've passed the previous eleven observations very well, so I'd hate for my twelfth to be of any less quality. However, we're right at the very end of the novel and Tuesday is the day I have to finish it to allow time for everything else that follows to fall into place, so I'm concerned about the "interestingness" of the day. We'll find out.
In addition to planning, I've been watching a bunch of tennis; the tournament that's happening right now is the one out in California that I've attended the last three years. This is the weekend that I would have gone, had I kept up the tradition. So it's a little bittersweet to only be watching it this year, but I did talk to my friend Karl who went to the tournament this year, and he updated me on everything. A small turnout this year, TaT-wise. Probably because of the economy.
I did get to a movie today, the final one of the Red Riding trilogy. In this final chapter, we're treated to the wrapping up of the loose ends from the previous two films. It's extremely tense from beginning to end, and though we have some new characters and new storylines, it feels very much a product of the first two movies, which really works in its favor. (Yes, I know it's basically a trilogy, but still.)
Some of the carryovers (police brutality, unlikeable characters, one or two good souls, a character named BJ who lives up to the moniker, etc.) are as recognizable as ever, and the ever-present sense of doom still pervades. Because this movie did so much tying up and visited so many characters, I did have a bit of difficulty following it, at times, but I'm guessing it's probably more my fault than the movie's. Also, it's not like the ending doesn't give the faithful viewer closure.
I'm super glad my friend Dan told me about this series so that when I saw it on Netflix, I had the desire to watch them. It's a terrific series, and has inspired me to read the novels on which they're based. You know, when I get around to it.
Score: 9.5/10
In addition to planning, I've been watching a bunch of tennis; the tournament that's happening right now is the one out in California that I've attended the last three years. This is the weekend that I would have gone, had I kept up the tradition. So it's a little bittersweet to only be watching it this year, but I did talk to my friend Karl who went to the tournament this year, and he updated me on everything. A small turnout this year, TaT-wise. Probably because of the economy.
I did get to a movie today, the final one of the Red Riding trilogy. In this final chapter, we're treated to the wrapping up of the loose ends from the previous two films. It's extremely tense from beginning to end, and though we have some new characters and new storylines, it feels very much a product of the first two movies, which really works in its favor. (Yes, I know it's basically a trilogy, but still.)
Some of the carryovers (police brutality, unlikeable characters, one or two good souls, a character named BJ who lives up to the moniker, etc.) are as recognizable as ever, and the ever-present sense of doom still pervades. Because this movie did so much tying up and visited so many characters, I did have a bit of difficulty following it, at times, but I'm guessing it's probably more my fault than the movie's. Also, it's not like the ending doesn't give the faithful viewer closure.
I'm super glad my friend Dan told me about this series so that when I saw it on Netflix, I had the desire to watch them. It's a terrific series, and has inspired me to read the novels on which they're based. You know, when I get around to it.
Score: 9.5/10
Saturday, March 12, 2011
#69 - A Single Man (2009)
No update yesterday, because my time was taken up watching the East Detroit High School Shamrocks clinch district champs for the second year in a row! They won 44-42 in a really intense game, coming back from a six point deficit with four minutes left in the game. It's even more awesome since several of them are or have been my students (good ones, too!) and it's exciting to see them live out this dream. They play in the first round of regionals Monday night, so... you probably won't see an update on Monday either, because I will be at the game.
On to the movie:
I have finally gotten around to watching the movie that earned Colin Firth his first Oscar nod (just last year) and was notably left off the lists for Best Picture (The Blind Side? Really?) and Best Supporting Actress for Julianne Moore (Penelope Cruz in Nine? Really? She was only fine, and the movie was awful). And those were my opinions before seeing this film. They haven't changed.
Though neophyte director Tom Ford's film is overall successful, his designer sense comes through in almost blinding ways. There is no lack of attention to detail, to be sure, but the way the camera lingers on beautiful images gets monotonous. Whether it's all metaphorical, or it just attempts to augment even the sumptuousness of the Christopher Isherwood novel is uncertain, but it's absolutely true that Ford at this point lacks restraint.
The constant attention brought to objects, people, and situations (George "not looking well", the aspirin, etc.) becomes overwhelming. It ruins the atmosphere by giving the viewer constant reminding that something not good might happen. It takes us out of the moment on the screen and delivers us to the end of the film each time. At times, it's almost infuriating. Like some of the dialogue. I'm not disputing Nicholas Hoult's acting ability (and, side note: damn has the About a Boy kid grown up!) but they couldn't have given him dialogue any less suited to this film. It was straight out of a stiltedly-written gay romance novel, and it was supremely off-putting.
Firth and Moore are both terrific, though not Oscar-worthily so. Still, she could have gotten a nod, at least. The movie is enjoyable, but it seems to revel in itself too much. You can tell from start to finish how emotionally invested Ford was in it. I would say it borders a bit on narcissism, but that's probably a bit misplaced. I'm not psychologist. Thusly, we'll leave it as one's grand love for a chef d'oeuvre.
Score: 7.5/10
On to the movie:
I have finally gotten around to watching the movie that earned Colin Firth his first Oscar nod (just last year) and was notably left off the lists for Best Picture (The Blind Side? Really?) and Best Supporting Actress for Julianne Moore (Penelope Cruz in Nine? Really? She was only fine, and the movie was awful). And those were my opinions before seeing this film. They haven't changed.
Though neophyte director Tom Ford's film is overall successful, his designer sense comes through in almost blinding ways. There is no lack of attention to detail, to be sure, but the way the camera lingers on beautiful images gets monotonous. Whether it's all metaphorical, or it just attempts to augment even the sumptuousness of the Christopher Isherwood novel is uncertain, but it's absolutely true that Ford at this point lacks restraint.
The constant attention brought to objects, people, and situations (George "not looking well", the aspirin, etc.) becomes overwhelming. It ruins the atmosphere by giving the viewer constant reminding that something not good might happen. It takes us out of the moment on the screen and delivers us to the end of the film each time. At times, it's almost infuriating. Like some of the dialogue. I'm not disputing Nicholas Hoult's acting ability (and, side note: damn has the About a Boy kid grown up!) but they couldn't have given him dialogue any less suited to this film. It was straight out of a stiltedly-written gay romance novel, and it was supremely off-putting.
Firth and Moore are both terrific, though not Oscar-worthily so. Still, she could have gotten a nod, at least. The movie is enjoyable, but it seems to revel in itself too much. You can tell from start to finish how emotionally invested Ford was in it. I would say it borders a bit on narcissism, but that's probably a bit misplaced. I'm not psychologist. Thusly, we'll leave it as one's grand love for a chef d'oeuvre.
Score: 7.5/10
Thursday, March 10, 2011
#68 - Tell No One (2006)
I'm very excited to watch this second movie of the day, because it's been a few years since the first time I saw it. I have very fond memories of how much I enjoyed the film. I'm also excited because I'm watching with my brother Matt who has a negative view of French storytelling from the one French movie he's seen: Roman de Gare. Not having seen the movie, I cannot corroborate his feelings, but I told him he'd enjoy Tell No One. He rented it, and here we are.
The premise sounded a little hokey, at first, but it's a solid film: a man's wife is murdered, then she sends him an email eight years later. Craziness ensues.
Loved it just as much the second time around, but it's kind of weird: I thought it had more "action-y" moments than it actually does, but I really got into the psychological craziness even more on this viewing. Totally awesome. Usually, movies lose a little something after I've seen them at the Traverse City Film Festival, because the audience adds another dimension to the viewing experience, but in this instance, I enjoyed it just as thoroughly as I had originally. Go out and watch out. It's great. (Matt thought so, too.)
Score: 9.5/10
The premise sounded a little hokey, at first, but it's a solid film: a man's wife is murdered, then she sends him an email eight years later. Craziness ensues.
Loved it just as much the second time around, but it's kind of weird: I thought it had more "action-y" moments than it actually does, but I really got into the psychological craziness even more on this viewing. Totally awesome. Usually, movies lose a little something after I've seen them at the Traverse City Film Festival, because the audience adds another dimension to the viewing experience, but in this instance, I enjoyed it just as thoroughly as I had originally. Go out and watch out. It's great. (Matt thought so, too.)
Score: 9.5/10
#67 - Death on the Nile (1978)
I'm kind of pissed right now, because my Before Sunrise Netflix DVD sounded like I was putting it in a garbage disposal instead of the DVD player, so now I have to send it back, and I was REALLY looking forward to finally watching it. And now, since I'm a bit perturbed, I put in a different Netflix disc that I don't have to care quite as much about. I'm always up for any Agatha Christie adaptation, especially one I've not seen. Also, this is absolutely one of my favorite Christie novels, right up there with And Then There Were None, The Murder of Roger Ackroyd, and Murder on the Orient Express. It will be interesting to watch this after having read the novel a few times and see how faithful it is.
The cast, by the way, is as star-studded as it gets: Peter Ustinov, Bette Davis, Angela Lansbury, David Niven, Maggie Smith, George Kennedy, as well as some more minor notables.
Hysterically, Angela Lansbury plays an author (though of slutty romance, this time) and is a perfect Salome Otterbourne. Peter Ustinov is no David Suchet, but also the character is not what I would consider an accurate portrayal of the Poirot I've read so much of. And now, I can't go any further without mentioning how awful Lois Chiles is as Linnet Ridgeway. Thank God she's the one who gets killed.
Unfortunately for this adaptation, the part that it chooses to pare down effect very strongly is the character of Rosalie Otterbourne (Olivia Hussey), who in the novel was charming, intelligent, and insightful. In the movie, she's almost nonexistent and is perpetually turning away from the camera or putting her head down, or making excuses for Angela Lansbury.
A mediocre adaptation, at best. Read the novel for the purest enjoyment and craft.
Score: 6/10
The cast, by the way, is as star-studded as it gets: Peter Ustinov, Bette Davis, Angela Lansbury, David Niven, Maggie Smith, George Kennedy, as well as some more minor notables.
Hysterically, Angela Lansbury plays an author (though of slutty romance, this time) and is a perfect Salome Otterbourne. Peter Ustinov is no David Suchet, but also the character is not what I would consider an accurate portrayal of the Poirot I've read so much of. And now, I can't go any further without mentioning how awful Lois Chiles is as Linnet Ridgeway. Thank God she's the one who gets killed.
Unfortunately for this adaptation, the part that it chooses to pare down effect very strongly is the character of Rosalie Otterbourne (Olivia Hussey), who in the novel was charming, intelligent, and insightful. In the movie, she's almost nonexistent and is perpetually turning away from the camera or putting her head down, or making excuses for Angela Lansbury.
A mediocre adaptation, at best. Read the novel for the purest enjoyment and craft.
Score: 6/10
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
#66 - Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1980 (2009)
Two words: Paddy Considine.
Just seeing Paddy Considine reminds me of two things: as one half of the snarky, always-sunglassed duo in Hot Fuzz, and as the Irish immigrant married, with two children, to Samayyntha Morton in In America. I may actually watch that movie again, as it's been several years, but it will always stand out to me for the single-most heartwrenching carnival scene I've ever seen. Anyways, on to Red Riding.
Part Deux.
This time, the story revolves around the very real Yorkshire Ripper case (footage of the investigation is actually the framing device for the film), and Paddy Considine is brought in as the leader of a "supersquad" to take over some of the authorities of the Yorkshire Police. (At one point, a character remarks that if something bad were to happen, he wouldn't ever go to them for help, so this should give you an idea of what we're dealing with.)
The second part has a much more thoroughly modern (Millie?) feel to it, thus making the gravitas of the era less important than in the first part. The story is certainly no more joyful, though, despite the increased use of light. One of my favorite parts involves the tying in of part one, and even though I was paying a lot of attention, something slipped right by me until it was tied up at the end. Definitely a WTF moment. Makes me wonder how many more I may have missed...
Definitely looking forward to part 3, which will be coming... who knows when. Parent-teacher conferences are tomorrow, so it's a long day. The thing I most want to do is sleep when I get home from them.
Until next time!
Score: 8.5/10
Just seeing Paddy Considine reminds me of two things: as one half of the snarky, always-sunglassed duo in Hot Fuzz, and as the Irish immigrant married, with two children, to Samayyntha Morton in In America. I may actually watch that movie again, as it's been several years, but it will always stand out to me for the single-most heartwrenching carnival scene I've ever seen. Anyways, on to Red Riding.
Part Deux.
This time, the story revolves around the very real Yorkshire Ripper case (footage of the investigation is actually the framing device for the film), and Paddy Considine is brought in as the leader of a "supersquad" to take over some of the authorities of the Yorkshire Police. (At one point, a character remarks that if something bad were to happen, he wouldn't ever go to them for help, so this should give you an idea of what we're dealing with.)
The second part has a much more thoroughly modern (Millie?) feel to it, thus making the gravitas of the era less important than in the first part. The story is certainly no more joyful, though, despite the increased use of light. One of my favorite parts involves the tying in of part one, and even though I was paying a lot of attention, something slipped right by me until it was tied up at the end. Definitely a WTF moment. Makes me wonder how many more I may have missed...
Definitely looking forward to part 3, which will be coming... who knows when. Parent-teacher conferences are tomorrow, so it's a long day. The thing I most want to do is sleep when I get home from them.
Until next time!
Score: 8.5/10
#65 - Red Riding: In the Year of Our Lord 1974 (2009)
Two words: Andrew Garfield.
Another two words:Andrew Garfield. Rebecca Hall.
In 2009, BBC aired three movies that were dubbed "The Red Riding Trilogy" that focused on very fictionalized accounts of some serial murders in the past 40 years in England.
In the first installment of this TV trilogy, we meet Garfield who plays Eddie Dunford, a journalist for the Yorkshire Post, who gets very involved in trying to uncover the truth behind the disappearance and murder of four young girls. His questioning leads him to the widowed mother (Hall) of one of the young girls, where he finds even more questions, murkier "realizations", and some people who decidedly don't want him to know too much.
It's terrifically acted and fantastically shot, with superb care taken in the detailing of the time. The look of the film is stunning in its depiction not only of the era, but of the grittiness of the case and the changes in geography. Really stunning work. I'm choosing not to tell too much about it, because I want everyone to watch it for themselves.
Score: 9.5/10
Another two words:
In 2009, BBC aired three movies that were dubbed "The Red Riding Trilogy" that focused on very fictionalized accounts of some serial murders in the past 40 years in England.
In the first installment of this TV trilogy, we meet Garfield who plays Eddie Dunford, a journalist for the Yorkshire Post, who gets very involved in trying to uncover the truth behind the disappearance and murder of four young girls. His questioning leads him to the widowed mother (Hall) of one of the young girls, where he finds even more questions, murkier "realizations", and some people who decidedly don't want him to know too much.
It's terrifically acted and fantastically shot, with superb care taken in the detailing of the time. The look of the film is stunning in its depiction not only of the era, but of the grittiness of the case and the changes in geography. Really stunning work. I'm choosing not to tell too much about it, because I want everyone to watch it for themselves.
Score: 9.5/10
Sunday, March 6, 2011
#64 - The Next Three Days (2010)
After several days of classics in a row, I've decided to watch a couple more recent movies: yesterday's Before the Devil Knows You're Dead and today's late 2010 release The Next Three Days.
As the movie begins, I'm reminded that I've always liked Russell Crowe a lot. Moving on:
The fact that the movie doesn't spend any time on whether or not Elizabeth Banks did or did not actually commit the murder she's accused of leads me to believe that she actually may have, and that it's going to be more about whether or not Crowe cares, if she did.
So, the first hour is basically how much does Crowe's life (and of course Banks's, too) suck, post-arrest? Crowe meets up briefly with Liam Neeson, who tells him how he escaped from prison and gives him the litany of things he'll need to accomplish to get his wife out of jail and get his family to freedom. Of course, this comes with the obvious caveat that he must be willing to do anything and everything it takes to accomplish this.
Crowe starts dealing with some shady characters, finding out via the internet everything else he needs to do be all felonious, and still seeing everything go not at all according to plan. Meanwhile, Banks admits to Crowe that she did, indeed, do it, but that may have only been because she was pissed off. So, did she or didn't she? And does it matter?
The remaining 75 minutes is Crowe's attempt to right his life. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, to be honest. It's not in the pantheon of the greatest movies ever, but, like Red, it's a singularly satisfying film of its genre.
Score: 8/10
As the movie begins, I'm reminded that I've always liked Russell Crowe a lot. Moving on:
The fact that the movie doesn't spend any time on whether or not Elizabeth Banks did or did not actually commit the murder she's accused of leads me to believe that she actually may have, and that it's going to be more about whether or not Crowe cares, if she did.
So, the first hour is basically how much does Crowe's life (and of course Banks's, too) suck, post-arrest? Crowe meets up briefly with Liam Neeson, who tells him how he escaped from prison and gives him the litany of things he'll need to accomplish to get his wife out of jail and get his family to freedom. Of course, this comes with the obvious caveat that he must be willing to do anything and everything it takes to accomplish this.
Crowe starts dealing with some shady characters, finding out via the internet everything else he needs to do be all felonious, and still seeing everything go not at all according to plan. Meanwhile, Banks admits to Crowe that she did, indeed, do it, but that may have only been because she was pissed off. So, did she or didn't she? And does it matter?
The remaining 75 minutes is Crowe's attempt to right his life. I enjoyed the movie quite a bit, to be honest. It's not in the pantheon of the greatest movies ever, but, like Red, it's a singularly satisfying film of its genre.
Score: 8/10
Saturday, March 5, 2011
#63 - Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)
Holy crap.
I certainly didn't expect to see Philip Seymour Hoffman's naked ass giving it to Marisa Tomei right off the bat. Then, not ten minutes later, we see the aftermath of Ethan Hawke's naked ass giving it to Marisa Tomei. Guess which one was hotter?
Last night, after I watched the incredibly mediocre Separate Tables, my brothers and I watched the second installment of the BBC Series Sherlock, which was infinitely more enjoyable. Tonight on the docket are Buffalo Wild Wings for my brother Matt's upcoming birthday (awesome) and the 3rd and final episode of Series 1 of the show. I'm really excited.
As I've been waiting for all that to happen, I finished reading The Great Gatsby (a good thing, since I'm teaching it this semester), listened to an Of Montreal album I purchased, and decided to watch Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, a movie of which I've had high expectations for awhile now. Others have told me how much they enjoyed the film, so we'll see if it lives up to those expectations.
I just want to say one thing before I get started a little more: I'm glad that Marisa Tomei keeps getting work, because I think she's fabulous. Of course she's amazing in My Cousin Vinny, but I've been lucky enough to have seen her and been fond of her work in The Wrestler and In the Bedroom.
Hoffman and Hawke are great, as well, as brothers who arrange to rob their parents' jewelry store (no fuss, no muss: a victimless crime) to make some money they desperately need. Unsurprisingly, things don't quite go according to plan, and the next 100 minutes are spent re-living the days before the crime, and the unraveling of their actions. Albert Finney plays the father betrayed by his sons with veteran precision.
The first half of the film, for me, doesn't really get moving. But it becomes very apparent later that the purpose of the first half is really just to set up the second half for all the shit that's about to go down. I know: that sounds like it's the purpose of any film, but I assure you, this is different. Every slow moment in the first half, every seemingly extraneous detail, is recalled in the second half to bring the film to a satisfying conclusion.
Score: 8/10
I certainly didn't expect to see Philip Seymour Hoffman's naked ass giving it to Marisa Tomei right off the bat. Then, not ten minutes later, we see the aftermath of Ethan Hawke's naked ass giving it to Marisa Tomei. Guess which one was hotter?
Last night, after I watched the incredibly mediocre Separate Tables, my brothers and I watched the second installment of the BBC Series Sherlock, which was infinitely more enjoyable. Tonight on the docket are Buffalo Wild Wings for my brother Matt's upcoming birthday (awesome) and the 3rd and final episode of Series 1 of the show. I'm really excited.
As I've been waiting for all that to happen, I finished reading The Great Gatsby (a good thing, since I'm teaching it this semester), listened to an Of Montreal album I purchased, and decided to watch Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, a movie of which I've had high expectations for awhile now. Others have told me how much they enjoyed the film, so we'll see if it lives up to those expectations.
I just want to say one thing before I get started a little more: I'm glad that Marisa Tomei keeps getting work, because I think she's fabulous. Of course she's amazing in My Cousin Vinny, but I've been lucky enough to have seen her and been fond of her work in The Wrestler and In the Bedroom.
Hoffman and Hawke are great, as well, as brothers who arrange to rob their parents' jewelry store (no fuss, no muss: a victimless crime) to make some money they desperately need. Unsurprisingly, things don't quite go according to plan, and the next 100 minutes are spent re-living the days before the crime, and the unraveling of their actions. Albert Finney plays the father betrayed by his sons with veteran precision.
The first half of the film, for me, doesn't really get moving. But it becomes very apparent later that the purpose of the first half is really just to set up the second half for all the shit that's about to go down. I know: that sounds like it's the purpose of any film, but I assure you, this is different. Every slow moment in the first half, every seemingly extraneous detail, is recalled in the second half to bring the film to a satisfying conclusion.
Score: 8/10
Friday, March 4, 2011
#62 - Separate Tables (1958)
Continuing on Operation Clear the DVR of Oscar Flicks, today's entry is a winner for both Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress in 1958: Separate Tables. David Niven and Wendy Hiller were the aforementioned recipients.
I'll tell you one thing: I hate the beginning already. It falls into that category of movies à la Three Coins in the Fountain and Love is a Many-Splendored Thing that has a suuuuuper-schmaltzy title song that's more expository than anything Randy Newman has ever done. Separate Tables's ditty sounded something like this:
Separate Tables
There is space between the tables that makes them
Separate Tables
People sit at them
To eat
Or, possibly, if the mood suits them better and they've already eaten, then they'll use these
SEPARATE TABLES
For bridge.
Four spades.
Five No-trumps.
La la la la la musical interlude here
Separate Tables
Not to be confused with
Adjoining Tables
Which will be the sequel to this movie
Separate Tables
And me.
Total song length: 2:04.
Now let's meet the characters!
There's David Niven. Isn't he charming, and slightly batty?! That old war veteran. Or IS he?!?!?1?!
There's Deborah Kerr. Look at her being yelled at by Gladys Cooper, who's old. HAHAHAHAHA.
There's Wendy Hiller. Look at how efficient she is! I bet it was she who made the separate tables, to expedite dinner service.
There's Burt Lancaster. He's a drunk Irishman. Silly, there's no other kind!
There's Rita Hayworth. Isn't she stunning? I know... let's have her not even say any words for like, forever. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Fast forward to the end of the first hour:
We have had three revelations:
1. David Niven was arrested on a morals charge. Gladys Cooper is organizing his removal from the hotel.
2. Burt Lancaster is a released prisoner who once tried to kill Rita Hayworth, his ex-wife, and in the meantime, he is
3. engaged to Wendy Hiller.
Deborah Kerr has done a magnificent job to this point, while Lancaster and Hayworth's subplot is very meh. Cooper and the other hotel residents and their rise-up-and-take-action committee are infuriating.
And another point: "Best Actor" David Niven has been on-screen for about six minutes in this first hour. What the hell was the Academy thinking? Hell, "Best Supporting Actress" Wendy Hiller has had more screen time (and has done a better job). Maybe this will change in the second half of the film, though we do seem fated to following out the boring Lancaster/Hayworth subplot further. (In case it wasn't obvious, I care much more about Deborah Kerr right now.)
Okay, the movie is definitely mediocre, with the exception of Kerr and Hiller's performances. Too bad poor Deborah never won an Oscar, because she was marvelous (incidentally, she lost to Susan Hayward in I Want To Live!, a movie I am going to watch as soon as Netflix makes it available for instant streaming, and as such, I am unable to speak to whether or not a correct decision was made. Also, you needn't tell me: I should very much like to make the choice for myself after I've seen both).
Score: 5.5/10
I'll tell you one thing: I hate the beginning already. It falls into that category of movies à la Three Coins in the Fountain and Love is a Many-Splendored Thing that has a suuuuuper-schmaltzy title song that's more expository than anything Randy Newman has ever done. Separate Tables's ditty sounded something like this:
Separate Tables
There is space between the tables that makes them
Separate Tables
People sit at them
To eat
Or, possibly, if the mood suits them better and they've already eaten, then they'll use these
SEPARATE TABLES
For bridge.
Four spades.
Five No-trumps.
La la la la la musical interlude here
Separate Tables
Not to be confused with
Adjoining Tables
Which will be the sequel to this movie
Separate Tables
And me.
Total song length: 2:04.
Now let's meet the characters!
There's David Niven. Isn't he charming, and slightly batty?! That old war veteran. Or IS he?!?!?1?!
There's Deborah Kerr. Look at her being yelled at by Gladys Cooper, who's old. HAHAHAHAHA.
There's Wendy Hiller. Look at how efficient she is! I bet it was she who made the separate tables, to expedite dinner service.
There's Burt Lancaster. He's a drunk Irishman. Silly, there's no other kind!
There's Rita Hayworth. Isn't she stunning? I know... let's have her not even say any words for like, forever. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.
Fast forward to the end of the first hour:
We have had three revelations:
1. David Niven was arrested on a morals charge. Gladys Cooper is organizing his removal from the hotel.
2. Burt Lancaster is a released prisoner who once tried to kill Rita Hayworth, his ex-wife, and in the meantime, he is
3. engaged to Wendy Hiller.
Deborah Kerr has done a magnificent job to this point, while Lancaster and Hayworth's subplot is very meh. Cooper and the other hotel residents and their rise-up-and-take-action committee are infuriating.
And another point: "Best Actor" David Niven has been on-screen for about six minutes in this first hour. What the hell was the Academy thinking? Hell, "Best Supporting Actress" Wendy Hiller has had more screen time (and has done a better job). Maybe this will change in the second half of the film, though we do seem fated to following out the boring Lancaster/Hayworth subplot further. (In case it wasn't obvious, I care much more about Deborah Kerr right now.)
Okay, the movie is definitely mediocre, with the exception of Kerr and Hiller's performances. Too bad poor Deborah never won an Oscar, because she was marvelous (incidentally, she lost to Susan Hayward in I Want To Live!, a movie I am going to watch as soon as Netflix makes it available for instant streaming, and as such, I am unable to speak to whether or not a correct decision was made. Also, you needn't tell me: I should very much like to make the choice for myself after I've seen both).
Score: 5.5/10
Thursday, March 3, 2011
#61 - The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931)
The three days known as the ACT/MME affair are finally done for me! It is a stressful time that depends so much on our entire staff to do a good job and then for us as the test supervisors to oversee everything, as well as making sure the requisite numbers of students take the test. I'm just glad that this most important first part of the process is over.
To celebrate, Brigid took me out to eat at Scallopini's (I had the pasta with chicken and asparagus and Gorgonzola cream - yummy) then I went home to take a short nap before watching the first of what I hope to be two films this evening. The film is called The Sin of Madelon Claudet, and it aired on TCM's 31 Days of Oscar in the section of movies devoted to actors who won both a lead and supporting role Oscar throughout their careers. This particular movie was a win for Helen Hayes, the First Lady of the American Theatre, who made a successful transition to films starting with this, her first. She would later win a Supporting Actress Oscar for her role in the movie Airport.
In the film, Hayes plays a woman who has a child with an American man, who has to go back to the U.S. very early on, leaving her with the child. Left alone with no prospects and no money, she ends up living with and eventually marrying a wealthy jewelry merchant who she likes very much, leaving her child with friends so as to keep him "hidden".
The framing device of the story is a bit stupid: we meet a woman-- we'll later find out she is basically Madelon's daughter-in-law-- who is fed up with her husband's inattention to her because of his career as a doctor. Another man, Madelon's son's mentor, then basically sits her down and tells her that her suffering is nothing compared to that of this woman, and I guess he tells her the story of Madelon Claudet. Not the best prologue in the world.
I can tell within minutes that unless the movie has an abrupt switch, it's going to be very overblown: lots of hammy acting, melodrama, and situations borne straight out of literary contrivances. Madelon's life is not an easy one: all sorts of bad things happen to her, and the case is made that if life is a series of choices, then Madelon basically made all the wrong ones and that's what gave her the life she has. And it's sadly not much of one.
The "abrupt switch" alluded to in the last paragraph does, somewhat, happen, about halfway through the film. It is at this point that the performances are really allowed to shine, and Helen Hayes shows what she is capable of. The story itself is a bit lame at times (the epilogue is as sappy as one could ever want, and Madelon's son is as wonderful as anyone could ever want) but the overall effect of the movie is still retained.
Score: 5/10
To celebrate, Brigid took me out to eat at Scallopini's (I had the pasta with chicken and asparagus and Gorgonzola cream - yummy) then I went home to take a short nap before watching the first of what I hope to be two films this evening. The film is called The Sin of Madelon Claudet, and it aired on TCM's 31 Days of Oscar in the section of movies devoted to actors who won both a lead and supporting role Oscar throughout their careers. This particular movie was a win for Helen Hayes, the First Lady of the American Theatre, who made a successful transition to films starting with this, her first. She would later win a Supporting Actress Oscar for her role in the movie Airport.
In the film, Hayes plays a woman who has a child with an American man, who has to go back to the U.S. very early on, leaving her with the child. Left alone with no prospects and no money, she ends up living with and eventually marrying a wealthy jewelry merchant who she likes very much, leaving her child with friends so as to keep him "hidden".
The framing device of the story is a bit stupid: we meet a woman-- we'll later find out she is basically Madelon's daughter-in-law-- who is fed up with her husband's inattention to her because of his career as a doctor. Another man, Madelon's son's mentor, then basically sits her down and tells her that her suffering is nothing compared to that of this woman, and I guess he tells her the story of Madelon Claudet. Not the best prologue in the world.
I can tell within minutes that unless the movie has an abrupt switch, it's going to be very overblown: lots of hammy acting, melodrama, and situations borne straight out of literary contrivances. Madelon's life is not an easy one: all sorts of bad things happen to her, and the case is made that if life is a series of choices, then Madelon basically made all the wrong ones and that's what gave her the life she has. And it's sadly not much of one.
The "abrupt switch" alluded to in the last paragraph does, somewhat, happen, about halfway through the film. It is at this point that the performances are really allowed to shine, and Helen Hayes shows what she is capable of. The story itself is a bit lame at times (the epilogue is as sappy as one could ever want, and Madelon's son is as wonderful as anyone could ever want) but the overall effect of the movie is still retained.
Score: 5/10
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
#60 - Sunrise (1927)
I'm still trying to pore through the DVR and watch some of the many many movies remaining on it, courtesy of TCM's "31 Days of Oscar" (an annual tradition that I love). Today's entry won for Best Actress Janet Gaynor, and "Best Original and Artistic Film", a category that was discontinued after the first year of the Oscars. Basically it said, "Yeah, we gave a different film the Best Film Oscar, cause it was popular and stuff, but we're going to bestow this other award on you because your film was better, but it wasn't a commercial success, so... nuts to you." Robert Osborne said this in not so many words prior to and after the movie aired. Or, at least, that's what I read into it.
I'm going to begin this post with a caveat: I would like you to see this film, but since many of you would not actually be interested in a 1927 silent film-- or if you do, you don't care if it's ruined for you-- I'm going to include the details I love most about it. There WILL be spoilers between the asterisks below. If you have not seen the film, but would like to take my encouragement and not be told significant details (like me), then skip the part between the stars.
The premise of the film is one we've seen in variations many times before (though not necessarily many times before this movie, considering its early release in the history of film): a married man is carrying on with another woman on the side, and that woman would like this man for her own. Her solution: he should kill his wife. (No, I haven't ruined anything for you, since this is the brief synopsis you'd find on IMDb, or if you watched the first seven minutes. It's all established very quickly.)
SPOILERS BELOW
*********************
We find out early on that the mistress wants the husband to kill his wife. She tells him to fake a boating accident and have her drown, but he can stay afloat using some bulrushes. This is to be his alibi: he clung to life by some reeds, but she must have drowned. Okay, cool.
He decides he is going to do exactly this, and invites his wife on a boat ride. She is overjoyed, because she knows that her husband is seeing this other woman and hopes that this newfound esprit is a changing of his heart. But when the time comes on the boat for the husband to "take action", his wife (extremely ably acted by Gaynor) cowers at one end of the boat when she realizes that her husband, who seems far less interested in this boat ride than her, means to kill her when he stands up menacingly. He can't finish the job and they drift to shore, where she runs off.
Thus begins a reconciliation of sorts: the pair does a lot of neat things (after they crash a church wedding and the husband realizes he's been a fool and starts crying) like: he gets a shave, they get their picture taken, they go to a carnival and chase a pig. You know, like a normal Saturday. The whole time, the viewer gets a little lulled into this happiness, but someone like me is always thinking, "Okay, when's the other chick going to show up and blow this party?" It is to the movie's enormous credit that this does not happen. It takes the route of further suspense and wonder: you know that it's not just going to end with them renewing their vows or something saccharine like that, but you don't actually know what's going to come of the story. We know that the other woman is still around, and still in love, as we see her in a short intersticed scene, but we have to wait for the resolution.
At the end of this day of fun, the husband suggests a boat ride back home. Uh oh. The slightly evil side of me thought that this might be some sort of Hitchcockian way of adding suspense through the husband's quasi-contrition before offing the wife. Maybe he felt bad enough to finally treat her kindly before killing her more suddenly. Again this doesn't happen, but what does happen is almost more sinister: a freak storm all but capsizes the boat, as though this couple weren't meant to be happy.
The husband wraps both himself and his wife in the bulrushes he had stored there earlier, but when all is said and done, the husband survives and they can't find the wife. The plaintive call of a muted trumpet to simulate the husband calling for his wife is utterly magnificent and heartbreaking. We know finally what he truly wants, and it's so not this.
When the search ends, he is distraught and led back to his house. Here's where it gets even more amazing: the mistress realizes what has happened and comes over to his house, assuming the opposite-- that he has done the deed so that they might be together. She realizes, as she goes to embrace him, that he is pissed. He chases her and starts to strangle her. This image is juxtaposed with the scene of an astute fisherman and his buddies dragging his near-dead wife out of the water and her mother calling for him outside (a beautiful, high-pitched instrumental crescendo), and we aren't sure if he will have succeeded in killing the mistress and ruining his future with his presumably-coming-to wife before he finds out.
The story decides to go with the happy ending: he releases her in time-- as she gapes wide-eyed at him from the ground-- and he rushes to his wife's bed, just as the (ta-da!) sunrise comes over the hills.
*********************
END SPOILERS
The direction of the film is top notch and Gaynor is phenomenal throughout (I was seriously almost in tears within five minutes as she cries over a soup tureen). Though I thought the husband, George O'Brien, was pretty awful in the beginning, he really proved his talent to me for the rest of the film. It's just as much about his choice than it is about her attempts to "save the marriage", and the movie doesn't work if either actor is terrible. The story, as told above, was pretty great for me, and it sure as hell is a superior movie to the actual "Best Film" of the year, the pretty-crappy and intentionally weepy Wings.
Score: 9.5/10
I'm going to begin this post with a caveat: I would like you to see this film, but since many of you would not actually be interested in a 1927 silent film-- or if you do, you don't care if it's ruined for you-- I'm going to include the details I love most about it. There WILL be spoilers between the asterisks below. If you have not seen the film, but would like to take my encouragement and not be told significant details (like me), then skip the part between the stars.
The premise of the film is one we've seen in variations many times before (though not necessarily many times before this movie, considering its early release in the history of film): a married man is carrying on with another woman on the side, and that woman would like this man for her own. Her solution: he should kill his wife. (No, I haven't ruined anything for you, since this is the brief synopsis you'd find on IMDb, or if you watched the first seven minutes. It's all established very quickly.)
SPOILERS BELOW
*********************
We find out early on that the mistress wants the husband to kill his wife. She tells him to fake a boating accident and have her drown, but he can stay afloat using some bulrushes. This is to be his alibi: he clung to life by some reeds, but she must have drowned. Okay, cool.
He decides he is going to do exactly this, and invites his wife on a boat ride. She is overjoyed, because she knows that her husband is seeing this other woman and hopes that this newfound esprit is a changing of his heart. But when the time comes on the boat for the husband to "take action", his wife (extremely ably acted by Gaynor) cowers at one end of the boat when she realizes that her husband, who seems far less interested in this boat ride than her, means to kill her when he stands up menacingly. He can't finish the job and they drift to shore, where she runs off.
Thus begins a reconciliation of sorts: the pair does a lot of neat things (after they crash a church wedding and the husband realizes he's been a fool and starts crying) like: he gets a shave, they get their picture taken, they go to a carnival and chase a pig. You know, like a normal Saturday. The whole time, the viewer gets a little lulled into this happiness, but someone like me is always thinking, "Okay, when's the other chick going to show up and blow this party?" It is to the movie's enormous credit that this does not happen. It takes the route of further suspense and wonder: you know that it's not just going to end with them renewing their vows or something saccharine like that, but you don't actually know what's going to come of the story. We know that the other woman is still around, and still in love, as we see her in a short intersticed scene, but we have to wait for the resolution.
At the end of this day of fun, the husband suggests a boat ride back home. Uh oh. The slightly evil side of me thought that this might be some sort of Hitchcockian way of adding suspense through the husband's quasi-contrition before offing the wife. Maybe he felt bad enough to finally treat her kindly before killing her more suddenly. Again this doesn't happen, but what does happen is almost more sinister: a freak storm all but capsizes the boat, as though this couple weren't meant to be happy.
The husband wraps both himself and his wife in the bulrushes he had stored there earlier, but when all is said and done, the husband survives and they can't find the wife. The plaintive call of a muted trumpet to simulate the husband calling for his wife is utterly magnificent and heartbreaking. We know finally what he truly wants, and it's so not this.
When the search ends, he is distraught and led back to his house. Here's where it gets even more amazing: the mistress realizes what has happened and comes over to his house, assuming the opposite-- that he has done the deed so that they might be together. She realizes, as she goes to embrace him, that he is pissed. He chases her and starts to strangle her. This image is juxtaposed with the scene of an astute fisherman and his buddies dragging his near-dead wife out of the water and her mother calling for him outside (a beautiful, high-pitched instrumental crescendo), and we aren't sure if he will have succeeded in killing the mistress and ruining his future with his presumably-coming-to wife before he finds out.
The story decides to go with the happy ending: he releases her in time-- as she gapes wide-eyed at him from the ground-- and he rushes to his wife's bed, just as the (ta-da!) sunrise comes over the hills.
*********************
END SPOILERS
The direction of the film is top notch and Gaynor is phenomenal throughout (I was seriously almost in tears within five minutes as she cries over a soup tureen). Though I thought the husband, George O'Brien, was pretty awful in the beginning, he really proved his talent to me for the rest of the film. It's just as much about his choice than it is about her attempts to "save the marriage", and the movie doesn't work if either actor is terrible. The story, as told above, was pretty great for me, and it sure as hell is a superior movie to the actual "Best Film" of the year, the pretty-crappy and intentionally weepy Wings.
Score: 9.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)