I'd have to go back and check, but this might be the only time I've seen two different films from the same director at the film festival. The man is Werner Herzog. The first film was 2007's Encounters at the End of the World, about the Antarctic ice floes, and the second is this year's Cave of Forgotten Dreams, about the unbelievable Chauvet cave paintings at Lascaux, France, which are widely believed to be the oldest form of rock art, or any kind of pictorials, ever discovered.
It's absolutely fascinating, these depictions on the cave walls of the earliest animal species, and even some representations of human figures, including a sexualized woman. As the 16th film of the festival, it always presents an unique challenge to A) stay awake and B) enjoy the film. In this case, I was able to B, but almost couldn't A during some of the more expository parts. Especially during the long scene where the woman with the soothing voice took us through the different sections of the cave. It makes me yawn just thinking about it, and not in ennui, but in calm. I'm excited to see it again, and to enjoy it again, and increase my knowledge of this paleontological marvel.
Score: 9/10
Friday, August 12, 2011
#171 - L'inferno (1911)
Every year, the TCFF always seems to have one old gem play at the State Theatre at noon on Saturday, with some sort of accompanying musicians. A couple years ago, we saw Metropolis with a live orchestra performing the score (really amazing) and this year, we were witness to one of Italy's first feature-length films, L'inferno, based on Dante's Divine Comedy, with an accompanying organist. He was very good, but gave a very Skeletons of Quinto-esque expository speech before the movie began. (Fans of A Mighty Wind will possibly get that reference.) The movie itself was fine, amazing for its time, no doubt, but pretty cheesy by today's standards.
I saw the movie with Dan and he mentioned that it was strange how some of the men got loincloths and others didn't. There didn't seem to be a reason behind who/why. Oh well. In addition, IMDb tells me that this was the first film to show male full frontal nudity, and the next time it happened was almost 60 years later, in the infamous wrestling men scene in the adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love. It was also the first movie to be shown in its entirety without intermission in the US. The organist told us this, and mentioned as well that it made a great deal of money in its day. Really a landmark piece.
This one is tough to score given the 100 years difference, but in cases like this, I have to lean toward how revolutionary this was (in addition to my enjoyment level).
Score: 8/10
I saw the movie with Dan and he mentioned that it was strange how some of the men got loincloths and others didn't. There didn't seem to be a reason behind who/why. Oh well. In addition, IMDb tells me that this was the first film to show male full frontal nudity, and the next time it happened was almost 60 years later, in the infamous wrestling men scene in the adaptation of D.H. Lawrence's Women in Love. It was also the first movie to be shown in its entirety without intermission in the US. The organist told us this, and mentioned as well that it made a great deal of money in its day. Really a landmark piece.
This one is tough to score given the 100 years difference, but in cases like this, I have to lean toward how revolutionary this was (in addition to my enjoyment level).
Score: 8/10
#170 - Trollhunter (2010)
A Norwegian mockumentary about a... guess.
A Blair Witch-style college documentary three-person film team follows a man who they think is poaching bears, but is, in "reality", the best field worker for the TSS (Troll Security Service), a secret government organization to rid the country of its trolls.
It's a funny premise (I especially like the part in the movie where the man is hunting the troll who lives under the bridge) and I enjoyed the whimsy (yes, whimsy) that accompanies all the actual trollhunting and trolldisposing. I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more had it not been a midnight showing of the 14th movie I saw at the fest this year. Its faux-documentary style worked against it in ways, as though I were watching a very late-late news report. But that being said, I enjoyed it very much, and it certainly falls at least in the middle of the pack of Midnight Movies at the State.
Score: 7.0/10
A Blair Witch-style college documentary three-person film team follows a man who they think is poaching bears, but is, in "reality", the best field worker for the TSS (Troll Security Service), a secret government organization to rid the country of its trolls.
It's a funny premise (I especially like the part in the movie where the man is hunting the troll who lives under the bridge) and I enjoyed the whimsy (yes, whimsy) that accompanies all the actual trollhunting and trolldisposing. I would have enjoyed this movie a lot more had it not been a midnight showing of the 14th movie I saw at the fest this year. Its faux-documentary style worked against it in ways, as though I were watching a very late-late news report. But that being said, I enjoyed it very much, and it certainly falls at least in the middle of the pack of Midnight Movies at the State.
Score: 7.0/10
#169 - Largo Winch (2008)
An action movie that's a combined effort of France and Belgium starring an attractive man and Kristin Scott Thomas? I'll give it a shot.
And, thankfully, it was about exactly as I expected. A not-too-complicated business plot emerges when a tycoon dies with no known heir, but aha, there is a surprise! An adopted son who can be found to take over the company? You don't say.
Action, action, action, subplot, subplot, subplot. And it all wraps up really nicely at the end.
And there's going to be a sequel?! Yes, please.
Score: 8/10
And, thankfully, it was about exactly as I expected. A not-too-complicated business plot emerges when a tycoon dies with no known heir, but aha, there is a surprise! An adopted son who can be found to take over the company? You don't say.
Action, action, action, subplot, subplot, subplot. And it all wraps up really nicely at the end.
And there's going to be a sequel?! Yes, please.
Score: 8/10
#168 - Rid of Me (2011)
Unfortunately, this decent idea with potential ranks among the least successful movies I have ever seen at the festival. The tagline of the film "Kids can be mean...adults can be meaner" somewhat hints at the plot. When Mitch and Meris move back to Mitch's old town where all his old friends live, milquetoast Meris is unable to coalesce with the group (and, to the movie's discredit, we are never able to see what Mitch saw in Meris prior to their moving back) and when Mitch inevitably leaves her for his old life (and old girlfriend), Meris spirals downward (then, also inevitably, back upward) with the help of a couple new friends.
But it all kinda sucks. And the acting was mostly terrible. And there was a serious age discrepancy between Mitch/Meris and all of his "high school friends". And lots of other things went wrong. But no one hated it more than Dan.
Score: 2.5/10
But it all kinda sucks. And the acting was mostly terrible. And there was a serious age discrepancy between Mitch/Meris and all of his "high school friends". And lots of other things went wrong. But no one hated it more than Dan.
Score: 2.5/10
#167 - Rabies (2010)
Today, I will be posting the remainder of the film festival movies from last week.
First on the block is an Israeli "serial killer" flick about four friends who get lost on the way to a tennis tournament and hit a young man who's just escaped from the woods with their car. The thing is: he is actually injured from a bear trap (presumably laid by the serial killer) and his sister is actually in the arms of a serial killer. But when the serial killer gets hit with a tranquilizer dart, the game isn't over, because everyone starts dying, anyway.
Unfortunately, even though the idea is pretty neat, it's carried out very unevenly. Too many different kinds of circumstances leading to a mishmash of deaths, some interesting, some over-conceived, and some completely random. In a long tradition of excellent midnight horror shows, this one falls near the bottom.
Score: 5/10
First on the block is an Israeli "serial killer" flick about four friends who get lost on the way to a tennis tournament and hit a young man who's just escaped from the woods with their car. The thing is: he is actually injured from a bear trap (presumably laid by the serial killer) and his sister is actually in the arms of a serial killer. But when the serial killer gets hit with a tranquilizer dart, the game isn't over, because everyone starts dying, anyway.
Unfortunately, even though the idea is pretty neat, it's carried out very unevenly. Too many different kinds of circumstances leading to a mishmash of deaths, some interesting, some over-conceived, and some completely random. In a long tradition of excellent midnight horror shows, this one falls near the bottom.
Score: 5/10
Saturday, July 30, 2011
#166 - Face to Face (2011)
This was touted at the film festival as a 12 Angry Men-style drama, so it had a lot of expectation to live up to. The film is based on a new system in Australia (where the movie's set) where, after a crime is committed, the parties involved, including many who are directly or indirectly related to the act, are brought together to basically talk through the entire story in the presence of an adjudicator. This film is based on actual case notes of one of these processes.
The "defendant" is a young man with a short fuse who gets fired from his job and, in retaliation, rams his employer's car several times in his own driveway, giving him whiplash. Also present are several other people who were affected by the incident, from workmates to family and friends. What follows delves deeply into the issue at hand, as well as who was in what way responsible for what transpired (and with a cast of only about 10, everyone's involved somehow). Great screenplay, decent acting, and great pacing combine for a pretty terrific movie that is one of my favorites of the festival.
Score: 9/10
The "defendant" is a young man with a short fuse who gets fired from his job and, in retaliation, rams his employer's car several times in his own driveway, giving him whiplash. Also present are several other people who were affected by the incident, from workmates to family and friends. What follows delves deeply into the issue at hand, as well as who was in what way responsible for what transpired (and with a cast of only about 10, everyone's involved somehow). Great screenplay, decent acting, and great pacing combine for a pretty terrific movie that is one of my favorites of the festival.
Score: 9/10
#165 - The Guard (2011)
Definitely one of my favorites of the festival. The Guard is an Irish-set drama focusing on local lawman Brendan Gleeson and American FBI agent Don Cheadle as they try to track down a shipment of cocaine that is suspected to land in Ireland. Gleeson's very much a do-it-my-own-way kind of enforcement officer, which doesn't tend to gel with Cheadle and some of the other officers. Of course, we the audience love him, his offbeat sense of humor, and his ways of doing things. All this is acted supremely well by the terrific Mad-Eye Moody Brendan Gleeson.
The movie is well-acted, well-written, and really funny. So much so that the whole international drug trafficking plot sometimes gets forgotten (for all the right reasons). Do go see this film!
Score: 9/10
The movie is well-acted, well-written, and really funny. So much so that the whole international drug trafficking plot sometimes gets forgotten (for all the right reasons). Do go see this film!
Score: 9/10
#164 - Hesher (2010)
I really didn't enjoy this movie that much, to be honest. The basic premise is as follows: young T.J. breaks a window in the development where Hesher (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) is squatting, forcing Hesher to move. He decides to "move in" with T.J. and his dad (Rainn Wilson) - who just lost their mother/wife - and T.J.'s grandma (Piper Laurie). Hesher is a metalhead thrasher-type kid who spreads chaos where he goes, doing everything unapologetically. Along the way, we also meet store clerk Nicole (Natalie Portman) who T.J. becomes enamored with.
The consistency of the movie is commendable, as are the last 20 or so minutes which made me appreciate the film more than I did for the other majority of it. If you like seriously offbeat and somewhat morbid comedies, then you may appreciate this one. Or, like me, maybe you won't.
Score: 5.5/10
The consistency of the movie is commendable, as are the last 20 or so minutes which made me appreciate the film more than I did for the other majority of it. If you like seriously offbeat and somewhat morbid comedies, then you may appreciate this one. Or, like me, maybe you won't.
Score: 5.5/10
Friday, July 29, 2011
#163 - The Women on the 6th Floor (2010)
Stemming the tide of enjoying each movie at the festival less than the one that came before it, The Women on the 6th Floor was a very sweet comedy about a group of Spanish maids who, well, guess.... Early in the film, the niece (Maria) of one of the maids comes to live in the apartment and gets a job housekeeping for the wealthy Jouberts who live below. M. Joubert quickly finds out that the loves the way the maids live and goes out of his way to help them when he can (which somewhat surprises others). What follows is at times predictable, but overall an enjoyable film about real living vs. fake living and the bosses vs. the "bossed".
Score: 8/10
Score: 8/10
#162 - L'amour fou
Really a disappointment for me, since, in addition to the main story of the relationship between Yves Saint-Laurent and his partner of 50+ years Pierre Bergé, I was really hoping for a lot more about the rise of the fashion empire that YSL helped create and maintain for so many years. Instead, in addition to the story about their relationship (told almost exclusive through the words of Bergé), the story focused almost exclusively on the art collection the pair amassed throughout the years. Not really the kind of creation I was hoping to see, and as such, I was less interested in the movie than I could have been.
Not to mention, even though the movie was not even 100 minutes long, the amount of time the camera spent lingering over a raindropped window or panning back and forth over the immense art collection made it seem much much longer. And for a documentary that was mostly a pair of interviews with Bergé, it felt very long, indeed.
Score: 5/10
Not to mention, even though the movie was not even 100 minutes long, the amount of time the camera spent lingering over a raindropped window or panning back and forth over the immense art collection made it seem much much longer. And for a documentary that was mostly a pair of interviews with Bergé, it felt very long, indeed.
Score: 5/10
#161 - Everything Must Go (2010)
Of the four movies I saw on Wednesday, this was my least favorite. It stars Will Ferrell as a man who, in the span of about four minutes, loses his job, his wife, his house, his car, basically his life, and has to try to get things back in order, with the help of a young neighbor boy, and new neighbor Rebecca Hall. Well, kinda. The movie feels really inorganic (not to mention, I tend not to enjoy movies where everything that can possibly go wrong seems to, in a very short amount of time, leaving the viewer with a sense of hopelessness and disbelief that things could actually work out) and while the acting (Ferrell, Hall, Laura Dern, and Christopher Jordan Wallace, the son of the late Notorious B.I.G.) is terrific, it falls under the weight of an impossible story. A little disappointing, especially since it fell a little short of expectations.
Score: 5.5/10
Score: 5.5/10
#160 - Higher Ground (2011)
Me, see a movie based on a story about a born-again Christian?
Sure, if it's directed by and stars Vera Farmiga!
Yes, there's a lot of Jesus in this film about a woman who finds and loses her faith a couple of times, but there is a good bit of humor and some great acting (especially Farmiga, and Dagmara Dominczyk, who plays her friend Annika) that keeps the movie from becoming too cloying and unwatchable. Still, the story becomes somewhat predictable and falls a little flat, at times, but is a much more successful film than it could have been.
Score: 6.5/10
Sure, if it's directed by and stars Vera Farmiga!
Yes, there's a lot of Jesus in this film about a woman who finds and loses her faith a couple of times, but there is a good bit of humor and some great acting (especially Farmiga, and Dagmara Dominczyk, who plays her friend Annika) that keeps the movie from becoming too cloying and unwatchable. Still, the story becomes somewhat predictable and falls a little flat, at times, but is a much more successful film than it could have been.
Score: 6.5/10
#159 - Battle for Brooklyn (2010)
I'm so fucking glad that they decided to build a new arena for the New Jersey Nets in the middle of Brooklyn.
This is basically the premise behind the struggles of a few staunch Brooklynites who didn't want to see the area they live in turn into a giant construction job. Certainly this is a great movie for all you activists and socially aware citizens (so, like, no one I know. Kidding) or really anyone who hates big corporations.
Score: 7.5/10
This is basically the premise behind the struggles of a few staunch Brooklynites who didn't want to see the area they live in turn into a giant construction job. Certainly this is a great movie for all you activists and socially aware citizens (so, like, no one I know. Kidding) or really anyone who hates big corporations.
Score: 7.5/10
#158 - Incendies (2010)
So far, this is my favorite film of the festival (if you don't count The Empire Strikes Back, since it's not a newer release). It follows a set of twins who are given a mission by their mother who has just passed. The mission is to find the father they've never met, and the brother they never knew they had. Their journey takes them from Canada to Israel, where their mother is originally from, and they proceed to learn all about their heritage. (But it's a lot less boring than that.) Biggest complaint: its slow pace. Still a pretty great movie that I look forward to seeing again.
Score: 9/10
Score: 9/10
#157 - Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
It's been awhile, I know, but between going to California for work, going to New York with friends, and nearly getting The Pneumonia, I haven't had much of a July. Also, this is my summer, so keeping up be damned. However, thanks to the TCFF (Traverse City Film Festival), I have had the opportunity to catch up quite a bit. Here is the Reader's Digest version of the I've seen so far at the festival:
#157 - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The best of all the Star Wars movies (if you discount the Wellesian Attack of the Clones) has the best plot (come on, we all know that Vader is Luke's father, but it was a big deal back in 1980), introduces the bad ass Yoda (and Lando Calrissian, too, I guess) and has the coolest, hope-filled ending. This movie will remain in my top 10 of all time probably forever. It also brings back fond memories of spending time with my mom, because she let me stay up and finish it when it was on TV back in the day (on a school night, no less!)
Score: 10/10
P.S. I've decided to make each one a separate entry so I can keep my stats (scores and years released) in order.
#157 - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
The best of all the Star Wars movies (if you discount the Wellesian Attack of the Clones) has the best plot (come on, we all know that Vader is Luke's father, but it was a big deal back in 1980), introduces the bad ass Yoda (and Lando Calrissian, too, I guess) and has the coolest, hope-filled ending. This movie will remain in my top 10 of all time probably forever. It also brings back fond memories of spending time with my mom, because she let me stay up and finish it when it was on TV back in the day (on a school night, no less!)
Score: 10/10
P.S. I've decided to make each one a separate entry so I can keep my stats (scores and years released) in order.
Friday, June 24, 2011
#156 - Match Point (2005)
I've been watching a lot of Wimbledon the last few days (shock!) and kind of forgot about catching up on my movies, so the other day, at the end of play, I wanted to put in something, and my thoughts went to the slightly tennis-themed (at least in the title) Match Point, one of my favorite films. When I first watched it five years ago, the final twenty minutes kept me absolutely glued to the TV. I can even remember getting off the couch to get closer to the TV because the tension was literally sucking me in. Pretty awesome.
It's easily the best movie Woody Allen's done in the last ten years (yes, I'd put it above Midnight in Paris) and what we're treated to is an uncomplicated, yet deceptively complex story about a man who really just has to make a major decision on what he wants his future to look like. It stars the more familiar Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (love) and Scarlett Johansson (love), but as good as they are, they are outdone by the British pair of Emily Mortimer and Matthew Goode, who play the brother and sister around whose family the story all seems to revolve. They are best when interacting with each other and at times it's easy to forget they aren't actually related.
I highly recommend this movie anytime you want a good drama.
Score: 9.5/10
It's easily the best movie Woody Allen's done in the last ten years (yes, I'd put it above Midnight in Paris) and what we're treated to is an uncomplicated, yet deceptively complex story about a man who really just has to make a major decision on what he wants his future to look like. It stars the more familiar Jonathan Rhys-Meyers (love) and Scarlett Johansson (love), but as good as they are, they are outdone by the British pair of Emily Mortimer and Matthew Goode, who play the brother and sister around whose family the story all seems to revolve. They are best when interacting with each other and at times it's easy to forget they aren't actually related.
I highly recommend this movie anytime you want a good drama.
Score: 9.5/10
Thursday, June 23, 2011
#155 - The Searchers (1956)
In a film widely regarded as one of John Wayne's best (as well as one of cinema's finest Westerns), The Duke plays a man who searches for his niece (Natalie Wood) who was kidnapped by Indians several years before. The film was widely controversial in its time for its portrayal of Native Americans (especially by John Wayne's Ethan Edwards) but overall, I believe (as do many modern critics) that the film actually takes a very even approach to the difficult subject. The one exception to this is the "marriage" between Edwards' traveling companion Martin Pawley and the Native named Look.
I have to say that as a genre, I don't really think I care much for Westerns. I've gone into both this and High Noon with high expectations as two of the supposedly finest Westerns ever produced, and I thought High Noon was boring and The Searchers overlong. The latter, though, had some great performances by Wood, Vera Miles, and especially Jeffrey Hunter as Pawley (Wayne was fine, too) as well as a couple of subplots that, at times, were much more interesting than the main "journey". (The fight scene that "interrupts" Vera Miles's wedding, for example, was pretty great, as was Martin Pawley's letter to her.)
I'll wrap up by saying that this is a movie that I might watch again, though I'd be in no big rush. Possibly I need some suggestions from the genre to give myself a greater appreciation. (The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is on my to-watch list.)
Score: 7.5/10
I have to say that as a genre, I don't really think I care much for Westerns. I've gone into both this and High Noon with high expectations as two of the supposedly finest Westerns ever produced, and I thought High Noon was boring and The Searchers overlong. The latter, though, had some great performances by Wood, Vera Miles, and especially Jeffrey Hunter as Pawley (Wayne was fine, too) as well as a couple of subplots that, at times, were much more interesting than the main "journey". (The fight scene that "interrupts" Vera Miles's wedding, for example, was pretty great, as was Martin Pawley's letter to her.)
I'll wrap up by saying that this is a movie that I might watch again, though I'd be in no big rush. Possibly I need some suggestions from the genre to give myself a greater appreciation. (The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly is on my to-watch list.)
Score: 7.5/10
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
#154 - My Best Friend (2006)
I watched this one with my French class a few weeks ago, but forgot to write about it. I wanted to do something more cultural with them: expose them to things beyond the vocab and the snippets about daily life in France, so I watched and discussed a couple of my favorite French films with them (the ones acceptable by the school standard) and this was one of their favorites.
I was lucky enough to see this with a few friends at the Traverse City Film Festival a few years ago (the same year we saw "The Valet", another wonderful French comedy) and we all thought that it was wonderful, charming, and a nice story. The story itself, if done by a crappy American film company, would turn into a steaming pile of schmaltz: a man is basically challenged by his coworker to prove that he has a friend.
Sounds hokey, right?
Sure! But it's not. It's sentimental without being sappy, and a lot of that success comes from the leads: Daniel Auteuil (of "Jean de Florette" fame, among a bajillion others) as the rich guy who's got it all, save a real friend; and the remarkable Dany Boon as the trivia junkie taxi driver who gets pulled into Auteuil's web and finds so much more. This is also my favorite movie that uses "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" as a salient plot point. Sorry, Slumdog!
Score: 8/10
I was lucky enough to see this with a few friends at the Traverse City Film Festival a few years ago (the same year we saw "The Valet", another wonderful French comedy) and we all thought that it was wonderful, charming, and a nice story. The story itself, if done by a crappy American film company, would turn into a steaming pile of schmaltz: a man is basically challenged by his coworker to prove that he has a friend.
Sounds hokey, right?
Sure! But it's not. It's sentimental without being sappy, and a lot of that success comes from the leads: Daniel Auteuil (of "Jean de Florette" fame, among a bajillion others) as the rich guy who's got it all, save a real friend; and the remarkable Dany Boon as the trivia junkie taxi driver who gets pulled into Auteuil's web and finds so much more. This is also my favorite movie that uses "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" as a salient plot point. Sorry, Slumdog!
Score: 8/10
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
#153 - Midnight in Paris (2011)
Woody Allen's newest film is the reason why I already had to break my "Never will I ever see an Owen Wilson movie in the theatre voluntarily ever again" pact so quickly. Because, really, with all the buzz, the fact that it's a Woody Allen film, the title, the setting, the wonderful Marion Cotillard, the lovely Rachel McAdams, the terrific Kathy Bates, etc. I couldn't not.
So I went with Christine to the theatre a few nights ago and was really pleased (and, since I didn't really know what I was exactly getting into, quite surprised) with the direction it took. The overarching question was one of time. Are the bygone eras, with all their nostalgia and remembrance, really the better eras in which one could have lived? Owen Wilson (who plays a screenwriter and would-be author - uh huh) searches for the answer to that very question, with the help of some bygone literary figures. The actor who plays Hemingway is wonderful, as is Bates as Gertrude Stein. Indeed, the supporting cast outshine Wilson (who is fine, but is really the least convincing part of the film) and McAdams (who does well with a thoroughly unlovable character), as they really evoke the spirit of the story. I'm glad Allen's back with something so enjoyable, but to declare it Oscar-worthy is a bit premature, though unsurprisingly, I think the script could get some attention.
Score: 8.5/10
So I went with Christine to the theatre a few nights ago and was really pleased (and, since I didn't really know what I was exactly getting into, quite surprised) with the direction it took. The overarching question was one of time. Are the bygone eras, with all their nostalgia and remembrance, really the better eras in which one could have lived? Owen Wilson (who plays a screenwriter and would-be author - uh huh) searches for the answer to that very question, with the help of some bygone literary figures. The actor who plays Hemingway is wonderful, as is Bates as Gertrude Stein. Indeed, the supporting cast outshine Wilson (who is fine, but is really the least convincing part of the film) and McAdams (who does well with a thoroughly unlovable character), as they really evoke the spirit of the story. I'm glad Allen's back with something so enjoyable, but to declare it Oscar-worthy is a bit premature, though unsurprisingly, I think the script could get some attention.
Score: 8.5/10
Monday, June 13, 2011
#152 - Dial M for Murder (1954)
I watched this movie night before last with my mom and the twins, in an effort to introduce my brothers to Hitchcock, and, more specifically, my favorite Hitchcock film. It's a one-setting thriller (how weird that I would enjoy a one-room movie!) with an amazing and chilling performance by Ray Milland as an ex-tennis player who plots to have his wife (the lovely Grace Kelly) murdered. But then, when things don't go as planned, he uses all his guile and conniving to create a back-up plan.
John Williams (not the composer, of course) is at his droll best as the head inspector assigned to the case. It is interesting to note that this was a 3D movie back in the day, as well, which you can kind of see in scenes where Milland is doing the title activity, and Kelly is reaching toward the screen for the scissors. I just love this film every time I see it: for its suspense, for the acting (especially Milland), for the terrific story and screenplay, for the amazingness of the camera work and direction, and for the intricacy which weaves all this together. It's pitch perfect for me always.
Score: 10/10
John Williams (not the composer, of course) is at his droll best as the head inspector assigned to the case. It is interesting to note that this was a 3D movie back in the day, as well, which you can kind of see in scenes where Milland is doing the title activity, and Kelly is reaching toward the screen for the scissors. I just love this film every time I see it: for its suspense, for the acting (especially Milland), for the terrific story and screenplay, for the amazingness of the camera work and direction, and for the intricacy which weaves all this together. It's pitch perfect for me always.
Score: 10/10
Sunday, June 12, 2011
#151 - What's Up, Doc? (1972)
So, recently, I've been introducing my younger brothers to a lot of movies of different genres that are among some of my personal favorites (especially slightly more aged films, since their knowledge of classics is woful), and thus, I'm not super concerned about keeping to my "90% new films" quota as much, anymore, since isn't my goal to make this as fun and educational (yes, it can be both) as possible?
This brings us to tonight's film, the Peter Bogdanovich screwball comedy What's Up, Doc? starring Ryan O'Neal, Barbra Streisand, and Madeline Kahn that, even though I've seen it many times before, never fails to make me laugh. It's replete with mistaken identities, dextrous wordplay, clever situations, and gobs of sight gags that enhance, rather than detract from, the "main" points.
Also, since I love the movie so much, I'm going to give a little shout out to Erika, who was the one who introduced me to this film. Thanks!
Score: 9.5/10
This brings us to tonight's film, the Peter Bogdanovich screwball comedy What's Up, Doc? starring Ryan O'Neal, Barbra Streisand, and Madeline Kahn that, even though I've seen it many times before, never fails to make me laugh. It's replete with mistaken identities, dextrous wordplay, clever situations, and gobs of sight gags that enhance, rather than detract from, the "main" points.
Also, since I love the movie so much, I'm going to give a little shout out to Erika, who was the one who introduced me to this film. Thanks!
Score: 9.5/10
#150 - Sunset Blvd. (1950)
First things first: I've never seen the movie Born Yesterday, but Judy Holliday must have given one hell of a performance in that movie if she beat out not just Bette Davis and Anne Baxter in All About Eve (one of my favorite movies of all time, which includes some of the best acting ever) but also Gloria Swanson as an aging silent film actress, hoping for a last hurrah in the talkies, in Sunset Blvd., a performance that is easily among the greatest of all time. Call me skeptical, Judy, but methinks you beat vote-sharing between the two AAE cast members, and some stuffy people who mayn't be fond of the backhand Sunset Blvd. gives the motion picture industry.
What I had going into this film were a lot of expectations: it seems that everyone I know who likes good movies loves this film. And I have to say that once I got past the first two minutes of first-person narrative and figured out that this technique wasn't a distraction, but a great way to present the film, I was hooked
I must admit that when the two main characters meet for the first time, I had a sense of "this is really a stretch", but something in the way this scene is filmed, with the simultaneous admiration and disregard of decay, with Holden sort of dictating the feeling of his surroundings. It's a bit of "tell, don't show" at first, but with the exquisite look of the surroundings melded with his voice-over narration, it's a terrific effect. We already know a lot about Swanson's character before we meet her, and she plays it up terrifically.
A pair of smaller, but no less important and influential figures in the movie are Max, Norma Desmond's consummately loyal caretaker/butler, who we find out is the man who "discovered" the young starlet all those many years ago, and Nancy Olson, the erstwhile scriptreader who befriends Joe and wants him to get the one good story in his head out to the masses. But, really, everything revolves around the relationship (such as it is) between Joe and Norma. It's strange, eerie at times, and incomprehensible to the audience in the way it plays out, and that is the strength of this film. Everything works just so, and we are lead on the strange and mystical journey Joe takes through the eyes of Joe himself.
Score: 9.5/10
What I had going into this film were a lot of expectations: it seems that everyone I know who likes good movies loves this film. And I have to say that once I got past the first two minutes of first-person narrative and figured out that this technique wasn't a distraction, but a great way to present the film, I was hooked
I must admit that when the two main characters meet for the first time, I had a sense of "this is really a stretch", but something in the way this scene is filmed, with the simultaneous admiration and disregard of decay, with Holden sort of dictating the feeling of his surroundings. It's a bit of "tell, don't show" at first, but with the exquisite look of the surroundings melded with his voice-over narration, it's a terrific effect. We already know a lot about Swanson's character before we meet her, and she plays it up terrifically.
A pair of smaller, but no less important and influential figures in the movie are Max, Norma Desmond's consummately loyal caretaker/butler, who we find out is the man who "discovered" the young starlet all those many years ago, and Nancy Olson, the erstwhile scriptreader who befriends Joe and wants him to get the one good story in his head out to the masses. But, really, everything revolves around the relationship (such as it is) between Joe and Norma. It's strange, eerie at times, and incomprehensible to the audience in the way it plays out, and that is the strength of this film. Everything works just so, and we are lead on the strange and mystical journey Joe takes through the eyes of Joe himself.
Score: 9.5/10
Saturday, June 11, 2011
#149 - House on Haunted Hill (1959)
The great thing about this film is that it's hilarious! (By modern standards, everything is super-cheesy) but I imagine the 3D effect of the skeleton coming toward the screen, or the scary blind caretaker gliding out of the room on a dolly (we laughed) must have been pretty frightening. The acting is equally as hilarious, complete with DRAMATIC! wipes of two of the main characters at the start of the movie. Mike and I also loved Vincent Price staring right into the camera to say something ominous. Classic.
All this being said, there were some genuinely creepy moments (like the second time we see the blind caretaker, or when the young girl is grabbed from behind - the first time) that were spaced in between the hilarity so well that they were always a surprise. Not to mention that both my brother and I felt very "well I didn't see that coming" when the bigger twist was revealed. This movie is recommended viewing when you can laugh at it with someone else. Plus, it's just GOTTA be better than its remake.
Score: 6/10
All this being said, there were some genuinely creepy moments (like the second time we see the blind caretaker, or when the young girl is grabbed from behind - the first time) that were spaced in between the hilarity so well that they were always a surprise. Not to mention that both my brother and I felt very "well I didn't see that coming" when the bigger twist was revealed. This movie is recommended viewing when you can laugh at it with someone else. Plus, it's just GOTTA be better than its remake.
Score: 6/10
Friday, June 10, 2011
#148 - How to Train Your Dragon (2010)
From the previews, I was uninterested: the voice of the narrator (Jay Baruchel) grated me at every turn, and, frankly, the previews seemed to be intended for a much younger audience, really focusing on the stupider sight gags and puns as opposed to the strength of the movie: the relationship between the main character (Hiccup) and his dragon (Toothless). Indeed, this is the most pleasing part of the film. The Vikings? Not so much. They supply a plot, a purpose, a raison d'être, but they don't add much to the movie. The best parts about these minor characters are certainly the other younguns Hiccup attends "Dragon Training" with, but they don't get quite enough screen time (and not varied purposes) to really impact the film.
Good thing that the movie spends a good portion of its time with Toothless, its real star. He's beautiful (really, the whole film is), charming, loyal, and oftentimes really cute. He is, certainly, a "pet", once the domestication happens, and he's everything you'd expect from a real pet. And Baruchel's interaction with him is really grand. (And his narration was fine, really. A couple of lines made me cringe, but they were more than counterbalanced by the appropriateness of him for the character.)
As a whole, I wasn't as emotionally attached to the movie as I am to, say, Toy Story or its sequels, but I enjoyed it from start to finish, which is something I can't say for, say, Shrek or A Shark Tale. There were a few scenes that were somewhat wistful, but the level of the film was pretty even: no major ebbs and tides, emotionally. This is okay in this type of film, but doesn't quite make as sizable an impact as maybe it could have. All this being said, my expectations were exceeded.
Score: 7.5/10
Good thing that the movie spends a good portion of its time with Toothless, its real star. He's beautiful (really, the whole film is), charming, loyal, and oftentimes really cute. He is, certainly, a "pet", once the domestication happens, and he's everything you'd expect from a real pet. And Baruchel's interaction with him is really grand. (And his narration was fine, really. A couple of lines made me cringe, but they were more than counterbalanced by the appropriateness of him for the character.)
As a whole, I wasn't as emotionally attached to the movie as I am to, say, Toy Story or its sequels, but I enjoyed it from start to finish, which is something I can't say for, say, Shrek or A Shark Tale. There were a few scenes that were somewhat wistful, but the level of the film was pretty even: no major ebbs and tides, emotionally. This is okay in this type of film, but doesn't quite make as sizable an impact as maybe it could have. All this being said, my expectations were exceeded.
Score: 7.5/10
Thursday, June 9, 2011
#147 - The Green Hornet (2011)
Did people actually like this movie?
I wanted to enjoy it; I really did. I like Seth Rogen, and I love director Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but this movie here, this.... Words can't adequately express my disappointment at every aspect of the film:
Directing - not great. Not the worst thing about the film, but not great. BUT THERE WAS 3D!!!1!!
Script - atrocious. Things either made too much sense or not nearly enough.
Acting - Rogen is abysmal; he spends 82% of the movie overacting (mostly in celebratory ways, expressing shock and awe at even the most mundane things. COFFEE?!) and the rest underacting. A very uneven and grating "performance".
The Buddy System - I usually like buddy movies (though let's go back a few years, since the current crop has been all over the place) but there was no chemistry between Rogen and the nearly unintelligible Jay Chou (You like Costco music?)
The Hot Chick - Blech. Though, to her "credit", she was not, by a longshot, the worst part of the film. I think this is largely due to her lack of screen time. Though she is following the "Uh-huh. She can totally pull off playing a ___________ (but really not)" à la Denise Richards as an astrophysicist or Reese Witherspoon as a professional softball player. (Diaz is a journalist/investigative something-or-other... I couldn't tell you because it took her 10 minutes to finish the sentence.)
The Dialogue - Couldn't. Care. Less. Couldn't. Follow. A. Damn. Thing.
The Villain - Christoph Waltz is underused, boring, and a transparent caricature of a villain. He wasn't even really villainous. Nice job, everybody, making him look all terrible and shit!
And that's about it. A steaming pile of why I don't watch "superhero" movies. If I missed something good, please let me know. It may have been in the minutes I: fell asleep, let the dog out, went to the bathroom, pretended I had something to do in the bathroom just to get away from the television, or concentrated much too carefully on the almonds I was eating to give me some respite from the inanity that was on the TV.
On second thought, if I missed something good, keep it to yourself. I don't wanna know.
Score: 3/10
I wanted to enjoy it; I really did. I like Seth Rogen, and I love director Michel Gondry's Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but this movie here, this.... Words can't adequately express my disappointment at every aspect of the film:
Directing - not great. Not the worst thing about the film, but not great. BUT THERE WAS 3D!!!1!!
Script - atrocious. Things either made too much sense or not nearly enough.
Acting - Rogen is abysmal; he spends 82% of the movie overacting (mostly in celebratory ways, expressing shock and awe at even the most mundane things. COFFEE?!) and the rest underacting. A very uneven and grating "performance".
The Buddy System - I usually like buddy movies (though let's go back a few years, since the current crop has been all over the place) but there was no chemistry between Rogen and the nearly unintelligible Jay Chou (You like Costco music?)
The Hot Chick - Blech. Though, to her "credit", she was not, by a longshot, the worst part of the film. I think this is largely due to her lack of screen time. Though she is following the "Uh-huh. She can totally pull off playing a ___________ (but really not)" à la Denise Richards as an astrophysicist or Reese Witherspoon as a professional softball player. (Diaz is a journalist/investigative something-or-other... I couldn't tell you because it took her 10 minutes to finish the sentence.)
The Dialogue - Couldn't. Care. Less. Couldn't. Follow. A. Damn. Thing.
The Villain - Christoph Waltz is underused, boring, and a transparent caricature of a villain. He wasn't even really villainous. Nice job, everybody, making him look all terrible and shit!
And that's about it. A steaming pile of why I don't watch "superhero" movies. If I missed something good, please let me know. It may have been in the minutes I: fell asleep, let the dog out, went to the bathroom, pretended I had something to do in the bathroom just to get away from the television, or concentrated much too carefully on the almonds I was eating to give me some respite from the inanity that was on the TV.
On second thought, if I missed something good, keep it to yourself. I don't wanna know.
Score: 3/10
Sunday, June 5, 2011
#146 - Rabbit Hole (2010)
I was surprised at a couple of things in this movie: I was surprised I didn't hate Nicole Kidman in it (in fact, I've refused to watch her in anything since I saw Margot at the Wedding, which could have been good, but was not. I was also surprised that the movie managed to take a subject that is inherently sad and instead of dissolving it into an overwrought, maudlin mess, it handled the subject delicately, with absolutely the right amount of... sad... and mixed in the positive without it seeming like a screaming, triumphal march. It is balanced, measured, and attacks with a light touch instead of a frying pan over the head.
And let's be honest, the writing is brilliant, but what is equally amazing is director's John Cameron Mitchell's use of restraint, especially considering that his previous credits are the singularly glam Hedwig and the Angry Inch and the overworked, (OMG!1! Real sex scenes?!) Shortbus. And while Mitchell does tend to a dwell just a second too long on some of the surroundings (their house, the comic book artwork. etc.) he avoids lingering overlong on metaphors like nouveau directeur Shanley in Doubt.
Of the two main actors, I felt a greater sense of devotion from Aaron Eckhart (who is gorgeous, by the way), but Kidman actually was able to show a range of three different faces in this go-around. (This is a 33.3% increase in acting ability from Skeletor!) Kidman is best in scenes with her sister (Tammy Blanchard) and mother (Dianne Wiest), but is, frankly, out-acted by Eckhart in their scenes together. But at least the gap is small.
Score: 9/10
And let's be honest, the writing is brilliant, but what is equally amazing is director's John Cameron Mitchell's use of restraint, especially considering that his previous credits are the singularly glam Hedwig and the Angry Inch and the overworked, (OMG!1! Real sex scenes?!) Shortbus. And while Mitchell does tend to a dwell just a second too long on some of the surroundings (their house, the comic book artwork. etc.) he avoids lingering overlong on metaphors like nouveau directeur Shanley in Doubt.
Of the two main actors, I felt a greater sense of devotion from Aaron Eckhart (who is gorgeous, by the way), but Kidman actually was able to show a range of three different faces in this go-around. (This is a 33.3% increase in acting ability from Skeletor!) Kidman is best in scenes with her sister (Tammy Blanchard) and mother (Dianne Wiest), but is, frankly, out-acted by Eckhart in their scenes together. But at least the gap is small.
Score: 9/10
#145 - Hairspray (1988)
I'm glad I finally sat down and watched the original version of this movie from start to finish, though what I realized is that in the hundred times I've seen bits and pieces of it over the years, I'd basically seen everything but the last five minutes (Hair explosion, Turnblad in a tiara, etc.) already.
I know a lot of people who really love this original and who hated the new version, but I really liked both. I like the fact that the new one is based on the musical based on the movie and that the majority of the actors do a really great job with their roles (I am not talking about John Travolta here). I like the old one for blazing the way, the nifty cameos, most of the actors (especially Divine) and the originality of the story.
It was fun to watch this version and see where the inspiration for a lot of the songs from the musical came from (since the music in this version was just songs the kids would dance to) and appreciate the charmingness of the camp factor. I mean, there are things that are truly absurd or over-the-top (Penny's mother, Tracy's "incarceration", the hair) but it all feels necessarily and within the realm of the film. Bigger isn't always better, but Waters's movie sure makes a good case.
Score: 8/10
I know a lot of people who really love this original and who hated the new version, but I really liked both. I like the fact that the new one is based on the musical based on the movie and that the majority of the actors do a really great job with their roles (I am not talking about John Travolta here). I like the old one for blazing the way, the nifty cameos, most of the actors (especially Divine) and the originality of the story.
It was fun to watch this version and see where the inspiration for a lot of the songs from the musical came from (since the music in this version was just songs the kids would dance to) and appreciate the charmingness of the camp factor. I mean, there are things that are truly absurd or over-the-top (Penny's mother, Tracy's "incarceration", the hair) but it all feels necessarily and within the realm of the film. Bigger isn't always better, but Waters's movie sure makes a good case.
Score: 8/10
#144 - Hereafter (2010)
Matt Damon is hot.
Just thought I'd get that out of the way, because I shan't be quite so kind for the rest of the movie revue.
First off, it really seems like interwoven multiplot movies are really hit (Amores Perros) or miss (Babel) and, frankly, I'm being generous with using the term "interwoven" considering the three vignettes spend 95% of their time completely separate from one another, before accidentally converging on the city of London. The "common thread" is that the three main characters (Damon, Cécile de France, and a young British boy whose twin brother is killed) all have some experience or interest in "the hereafter".
The larger problem is that none of the three individual stories are really that interesting, on their own (the British twins one was the one I liked the most, and even that began to lag) so that by the time they are combined, there's no sense of wanting to really see where it leads. You already know that these characters are going to meet, or be in the same place, or something like that, because how else is the movie going to "work". God forbid it break away from formula. And when the inevitable does happen, it's very much a "okay, we're done now" moment. Yawn.
Score: 3.5/10
Just thought I'd get that out of the way, because I shan't be quite so kind for the rest of the movie revue.
First off, it really seems like interwoven multiplot movies are really hit (Amores Perros) or miss (Babel) and, frankly, I'm being generous with using the term "interwoven" considering the three vignettes spend 95% of their time completely separate from one another, before accidentally converging on the city of London. The "common thread" is that the three main characters (Damon, Cécile de France, and a young British boy whose twin brother is killed) all have some experience or interest in "the hereafter".
The larger problem is that none of the three individual stories are really that interesting, on their own (the British twins one was the one I liked the most, and even that began to lag) so that by the time they are combined, there's no sense of wanting to really see where it leads. You already know that these characters are going to meet, or be in the same place, or something like that, because how else is the movie going to "work". God forbid it break away from formula. And when the inevitable does happen, it's very much a "okay, we're done now" moment. Yawn.
Score: 3.5/10
Saturday, June 4, 2011
#143 - Their Eyes Were Watching God (2005)
My God.
Zora? Where are you? Zora, come back PLEASE! Someone took your amazing, imaginative, BEAUTIFUL (I am not exaggerating: I absolutely love this novel) story and made a shitty movie that takes so many liberties, that basically the only thing that's common is the character names.
What we have is basically a Rescue 911 over-dramatization of every single plot point that the screenwriters thought valid, and invented about eleventy billion of their own. Then, they made the brilliant choice of casting Halle Berry, who drags down every scene she's in, which is all of them.... But I am going to cut Ms. Berry some slack: she has nothing to work with, script-wise (which is such a travesty considering the source material) and the direction is non-evident. It was clearly made-for-TV, which doesn't HAVE to mean it's subpar, but this doesn't even achieve that level. (The problem with the above is that it has obvious spaces where there were commercial breaks that gave an already muddled movie a really disjointed feeling.)
Seriously, I could go on and on, but this movie is so shitty, so I'm going to leave it at that.
Score: 2/10
Zora? Where are you? Zora, come back PLEASE! Someone took your amazing, imaginative, BEAUTIFUL (I am not exaggerating: I absolutely love this novel) story and made a shitty movie that takes so many liberties, that basically the only thing that's common is the character names.
What we have is basically a Rescue 911 over-dramatization of every single plot point that the screenwriters thought valid, and invented about eleventy billion of their own. Then, they made the brilliant choice of casting Halle Berry, who drags down every scene she's in, which is all of them.... But I am going to cut Ms. Berry some slack: she has nothing to work with, script-wise (which is such a travesty considering the source material) and the direction is non-evident. It was clearly made-for-TV, which doesn't HAVE to mean it's subpar, but this doesn't even achieve that level. (The problem with the above is that it has obvious spaces where there were commercial breaks that gave an already muddled movie a really disjointed feeling.)
Seriously, I could go on and on, but this movie is so shitty, so I'm going to leave it at that.
Score: 2/10
#142 - Psycho (1960)
Absolutely one of the best films of all time, not just one of the best Hitchcock films of all time. I have now seen the movie twice (I saw this last fall/winter with some friends at a Royal Oak Main Art Theatre Midnight Madness screening - see also: Jaws a couple weeks past) and it was just as eerie and droll (oh Hitchcock, you card, you!) as I thought it was the first time around.
Anthony Perkins is absolutely wonderful (in case you want to make your friends back home feel envious) and in both word and gesture he is the perfect duality of charming and tortured. His manner of speaking during the parlor conversation with Janet Leigh shows us his range: in one second he is smirking, agreeable, conversational, but then, in another moment, he is more abrupt, disjointed, and combative. I love the dialogue they have about being trapped: it's tense and unexpected, but at this point in the movie, there isn't quite yet a sense of terror. (Even knowing of the "twist", I was able to appreciate the leadup to the eventual shower scene.
I was really interested in learning some of the history behind the movie when I had a conversation with Jessica. She told me a couple of things that were pretty awesome about the film: the first was that there used to be signs posted outside the theatre, informing patrons of the exact starting time, and that Hitchcock wanted nobody to be allowed to enter late. Pretty awesome. Nothing I hate more than being ready for a movie and having people come in late, since 9 times out of 10, since they can't be counted on to show up on time, they can't be counted on to keep their traps from flappin' all through the movie. (But I digress...) Secondly, it was a big surprise at the time that it was Janet Leigh who got the, well, you know, considering she was such a star when the movie came out. It was a big shock to the audiences, and it brought a lot more word-of-mouth publicity to the film as people brought others to see it. Hitchcock = genius.
Score: 9.5/10
Anthony Perkins is absolutely wonderful (in case you want to make your friends back home feel envious) and in both word and gesture he is the perfect duality of charming and tortured. His manner of speaking during the parlor conversation with Janet Leigh shows us his range: in one second he is smirking, agreeable, conversational, but then, in another moment, he is more abrupt, disjointed, and combative. I love the dialogue they have about being trapped: it's tense and unexpected, but at this point in the movie, there isn't quite yet a sense of terror. (Even knowing of the "twist", I was able to appreciate the leadup to the eventual shower scene.
I was really interested in learning some of the history behind the movie when I had a conversation with Jessica. She told me a couple of things that were pretty awesome about the film: the first was that there used to be signs posted outside the theatre, informing patrons of the exact starting time, and that Hitchcock wanted nobody to be allowed to enter late. Pretty awesome. Nothing I hate more than being ready for a movie and having people come in late, since 9 times out of 10, since they can't be counted on to show up on time, they can't be counted on to keep their traps from flappin' all through the movie. (But I digress...) Secondly, it was a big surprise at the time that it was Janet Leigh who got the, well, you know, considering she was such a star when the movie came out. It was a big shock to the audiences, and it brought a lot more word-of-mouth publicity to the film as people brought others to see it. Hitchcock = genius.
Score: 9.5/10
Sunday, May 29, 2011
#141 - Confessions of a Shopaholic (2009)
Yikes. First off, I only watched this movie because it was on while visiting friends. It also bears noting that none of us really really wanted to see it. I blame Dara for telling me that this movie was actually pretty cute. What she failed to reveal was that only the first eight minutes were cute. After that, it was a rapid descent into hell, complete with every single romcom formula ever. Terrible, terrible, terrible. The list of people in this terrible movie includes wonderful actors John Lithgow, Joan Cusack, John Goodman, Hugh Dancy, and Isla Fisher, among many others. My favorite part of the movie was the 800 times that there was a character that actually spoke the words that every viewer was supposed to understand from the situation. It's called "show, don't tell". And this movie failed to do even that.
Awful. Do not go see this film.
Score: 2/10
Awful. Do not go see this film.
Score: 2/10
Saturday, May 28, 2011
#140 - Dirty Rotten Scoundrels (1988)
I didn't like The Jerk so much, and Michael Caine has only made a brief appearance in Inception for my blog, so I have a lot of love for Caine and Steve Martin that has yet to be really and genuinely tapped this year. Enter Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: a movie I've heard good things about but have not yet seen.
Caine and Martin play confidence men who have a wager to see who can swindle Glenne Headly (the American soap queen... whatever that actually means) out of 50,000 francs. I'm in Kalamazoo visiting friends, so we'll make this short: I really enjoyed it. And the best part was the bar scene with the two sailors commiserating with Steve Martin's "handicap". Way better than The Jerk. Saw the ending coming (in some form or another) from a mile away, but it was still good fun.
Score: 8/10
Caine and Martin play confidence men who have a wager to see who can swindle Glenne Headly (the American soap queen... whatever that actually means) out of 50,000 francs. I'm in Kalamazoo visiting friends, so we'll make this short: I really enjoyed it. And the best part was the bar scene with the two sailors commiserating with Steve Martin's "handicap". Way better than The Jerk. Saw the ending coming (in some form or another) from a mile away, but it was still good fun.
Score: 8/10
#139 - The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920)
I have a new record for earliest-made movie on the countdown: a movie from 1920 that has been firmly established in the film world as one of the first and greatest horror films: the German Das Cabinet des Dr. Caligari. It's another silent film with a string soundtrack, and one thing I love right off the best are the neat dialogue frames, which look very unlike those normally seen with long serifed dashes and clear, English typefaces, but instead consisting of jagged letters placed upon starburst-style shapes mostly of shades of green.
The reference in the title is to The Somnambulist (a fancy word for "sleepwalker", from the roots somn meaning "sleep", as in somnolent or insomnia; and, ambul meaning "walk" as in amble or ambulatory, plus the suffix -ist meaning "doer". Didn't you love that vocabulary lesson?!). The Somnambulist is a sideshow of the title character who stays in a cabinet, and is touted to know all the past and the future. When a spectator asks him how long he will live (don't you know that you definitely don't want the actual answer to that question?), The Somnambulist tells him that he will be dead at dawn the next day. When he is murdered, it immediately prompts suspicion of the Doctor.
What follows is a brilliant psychological unraveling featuring another victim: a young woman, and her fiancés attempts to get her well and find the man responsible.
Score: 9/10
The reference in the title is to The Somnambulist (a fancy word for "sleepwalker", from the roots somn meaning "sleep", as in somnolent or insomnia; and, ambul meaning "walk" as in amble or ambulatory, plus the suffix -ist meaning "doer". Didn't you love that vocabulary lesson?!). The Somnambulist is a sideshow of the title character who stays in a cabinet, and is touted to know all the past and the future. When a spectator asks him how long he will live (don't you know that you definitely don't want the actual answer to that question?), The Somnambulist tells him that he will be dead at dawn the next day. When he is murdered, it immediately prompts suspicion of the Doctor.
What follows is a brilliant psychological unraveling featuring another victim: a young woman, and her fiancés attempts to get her well and find the man responsible.
Score: 9/10
#138 - Plan 9 from Outer Space (1959)
Hysterically, the movie I watched earlier today, The 400 Blows, was also made in 1959, the same year as the amazing Ed Wood film I have finally gotten around to seeing: Plan 9 from Outer Space. Ed Wood's "pedigree" is well-established, and this is widely considered to be one of his "finest" films. Far from the wonderful film Truffaut gave us, the steaming pile that Ed Wood gave us is completely unwatchable without some sort of comedy track, be it RiffTrax or a bunch of drunk friends. I only had the former available to me today, so I went with it.
At a mere 78 minutes, one might think that Plan 9 might be a tight movie, concise and tolerable. Instead, it drags on for what seems like four hours, so slowly paced that I had to open up a new window and start typing this review well in advance of finishing the movie, in an attempt to stay focused and actually finish the damn thing. Everything tends to just laze around: the scenery, the acting, the plot, the dialogue. It all falls completely flat. As a matter of fact, if everyone moved and spoke more quickly, the movie could probably have finished in about 37 minutes.
Of all the amazing aspects of this classic film, I think my favorite part is the music. So good. At one point Mike Nelson actually says, "Ow. That actually hurt!" when a particularly harsh and discordant tone sounds. Or possibly, my favorite part is the amazing mispronunciations and word slurs. Or possibly, my favorite part is the re-animated corpses attacking, moving about an 1/8 of one mile per hour toward their victims, who do absolutely nothing to get away. Or, perhaps, my favorite part of the movie is not actually a part of the movie at all, but rather a part of the RiffTrax that is an homage to Waiting for Guffman: "I hate you and your ass face!"
I hate this move and all its ass faces, too.
Score: 1/10
At a mere 78 minutes, one might think that Plan 9 might be a tight movie, concise and tolerable. Instead, it drags on for what seems like four hours, so slowly paced that I had to open up a new window and start typing this review well in advance of finishing the movie, in an attempt to stay focused and actually finish the damn thing. Everything tends to just laze around: the scenery, the acting, the plot, the dialogue. It all falls completely flat. As a matter of fact, if everyone moved and spoke more quickly, the movie could probably have finished in about 37 minutes.
Of all the amazing aspects of this classic film, I think my favorite part is the music. So good. At one point Mike Nelson actually says, "Ow. That actually hurt!" when a particularly harsh and discordant tone sounds. Or possibly, my favorite part is the amazing mispronunciations and word slurs. Or possibly, my favorite part is the re-animated corpses attacking, moving about an 1/8 of one mile per hour toward their victims, who do absolutely nothing to get away. Or, perhaps, my favorite part of the movie is not actually a part of the movie at all, but rather a part of the RiffTrax that is an homage to Waiting for Guffman: "I hate you and your ass face!"
I hate this move and all its ass faces, too.
Score: 1/10
#137 - The 400 Blows (1959)
I need to catch up! Perhaps I can do so this weekend? I'll do what I can, I guess.
My first movie of the weekend is the début film of French directeur François Truffaut: Les quatre cents coups (The 400 Blows), which is a semi-autobiographical dramatization of the director's own childhood. Whether or not you feel for the main character (a young boy named Antoine), you get the sense that his parents are resentful of his presence. Another mouth to feed, a somewhat mischievous child who doesn't follow directions well and who doesn't do well in school. Harangued by a martinet schoolteacher, he often gets in trouble for small wrongdoings, which doesn't help his situation at home.
At the beginning, Antoine's father seems to have a somewhat more conspiratorial air with Antoine, as the two share wry smiles and anecdotes while Antoine's mother sees in her son something that irritates her (we're not exactly sure where the sense of resentment comes from, at first). However, as the movie continues, we see the mother (somewhat genuinely) attempt to win back her child while the father becomes increasingly agitated. We learn much more of the relationship and tension later on in the film, which I had to say surprised me, but in a good way. It was more Hitchcockian and less Shyamalan-esque.
I had a conversation with my brother Matt not too long ago after he had just seen Casablanca for the first time, and he commented to me how good the movie looked (which of course I felt, also), despite the year it was made, and as I watched this film, I had the same spark: the movie is beautifully filmed, with deep black-and-white contrasts, and superb shots. Everything seems just so, in a way that refuses to annoy its viewers, but rather draw them in to its world. I was very impressed with this film in all aspects. Highly recommended.
Score: 9.5/10
My first movie of the weekend is the début film of French directeur François Truffaut: Les quatre cents coups (The 400 Blows), which is a semi-autobiographical dramatization of the director's own childhood. Whether or not you feel for the main character (a young boy named Antoine), you get the sense that his parents are resentful of his presence. Another mouth to feed, a somewhat mischievous child who doesn't follow directions well and who doesn't do well in school. Harangued by a martinet schoolteacher, he often gets in trouble for small wrongdoings, which doesn't help his situation at home.
At the beginning, Antoine's father seems to have a somewhat more conspiratorial air with Antoine, as the two share wry smiles and anecdotes while Antoine's mother sees in her son something that irritates her (we're not exactly sure where the sense of resentment comes from, at first). However, as the movie continues, we see the mother (somewhat genuinely) attempt to win back her child while the father becomes increasingly agitated. We learn much more of the relationship and tension later on in the film, which I had to say surprised me, but in a good way. It was more Hitchcockian and less Shyamalan-esque.
I had a conversation with my brother Matt not too long ago after he had just seen Casablanca for the first time, and he commented to me how good the movie looked (which of course I felt, also), despite the year it was made, and as I watched this film, I had the same spark: the movie is beautifully filmed, with deep black-and-white contrasts, and superb shots. Everything seems just so, in a way that refuses to annoy its viewers, but rather draw them in to its world. I was very impressed with this film in all aspects. Highly recommended.
Score: 9.5/10
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
#136 - The Hangover (2009)
Since this movie came out and I initially avoided it as being just like every other movie for the masses relying on bathroom humor, vulgarity, and sex jokes. But I wanted to eventually watch it so I would know what the hullabaloo was all about and give an honest assessment of the movie.
In the first fifteen minutes, I'm treated to nothing that passes for humor that doesn't use gay, faggot, retard, Zach Galifianakis's ass, or coming inside a chick. Of course, this can be funny, but if this is all I have to rely on for the next 80 minutes, then it's going to be a long, shitty movie.
Aaaaaand fast forward:
I'm not going to actually bother with the rest of the review, because for me, the movie never really got good. I laughed a few times, but it's not my kind of movie. I was unable to get past the enormity of the absurdity, right down to the unfathomably awful wedding song at the end. No thanks.
Score: 3/10
In the first fifteen minutes, I'm treated to nothing that passes for humor that doesn't use gay, faggot, retard, Zach Galifianakis's ass, or coming inside a chick. Of course, this can be funny, but if this is all I have to rely on for the next 80 minutes, then it's going to be a long, shitty movie.
Aaaaaand fast forward:
I'm not going to actually bother with the rest of the review, because for me, the movie never really got good. I laughed a few times, but it's not my kind of movie. I was unable to get past the enormity of the absurdity, right down to the unfathomably awful wedding song at the end. No thanks.
Score: 3/10
#135 - Bridesmaids (2011)
Went with Jess to see this at the theatre, and we were both pleased with it, overall. We both like Kristen Wiig and Maya Rudolph and Rose Byrne, and after seeing the movie, you really kind of have to, or you won't enjoy the film at all. We were also excited that Erin from the office has a small role, as does David Wallace (he's onscreen for about six seconds and says nothing).
So Maya Rudolph is getting married, and maid of honor Kristen Wiig and new BFF Rose Byrne are battling it out for supremacy over who's the better friend and gets to plan things, etc. Byrne constantly tries (and, frankly, succeeds) to one-up Wiig, the rest of whose life is falling apart around her. These two women are part of a strangely disjointed group of bridesmaids, including the large and hysterical sister-of-the-groom Megan, whose first conversation with Wiig is probably the single funniest part of the whole movie.
One thing that really struck me about the movie was how authentic the dialogue, for the most part, felt. There were some repetitive lines, some not-really-snappy dialogue, that I liked a lot. It made it seem more real. Of course, there were moments of the absurd and contrived intermeshed, but the effect wasn't overly cloying. I could chuckle at some of the inaner parts and be pleased with the more melancholy parts. To say that the movie is flawless in these regards is an exaggeration, but at least I could understand it all.
Score: 7.5/10
So Maya Rudolph is getting married, and maid of honor Kristen Wiig and new BFF Rose Byrne are battling it out for supremacy over who's the better friend and gets to plan things, etc. Byrne constantly tries (and, frankly, succeeds) to one-up Wiig, the rest of whose life is falling apart around her. These two women are part of a strangely disjointed group of bridesmaids, including the large and hysterical sister-of-the-groom Megan, whose first conversation with Wiig is probably the single funniest part of the whole movie.
One thing that really struck me about the movie was how authentic the dialogue, for the most part, felt. There were some repetitive lines, some not-really-snappy dialogue, that I liked a lot. It made it seem more real. Of course, there were moments of the absurd and contrived intermeshed, but the effect wasn't overly cloying. I could chuckle at some of the inaner parts and be pleased with the more melancholy parts. To say that the movie is flawless in these regards is an exaggeration, but at least I could understand it all.
Score: 7.5/10
Monday, May 23, 2011
#134 - The Changeling (1980)
This movie has it all!
Giggle as all the doors in the house slam to a frightening cadence!
Gasp in horror as a crystal goblet is flung across the room and shatters!
Laugh uncontrollably as a man drowns his child in a bathtub!
Weep when Melvyn Douglas and George C. Scott give slightly-more-than-passable acting jobs!
And LOVE when you find out what the hell a Changeling is!
Plus: be genuinely creeped out at the happenings and suddennesses, as well as the intricacy of the plot. Well-played, The Changeling, well-played.
Score: 8/10
Giggle as all the doors in the house slam to a frightening cadence!
Gasp in horror as a crystal goblet is flung across the room and shatters!
Laugh uncontrollably as a man drowns his child in a bathtub!
Weep when Melvyn Douglas and George C. Scott give slightly-more-than-passable acting jobs!
And LOVE when you find out what the hell a Changeling is!
Plus: be genuinely creeped out at the happenings and suddennesses, as well as the intricacy of the plot. Well-played, The Changeling, well-played.
Score: 8/10
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
#133 - The Night of the Hunter (1955)
A fascinating and tragic tale of two youngsters whose father robs a man and confides only in his children where the money is hidden. The father is arrested and hanged, but in between he meets his cellmate, a man who marries women and collects their money when they die. Fresh out of prison, the man (Robert Mitchum) woos the newly-widowed Shelley Winters in order to search for the money. When Winters finally sees past the façade and cottons onto his plot, Mitchum kills her and forces the young daughter to tell him where the money is.
However, the children escape and find the quasi-orphanage of Lillian Gish, who helps ward off Mitchum when he inevitably finds the children. One part Jesus, one part vengeance tale, and one part suspense thriller, the film is good, but I don't find it quite as spectacular as all the "Best of" lists it's on would have me believe. Mitchum is extremely good in his role, however, as just the right amount of dark, criminal, and faux-preacher.
Score: 7.5/10
However, the children escape and find the quasi-orphanage of Lillian Gish, who helps ward off Mitchum when he inevitably finds the children. One part Jesus, one part vengeance tale, and one part suspense thriller, the film is good, but I don't find it quite as spectacular as all the "Best of" lists it's on would have me believe. Mitchum is extremely good in his role, however, as just the right amount of dark, criminal, and faux-preacher.
Score: 7.5/10
#132 - 12 Monkeys (1995)
From the crazy, fucked-up mind of Terry Gilliam comes a "What year are we in?" story about some monkeys (twelve of them - well, kind of but not really), chemical warfare (well, kind of but not really), psychological divergence (well, kind of but not really), and the same characters in different times.
The movie's strengths lie in the interweaving of the different layers, which is done ably enough to be understood and not overly confusing. The viewer is able to appreciate the different sides of Bruce Willis as a convict sent back in time to find the source of a devastating virus that wiped out most of the known world, and Madeleine Stowe as a psychiatrist he "enlists" on his crusade, and the singular side of Brad Pitt, in his first Oscar-nominated role -- and only, until 2008's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- as a fast-talking, deranged son of a virologist.
The movie really makes me want to see Brazil, because I've heard tales of its insanity, but having seen 12 Monkeys, I wonder just how much weirder it could get. (That's hypothetical... I know how much weirder it can get...)
Score: 8.5/10
The movie's strengths lie in the interweaving of the different layers, which is done ably enough to be understood and not overly confusing. The viewer is able to appreciate the different sides of Bruce Willis as a convict sent back in time to find the source of a devastating virus that wiped out most of the known world, and Madeleine Stowe as a psychiatrist he "enlists" on his crusade, and the singular side of Brad Pitt, in his first Oscar-nominated role -- and only, until 2008's The Curious Case of Benjamin Button -- as a fast-talking, deranged son of a virologist.
The movie really makes me want to see Brazil, because I've heard tales of its insanity, but having seen 12 Monkeys, I wonder just how much weirder it could get. (That's hypothetical... I know how much weirder it can get...)
Score: 8.5/10
Monday, May 16, 2011
#131 - Notorious (1946)
I know, I know, another Hitchcock film! But there's another set of reasons for this selection: Jessica recommended it to me (and let me borrow her DVD), and this movie appears on several "Best of" lists on the site ICheckMovies.com (thanks also to Jessica and Rick for telling me about this site, where I have already wiled away many an hour -- it is a way to keep track of the movies you've seen). And since it kept showing up on these lists, and it's Hitchcock, and I had it in my position: well, the conspiracy was set, so here we go.
One of Hitchcock's finer outings, to be sure, with the lovely and amazing Ingrid Bergman as a spy who goes so far as to marry a former lover during her assignment. Cary Grant plays her true love (DUH, does he ever do anything but?) and liaison to the Whatever Spy Agency. The film is suspenseful, to be sure, and while it spends a little too much time with the whole "I love you, I love you, I love you" back-and-forth between the leads, at least it stays consistent in this regard.
Claude Rains plays the Nazi smuggler-type husband with calculating precision, and the moments when he and his mother realize who Bergman realize is are among the most superior in the film. Hitchcock did a lot with distorted vision and "cloudwalking" (as in the last scene as the main characters descend the staircase) to a triumphant degree, and every scene is so carefully planned and perfectly executed that the viewer feels led almost child-like into the world of the movie. Kind of a "here's what I want you to get from this shot and you will understand the movie better for it" feel without being cloying or extraneous. Really a perfect little package of a film.
Score: 9.5/10
One of Hitchcock's finer outings, to be sure, with the lovely and amazing Ingrid Bergman as a spy who goes so far as to marry a former lover during her assignment. Cary Grant plays her true love (DUH, does he ever do anything but?) and liaison to the Whatever Spy Agency. The film is suspenseful, to be sure, and while it spends a little too much time with the whole "I love you, I love you, I love you" back-and-forth between the leads, at least it stays consistent in this regard.
Claude Rains plays the Nazi smuggler-type husband with calculating precision, and the moments when he and his mother realize who Bergman realize is are among the most superior in the film. Hitchcock did a lot with distorted vision and "cloudwalking" (as in the last scene as the main characters descend the staircase) to a triumphant degree, and every scene is so carefully planned and perfectly executed that the viewer feels led almost child-like into the world of the movie. Kind of a "here's what I want you to get from this shot and you will understand the movie better for it" feel without being cloying or extraneous. Really a perfect little package of a film.
Score: 9.5/10
#130 - The Fog (1979)
I was pretty amazed at how much I really enjoyed this movie. I mean, I know that it spends more time than it needs to with all the "background story" (which could have satisfied my curiosity in a fraction of the time, let's be honest) but there's something interesting in the way it's paced: it plods carefully along and doesn't really pick up, even during the climactic scenes -- very much like The Fog itself.
Adrienne Barbeau is pretty convincing for the first half of the movie as a radio DJ, but less so later on when she's "trapped" in the lighthouse. Jamie Lee Curtis also makes an appearance as a hitchhiker who falls for a sea captain and also finds herself in Antonio Bay this fateful night. While not a particularly scary film, there is a nice level of suspense accompanied by some excellent storytelling. No big surprise the priest ended up being more involved than you'd think, too...
Score: 8.5/10
Adrienne Barbeau is pretty convincing for the first half of the movie as a radio DJ, but less so later on when she's "trapped" in the lighthouse. Jamie Lee Curtis also makes an appearance as a hitchhiker who falls for a sea captain and also finds herself in Antonio Bay this fateful night. While not a particularly scary film, there is a nice level of suspense accompanied by some excellent storytelling. No big surprise the priest ended up being more involved than you'd think, too...
Score: 8.5/10
Sunday, May 15, 2011
#129 - Jaws (1975)
Went with Jessica, Jen, Jaci, Rick, and Neil to a midnight showing of Jaws last night at the Royal Oak Main Art Theatre. While watching, I was able to confirm to myself that I had never actually scene the movie in its entirety in one sitting, but rather most of it from a couple of different viewings. Now, I didn't know anything about the movie before it started, other than it's directed by some guy named Steven and stars the guy from All That Jazz. Also, I thought it was about a T-Rex.
Boy was I wrong! Apparently the title refers to the yammering of one Robert Shaw and it's actually a revenge tale about what happens when you treat every nautical killing as a "boating accident". Thanks, Mr. Mayor! Also, Ms. I'm-sleeping-with-the-producer gets the biggest female role (notice how Lorraine Gary was the only one in all four Jaws's... it's not like her acting talent got her a lot of non-shark-related work) and Jessica pointed out to me that the author of the source novel has a cameo as an on-camera reporter.
It's easy to respect the camerawork on the film, especially since so many parts of the movie have become practically iconic images: the shark finally peeking up out of the water; Roy Scheider's snapping upright when this happens (not to mention the often misquoted "You're gonna need a bigger boat."); the thrashing around in the water at the beginning of the film; and, all the underwater shots of unsuspecting legs. It's also funny to think about how many people were scared of swimming after the movie came out, especially since I didn't find the movie that frightening. Not that I didn't really enjoy it, of course.
Score: 9/10
Boy was I wrong! Apparently the title refers to the yammering of one Robert Shaw and it's actually a revenge tale about what happens when you treat every nautical killing as a "boating accident". Thanks, Mr. Mayor! Also, Ms. I'm-sleeping-with-the-producer gets the biggest female role (notice how Lorraine Gary was the only one in all four Jaws's... it's not like her acting talent got her a lot of non-shark-related work) and Jessica pointed out to me that the author of the source novel has a cameo as an on-camera reporter.
It's easy to respect the camerawork on the film, especially since so many parts of the movie have become practically iconic images: the shark finally peeking up out of the water; Roy Scheider's snapping upright when this happens (not to mention the often misquoted "You're gonna need a bigger boat."); the thrashing around in the water at the beginning of the film; and, all the underwater shots of unsuspecting legs. It's also funny to think about how many people were scared of swimming after the movie came out, especially since I didn't find the movie that frightening. Not that I didn't really enjoy it, of course.
Score: 9/10
Saturday, May 14, 2011
#128 - Sideways (2004)
This movie established a precedent for me: I had never gone to see a movie by myself before (not that there are a ton of movies that fit in this category), but it was the night before the Oscars, and I only decided on a whim to go see the movie (and it's a little too artsy for some of the people I may have asked at the time). The audience was so terrible and nobody thought anything was funny (so stupid), except for me and a woman who was sitting behind me about three seats to my right. Actually, as the movie ended, she said to me, "I'm glad there was someone else who thought the movie was good!" And so we talked about the movie a little as we walked out of the theatre.
There are so few movies that can find this perfect combination of warmth and heart and personality and humor and intellectuality and wrap it all up into a nice, neat package, film it perfectly, pull the viewer in, and take him/her on the journey that the film's characters take. All four main actors (Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, and Sandra Oh) are pitch-perfect, and while they may lead the excellent script-writing from A to B to A physically, they are able to elicit all the right emotions and secure full involvement from the viewer. This is not a movie to be taken lightly, but rather one whose depth must be examined to be appreciated. Please do yourself a favor and see this when you have the time some day.
Score: 10/10
There are so few movies that can find this perfect combination of warmth and heart and personality and humor and intellectuality and wrap it all up into a nice, neat package, film it perfectly, pull the viewer in, and take him/her on the journey that the film's characters take. All four main actors (Paul Giamatti, Thomas Haden Church, Virginia Madsen, and Sandra Oh) are pitch-perfect, and while they may lead the excellent script-writing from A to B to A physically, they are able to elicit all the right emotions and secure full involvement from the viewer. This is not a movie to be taken lightly, but rather one whose depth must be examined to be appreciated. Please do yourself a favor and see this when you have the time some day.
Score: 10/10
#127 - Trick 'r Treat (2007)
Jessica lent me this DVD a couple weekends ago and I finally got around to watching it. She's basically the one responsible for my increased interest in the horror genre, as well. (In addition to my expanded appreciation of Hitchcock, among other things.) Trick 'r Treat revolves around five interlocking Hallowe'en vignettes: a serial killer principal, the aftermath of a bus that trailed off the edge of a quarry (Veronica Mars, anyone?), a teenage prank, Leslie Bibb Doesn't Like Halloween, and Anna Paquin + werewolves (WTF?).
Some of these are more successful than others (the prank is good, as is the FINAL BATTLE! between Brian Cox and a live pumpkin creature), whereas the whole plot with Anna Paquin and Friends was aaawful. Jessica said that the movie was a neat throwback to the 70s horror genre, which is cool, because with that in perspective, there were parts that felt homage-y (but not stale). Oh, and I can also say that the Anna Paquin vignette (though this is a bit unfair to label it as hers because it's clearly more that she's just in it) is terrible. Terrible.
Score: 6/10
Some of these are more successful than others (the prank is good, as is the FINAL BATTLE! between Brian Cox and a live pumpkin creature), whereas the whole plot with Anna Paquin and Friends was aaawful. Jessica said that the movie was a neat throwback to the 70s horror genre, which is cool, because with that in perspective, there were parts that felt homage-y (but not stale). Oh, and I can also say that the Anna Paquin vignette (though this is a bit unfair to label it as hers because it's clearly more that she's just in it) is terrible. Terrible.
Score: 6/10
#126 - Date Night (2010)
Okay, so it's super predictable and unevenly maintained (all the time the leads spend talking about their lives is as boring as they are), but it's pretty funny, overall (it helps when you have Steve Carell and Tina Fey as your leads). Date Night doesn't win any awards for newness (I mean, how many mistaken identity movies are there, already), but it does do a surprisingly nice job of keeping its lightness and humor. Additionally, the parts where Carell and Fey are allowed just to interact with each other (especially the restaurant scenes) are the freshest.
There are lots of smaller parts, with varying degrees of interestingness: Mark Wahlberg plays a security guy/Department of Defense really smart guy who helps the couple find the people they need to find; James Franco and Mila Kunis play the actual couple, Kristen Wiig and Mark Ruffalo play the couple Carell and Fey don't want to become, Taraji P. Henson plays a detective (but talk about a role that doesn't use her full potential), and Serena Williams's boyfriend Common and half of the creepy brothers from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia play rogue detectives.
But none of that really matters, because for this movie, it's all about the leads. If you don't believe them (and I do), the movie has nothing to offer, whereas if you appreciate them, the movie mostly works.
Score: 7/10
There are lots of smaller parts, with varying degrees of interestingness: Mark Wahlberg plays a security guy/Department of Defense really smart guy who helps the couple find the people they need to find; James Franco and Mila Kunis play the actual couple, Kristen Wiig and Mark Ruffalo play the couple Carell and Fey don't want to become, Taraji P. Henson plays a detective (but talk about a role that doesn't use her full potential), and Serena Williams's boyfriend Common and half of the creepy brothers from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia play rogue detectives.
But none of that really matters, because for this movie, it's all about the leads. If you don't believe them (and I do), the movie has nothing to offer, whereas if you appreciate them, the movie mostly works.
Score: 7/10
#125 - Rock Haven (2007)
Rock Haven is the story of a religious boy and his mother who move to a secluded, beachside/cliffside/natureside area where Brady, the religious boy, meets Clifford, a gay boy (gasp!) and (surprise!) Brady has an internal conflict between religion and his sexuality.
The actor who plays Brady is really cute and has the most adorable, tiny little gap between his front teeth, and does the most with the dialogue he's given, which is sometimes spot on for the situation, and at other times (specifically in his dealings with this ultra-conservative mother) is so poor that I just had to stare at his face and ignore the words. This was a feat easily accomplished, by the way. Clifford, with a largely absent father, and a liberal "non-traditional" (his words) mother, understands the underlying conflict, but has a plan for helping Brady see his light.
I was a bit surprised overall: I had rented the movie because it reminded me of one of my very favorite gay-themed movies, Latter Days (in a nutshell: Mormon meets kinda slutty party boy), and while pieces of it were similar, it was different enough to have its own voice. It's low-budget (so many of these movies tend to be) and plods along at a nearly 30 beats per minute pace over rarely-changing scenery (honestly, after about the 70th time the boys met at the beach, I started to wonder if they weren't on a one square kilometer island), but it has heart at its core, and so, for the most part, it works.
Score: 7/10
The actor who plays Brady is really cute and has the most adorable, tiny little gap between his front teeth, and does the most with the dialogue he's given, which is sometimes spot on for the situation, and at other times (specifically in his dealings with this ultra-conservative mother) is so poor that I just had to stare at his face and ignore the words. This was a feat easily accomplished, by the way. Clifford, with a largely absent father, and a liberal "non-traditional" (his words) mother, understands the underlying conflict, but has a plan for helping Brady see his light.
I was a bit surprised overall: I had rented the movie because it reminded me of one of my very favorite gay-themed movies, Latter Days (in a nutshell: Mormon meets kinda slutty party boy), and while pieces of it were similar, it was different enough to have its own voice. It's low-budget (so many of these movies tend to be) and plods along at a nearly 30 beats per minute pace over rarely-changing scenery (honestly, after about the 70th time the boys met at the beach, I started to wonder if they weren't on a one square kilometer island), but it has heart at its core, and so, for the most part, it works.
Score: 7/10
#124 - The Dinner Game (1998)
In my search for new French films to watch, I came across The Dinner Game, which had apparently been funny enough and interesting enough that it was remade in the US and called Dinner for Schmucks. I've heard from various sources that the American version is a bit too stupid-funny for my tastes, and that, overall, the film was not that successful, barring some okay acting and a few funny parts (and about how many movies can we say that!).
The French version, however, stays really consistent and interesting, following the small cast from absurdity to absurdity in a way both strange and completely understandable. The basic idea is that a group of intellectuals have frequent dinners where each person brings a guest - and this guest must be un cochon: an idiot. Enter M. Pignon, who makes matchstick models of architectural marvels, has a weird, rhyming ditty for an answering machine message, and has a strange penchant for not being able to keep his mouth from continuing on conversations long after the normal ending point.
Director Francis Veber, who has already brought us The Valet and the original source piece for The Birdcage, keeps me laughing yet again with the way he keeps the story moving. Equal parts punnery and wordplay, sight gags, understatement, and interesting plot devices, the script is so well-crafted that we veyr much believe this scenario could actually happen, even while at every turn we know it to be full of contrivances.
The ending of the film is a true must-see for any screenwriter who may be having trouble figuring out how to end his tale. It's poignant and hysterical, and is a true ending to a terrific film.
Score: 9/10
The French version, however, stays really consistent and interesting, following the small cast from absurdity to absurdity in a way both strange and completely understandable. The basic idea is that a group of intellectuals have frequent dinners where each person brings a guest - and this guest must be un cochon: an idiot. Enter M. Pignon, who makes matchstick models of architectural marvels, has a weird, rhyming ditty for an answering machine message, and has a strange penchant for not being able to keep his mouth from continuing on conversations long after the normal ending point.
Director Francis Veber, who has already brought us The Valet and the original source piece for The Birdcage, keeps me laughing yet again with the way he keeps the story moving. Equal parts punnery and wordplay, sight gags, understatement, and interesting plot devices, the script is so well-crafted that we veyr much believe this scenario could actually happen, even while at every turn we know it to be full of contrivances.
The ending of the film is a true must-see for any screenwriter who may be having trouble figuring out how to end his tale. It's poignant and hysterical, and is a true ending to a terrific film.
Score: 9/10
Sunday, May 8, 2011
#123 - Wet Hot American Summer (2001)
A recent update to the Netflix instant streaming selection reminded me that I had never seen Wet Hot American Summer,
First off: who the hell isn't in this movie? Appearing in this movie are:
Janeane Garofalo, the camp director and a favorite of mine since The Truth About Cats and Dogs)
Michael Showalter, of "Stella" fame (Google it and watch it)
Amy Poehler (awesome)
Bradley Cooper, raising the total number of movies I've seen where he plays someone gay to 2
Paul Rudd (so, this lands somewhere between Clueless and 40-Year-Old Virgin, chronologically)
Michael Ian Black (also awesome)
and Molly Shannon, David Hyde Pierce, Christopher Meloni, Elizabeth Banks, and Ken Marino.
The movie follows the above as camp counselors on the last day of summer camp (a really messed up summer camp, go figure) that is certainly reminiscent of Happy Campers (which I highly recommend, even though there's a lot of suspect acting). Unfortunately, this movie also finds itself all over the place. The occasionally funny parts are mired in an absurdist mess that does somewhat come together at the final talent show, which is, ironically, the least continuous part of the film, but probably the drollest. I recommend watching this movie with others, or intoxicated. I bet that would make it even better.
Score: 6.5/10
First off: who the hell isn't in this movie? Appearing in this movie are:
Janeane Garofalo, the camp director and a favorite of mine since The Truth About Cats and Dogs)
Michael Showalter, of "Stella" fame (Google it and watch it)
Amy Poehler (awesome)
Bradley Cooper, raising the total number of movies I've seen where he plays someone gay to 2
Paul Rudd (so, this lands somewhere between Clueless and 40-Year-Old Virgin, chronologically)
Michael Ian Black (also awesome)
and Molly Shannon, David Hyde Pierce, Christopher Meloni, Elizabeth Banks, and Ken Marino.
The movie follows the above as camp counselors on the last day of summer camp (a really messed up summer camp, go figure) that is certainly reminiscent of Happy Campers (which I highly recommend, even though there's a lot of suspect acting). Unfortunately, this movie also finds itself all over the place. The occasionally funny parts are mired in an absurdist mess that does somewhat come together at the final talent show, which is, ironically, the least continuous part of the film, but probably the drollest. I recommend watching this movie with others, or intoxicated. I bet that would make it even better.
Score: 6.5/10
#122 - Hanna (2011)
So this movie was the other half of my doubleheader movie night last night (something that I actually don't believe I've ever done outside of the Traverse City Film Festival) and, while I'm glad I gave myself the opportunity, and enjoyed the experience, I found Hanna to be really one-note. The stunning lack of variety and the obviousness of the story arc did not lend themselves to any sort of exceptional moviegoing.
The positives of the movie include Saoirse Ronan as the main character, who keeps proving to me that she could have a good career heading forward into adulthood, the parts where Ronan is with the British family, and... Cate Blanchett is pretty. Also, this is the first movie I've ever seen Eric Bana in -- not counting the fact that apparently he was the voice of a minor character in Finding Nemo -- which is actually a bit surprising considering the large number of popular movies he's appeared in. (I refuse to count Lucky You.)
The negatives of the movie include:
1. It's super formulaic.
2. Can we say "predictable"?
3. Cate Blanchett's accent changes 94 times throughout the course of the film, and while I understand that it may have been a part of the plot, it was super distracting.
4. How on Earth did Hanna's friend find her among all the cargo when the three men tailing her couldn't? Laaaaaaame and pointless.
5. It wasn't even as good as Insidious.
If you're still interested in seeing this movie, save yourself the 10 dollars and wait for it to come out for rental. Really.
Score: 6/10
The positives of the movie include Saoirse Ronan as the main character, who keeps proving to me that she could have a good career heading forward into adulthood, the parts where Ronan is with the British family, and... Cate Blanchett is pretty. Also, this is the first movie I've ever seen Eric Bana in -- not counting the fact that apparently he was the voice of a minor character in Finding Nemo -- which is actually a bit surprising considering the large number of popular movies he's appeared in. (I refuse to count Lucky You.)
The negatives of the movie include:
1. It's super formulaic.
2. Can we say "predictable"?
3. Cate Blanchett's accent changes 94 times throughout the course of the film, and while I understand that it may have been a part of the plot, it was super distracting.
4. How on Earth did Hanna's friend find her among all the cargo when the three men tailing her couldn't? Laaaaaaame and pointless.
5. It wasn't even as good as Insidious.
If you're still interested in seeing this movie, save yourself the 10 dollars and wait for it to come out for rental. Really.
Score: 6/10
Saturday, May 7, 2011
#121 - Insidious (2011)
Why I volunteered to see this movie is beyond me. I blame J-Dub for piquing my interest in horror films. Or, at the very least, bringing them more toward the forefront of genres I would actually watch. In any case, since my friend Erika wouldn't see the movie with her husband Parviz, we decided we'd go see it without her. Take that! (Or, whatever...) And tonight was a good night because she'll actually be onstage herself in a performance of "Grey Gardens" (which I saw last weekend and talked about in an earlier post. At least, I remember doing so...).
I also decided to use this night that had been sans plans to make it a doubleheader, so I'll be following up this post with another one tomorrow.
My biggest complaint about Insidious is that it had the gall to cast Patrick Wilson and not have even one shirtless scene. What the hell? He was in his boxers for about two minutes, though, so I guess that's something. Also, I wanted more of Rose Byrne singing.
I did find that the movie did a nice job of keeping the suspense up without resorting to cheap horror movie "things jumping out of the shadows" all the time as its only method of scaring the moviegoers. A movie is much more effective (and so sayeth Hitchcock) when it allows the audience to know things that the onscreen character doesn't, or lets them see things the characters don't. In this way, the audience awaits with bated breath the inevitability of the scene. There was some good use of that in Insidious, and thus it was a better movie than it might otherwise have been.
Score: 7.5/10
I also decided to use this night that had been sans plans to make it a doubleheader, so I'll be following up this post with another one tomorrow.
My biggest complaint about Insidious is that it had the gall to cast Patrick Wilson and not have even one shirtless scene. What the hell? He was in his boxers for about two minutes, though, so I guess that's something. Also, I wanted more of Rose Byrne singing.
I did find that the movie did a nice job of keeping the suspense up without resorting to cheap horror movie "things jumping out of the shadows" all the time as its only method of scaring the moviegoers. A movie is much more effective (and so sayeth Hitchcock) when it allows the audience to know things that the onscreen character doesn't, or lets them see things the characters don't. In this way, the audience awaits with bated breath the inevitability of the scene. There was some good use of that in Insidious, and thus it was a better movie than it might otherwise have been.
Score: 7.5/10
Friday, May 6, 2011
#120 - Night and Fog (1955)
So, I'm going to Prom tonight! Hooray! I had so much fine at my own Senior Prom that I'm going to go to ever other Prom ever!!!
Or not. I hate dressing up, hate large, social gatherings, and hate small-talking with a billion people. So this year, I'm not getting that dressed up and I'm going to avoid as many people as possible. That's the right attitude heading into Prom, right?
The only reason I'm really going is because this year's seniors were freshmen when I began my teaching career almost four years ago. I have had a few students all four years I've been teaching (mostly due to the French classes) and I will be sad to see them go when they leave in a few weeks. Also, I did get an invitation (apparently, not everyone does), and several of my students (and a couple of the girls on the tennis team) asked me earnestly if I were going to attend. And so I relented. But this year I'm taking a date! (No, not a man. My friend Steph Kaza who's teaching next door to me this year before she doesn't return next year because she's a long-term sub.)
In any case, before I got ready to go, I wanted to get a movie in, so I chose a very short one.
I debated whether or not to include this film in my list this year, and decided that, despite its less-than-feature-film length, it should be included because of its impact on film, its cultural significance, and for the simple fact that it is a documentary I've wanted to see for a while now. Night and Fog (La nuit et la brouillard) is a French documentary about the beginnings of the concentration camps and imprisonment at the beginning of WWII. The images of the camp are arresting, but juxtaposed with the combination serenity and somberness of the area today.
But it is the images of the dead and dying, emaciated to a point that seems well beyond that of being able to keep itself alive, that are the most horrifying. In one second, these images expose the duality of the horror these people faced and the resilience of the human body and spirit. Bony adult corpses weighing probably 50 pounds prove that the will to live has a capacity greater than that of the will of the Nazis to break their imprisoned down.
In other words, this was a singularly great film to watch before going to Prom.
Score: 9/10
Or not. I hate dressing up, hate large, social gatherings, and hate small-talking with a billion people. So this year, I'm not getting that dressed up and I'm going to avoid as many people as possible. That's the right attitude heading into Prom, right?
The only reason I'm really going is because this year's seniors were freshmen when I began my teaching career almost four years ago. I have had a few students all four years I've been teaching (mostly due to the French classes) and I will be sad to see them go when they leave in a few weeks. Also, I did get an invitation (apparently, not everyone does), and several of my students (and a couple of the girls on the tennis team) asked me earnestly if I were going to attend. And so I relented. But this year I'm taking a date! (No, not a man. My friend Steph Kaza who's teaching next door to me this year before she doesn't return next year because she's a long-term sub.)
In any case, before I got ready to go, I wanted to get a movie in, so I chose a very short one.
I debated whether or not to include this film in my list this year, and decided that, despite its less-than-feature-film length, it should be included because of its impact on film, its cultural significance, and for the simple fact that it is a documentary I've wanted to see for a while now. Night and Fog (La nuit et la brouillard) is a French documentary about the beginnings of the concentration camps and imprisonment at the beginning of WWII. The images of the camp are arresting, but juxtaposed with the combination serenity and somberness of the area today.
But it is the images of the dead and dying, emaciated to a point that seems well beyond that of being able to keep itself alive, that are the most horrifying. In one second, these images expose the duality of the horror these people faced and the resilience of the human body and spirit. Bony adult corpses weighing probably 50 pounds prove that the will to live has a capacity greater than that of the will of the Nazis to break their imprisoned down.
In other words, this was a singularly great film to watch before going to Prom.
Score: 9/10
Thursday, May 5, 2011
#119 - 17 Again (2009)
Boy, this movie is alllllll over the place. There were parts where I was wondering if I could stand to sit through the extended scenes of unadulterated cheese (many of which were involving the film's star, Zac Efron), but there were a lot of moments that were pronouncedly funny (many of which involved the film's star, Zac Efron). I had originally decided to watch the film based on a lot of people telling me that it had been much better than they had anticipated. This it was, but it didn't have the amazingness quotient that a movie like Easy A did. Also, Zac Efron's a hottie.
What we have in 17 Again, for those of you unfamiliar with the premise, is sort of a backwards 13 Going On 30 where the main character (portrayed by Matthew Perry in the "adult years", which is a really smart part of the movie, as it were) gets a chance to put his life back in order when he gets to "replay" his senior year in high school. At first, he thinks he has this chance to prove his talents on the basketball court, but he comes to the realization that, instead, he needs to make sure his children make good choices in high school. Or something like that.
It's not the best movie of its genre, but it certainly is much more palatable than many others of its ilk. Zac Efron is pretty and pretty good, Leslie Mann (who I just saw in I Love You Phillip Morris) is beautiful and charming as Perry's ex-wife, and again we get Michelle Trachtenberg as a high school student (see also Eurotrip) who is dating the douchebaggy Silas Botwin of Weeds.
Score: 7/10
What we have in 17 Again, for those of you unfamiliar with the premise, is sort of a backwards 13 Going On 30 where the main character (portrayed by Matthew Perry in the "adult years", which is a really smart part of the movie, as it were) gets a chance to put his life back in order when he gets to "replay" his senior year in high school. At first, he thinks he has this chance to prove his talents on the basketball court, but he comes to the realization that, instead, he needs to make sure his children make good choices in high school. Or something like that.
It's not the best movie of its genre, but it certainly is much more palatable than many others of its ilk. Zac Efron is pretty and pretty good, Leslie Mann (who I just saw in I Love You Phillip Morris) is beautiful and charming as Perry's ex-wife, and again we get Michelle Trachtenberg as a high school student (see also Eurotrip) who is dating the douchebaggy Silas Botwin of Weeds.
Score: 7/10
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
#118 - City Lights (1931)
And now, something new is complete: I have finally watched some Chaplin. I went big, with the top silent film of the revised AFI Top 100 list from 2007. The film City Lights moved up 65 positions to 11th overall, probably largely as a nod to the genius of Chaplin and the era more than anything else. Now, I've seen both The General and Sunrise this year (and I realize that I bring the latter up often, but it is the curious incident of having been enthralled with a movie and yet, in esteem, going up with my reminiscences) and I have to say that this was my least favorite. Which is not to say that I didn't thoroughly enjoy it, but it was slow at the beginning -- too much sight gag and not enough story -- and until the story really got started, I wasn't that interested.
As the story goes on though (and it's really pretty simple: Chaplin plays a tramp who falls in love with a blind girl and gets her money to pay for her to have surgery to fix her poor eyesight) it becomes increasingly more interesting, focusing on Chaplin's attempts to earn this money. He befriends a millionaire, gets arrested, and tries to earn a boxing purse (easily one of the funniest parts of the movie), among other things. The sentimentality of the movie is a bit saccharine, at times, but the overall effect is less cloying than it might seem. I can certainly appreciate the artistry of the film, as well as its own unique brand of humor, and I definitely will be including more Chaplin later on.
Score: 8.5/10
As the story goes on though (and it's really pretty simple: Chaplin plays a tramp who falls in love with a blind girl and gets her money to pay for her to have surgery to fix her poor eyesight) it becomes increasingly more interesting, focusing on Chaplin's attempts to earn this money. He befriends a millionaire, gets arrested, and tries to earn a boxing purse (easily one of the funniest parts of the movie), among other things. The sentimentality of the movie is a bit saccharine, at times, but the overall effect is less cloying than it might seem. I can certainly appreciate the artistry of the film, as well as its own unique brand of humor, and I definitely will be including more Chaplin later on.
Score: 8.5/10
Sunday, May 1, 2011
#117 - Driving Miss Daisy (1989)
Hysterically, I was just talking to my friend Dan about how I watched this movie not too long ago and how I wouldn't really voluntarily choose to watch it again, really. But, as it turns out, it's part of the curriculum about social issues and racial tension in The South, which is couple with the novel Their Eyes Were Watching God. So we watched the film in my 6th hour, and my feelings about its mediocrity were justified.
The movie is absolutely nothing special (as a matter of fact, its director didn't even get a Best Director nomination), though it is a nice movie. It's decently acted, tells a nice story, and tugs at the heartstrings here and there and everywhere, but God help me, I couldn't find a real conflict for the film. I mean, I get that Jessica Tandy is growing older and older, and I understand that Morgan Freeman can't read, but honestly none of the smaller conflict-ish plot points really gets fleshed out for the whole movie (other than aging, itself, and, honestly, you don't need a black chauffeur to stand by and watch a white woman age). And okay, there's the growing friendship between Tandy and Freeman, but that, too, is almost lost in everything else. This movie is, simply, a white woman being driven around by a black man and geography is the only real cause for their closeness. Kinda lame, don't you think?
Score: 5.5/10
The movie is absolutely nothing special (as a matter of fact, its director didn't even get a Best Director nomination), though it is a nice movie. It's decently acted, tells a nice story, and tugs at the heartstrings here and there and everywhere, but God help me, I couldn't find a real conflict for the film. I mean, I get that Jessica Tandy is growing older and older, and I understand that Morgan Freeman can't read, but honestly none of the smaller conflict-ish plot points really gets fleshed out for the whole movie (other than aging, itself, and, honestly, you don't need a black chauffeur to stand by and watch a white woman age). And okay, there's the growing friendship between Tandy and Freeman, but that, too, is almost lost in everything else. This movie is, simply, a white woman being driven around by a black man and geography is the only real cause for their closeness. Kinda lame, don't you think?
Score: 5.5/10
Thursday, April 28, 2011
#116 - Au Revoir Les Enfants (1987)
I finally finally finally have gotten around to watching the popular Holocaust classic (sounds oxymoronic) Au Revoir Les Enfants, a film about young boys at a religious boarding school in the late 1930s/early 1940s. The film, one of director Louis Malle’s most popular, is based on his own experiences, and is also one of his last films.
The movie is austere, yet beautifully-filmed, and it follows the relationship especially between two of the boys whose relationship is, at first, adversarial, but the power of good triumphs over the power of evil. Of course, there is a religious conflict (one of the two boys is a Jew who is being quartered by the school.
The movie is leading up to a somewhat inevitable climax, but I certainly didn’t see one aspect of it coming, and was really a bit shocked and angry. (Part of the shock was that I really did fail to realize the entirety of what was happening, lol.) The acting is really quite good, especially for the children and don’t seem to be trying too hard, like most children.
Score: 8.5/10
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
#115 - A Raisin in the Sun (2008)
Today's entry is a part of the 10th Grade English curriculum, as we're reading the Lorraine Hansberry play together in class. And the version of the movie that we have is not the 1961 film with Sidney Poitier, but rather the made-for-TV remake from two years ago starring Sean Combs, among others. This is my first experience with this particular piece, and I'm a big fan. A student of mine said that she found it boring, because it's just about a family and there's some problems. Well, you have to really pay attention to the literature and everything I'm telling you about how much denser it is. Good try.
When it comes to the film, the range of acting goes from truly pedestrian (Combs) and overwrought (Sanaa Lathan) to outstanding (the wonderful Audra McDonald- who has very few IMDb credits, but that's likely due to the fact that she's won four(!) Tonys- as well as the instantly recognizable Phylicia Rashad). The on-screen dynamic is often powerful, but at times, it lacks the true dash of Hansberry's play. Combs and Lathan, especially, try to make more out of parts that don't need it, while McDonald and Rashad just get it. In fact, the parts of the play that allow just the two of them to play off each other are easily the most successful.
Score: 7/10
When it comes to the film, the range of acting goes from truly pedestrian (Combs) and overwrought (Sanaa Lathan) to outstanding (the wonderful Audra McDonald- who has very few IMDb credits, but that's likely due to the fact that she's won four(!) Tonys- as well as the instantly recognizable Phylicia Rashad). The on-screen dynamic is often powerful, but at times, it lacks the true dash of Hansberry's play. Combs and Lathan, especially, try to make more out of parts that don't need it, while McDonald and Rashad just get it. In fact, the parts of the play that allow just the two of them to play off each other are easily the most successful.
Score: 7/10
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
#114 - Zombieland (2009)
Well, with my Easter movie marathon got me nearly caught up on my blog, but I'm still a few behind. Hopefully over the next two weekends, I will have the chance to get completely caught up. (Also, it is nice that I am watching a couple of movies with my classes in school as part of their curricula, so I can count those when we finish them!) Speaking of curricula: I found out officially today that next year, I will not be full time. Kind of like this time last year, when I was told that I would have a reduced schedule. This year, however, it is bleaker: for starters, my schedule is a .4, which means only two French classes each semester (hardly a livable schedule), and not the same prospect for getting full time as last year, since there's more people on layoff this year. Oh well, head held high.
This was my last movie of the four-day weekend, and I thought it started a little dumbly (Jesse Eisenberg's initial voice-over narration sounded a little forced and read, unlike the skill he brought to the beginning of The Social Network), and for the most part, Woody Harrelson (who I've always kind of quietly loved) seemed very much a single-point caricature. Emma Stone (who, if you recall, I absolutely loved in Easy A) and Abigail Breslin (good to see her in a movie that doesn't suck) were nice additions to the film, and Bill Murray is fantastic in his cameo. The film is a bit uneven, at times, but it was really very enjoyable. (And at a runtime of 88 minutes, it seems as though they knew that this was not a movie they felt should be drawn out any longer; they were right.)
Score: 8/10
This was my last movie of the four-day weekend, and I thought it started a little dumbly (Jesse Eisenberg's initial voice-over narration sounded a little forced and read, unlike the skill he brought to the beginning of The Social Network), and for the most part, Woody Harrelson (who I've always kind of quietly loved) seemed very much a single-point caricature. Emma Stone (who, if you recall, I absolutely loved in Easy A) and Abigail Breslin (good to see her in a movie that doesn't suck) were nice additions to the film, and Bill Murray is fantastic in his cameo. The film is a bit uneven, at times, but it was really very enjoyable. (And at a runtime of 88 minutes, it seems as though they knew that this was not a movie they felt should be drawn out any longer; they were right.)
Score: 8/10
Monday, April 25, 2011
#113 - Reefer Madness (1936)
Here we have a film I've heard a LOT about over the years, but I often forget exactly how long ago this original one was made! (This was not the musical version with Kristen Bell that came out a few years ago, nor does it star James Franco or Danny Masterson, obviously.) What it is/was, is/was an anti-marihuana (yes, with an "h") propaganda film whose original working title, "Tell Your Children", explains exactly why the movie was distributed: education. Don't do drugs, kids, or otherwise one of the following will happen to you:
1. You will begin to laugh hysterically, and for no reason.
2. You will begin to listen to, and like, jazz music.
3. You will lose the ability to function normally and appropriately.
4. You will become uncontrollably violent.
5. Other irreparably terrible things will happen to you, as well. Consider your life over.
I only actually really wanted to watch the movie because there is a RiffTrax attached to it. I think that my brother Matt and I could have enjoyed it without the RiffTrax being on, but the "movie" is so ungodly terrible that I'm glad the humor could have been supplied. Now, I can honestly avow that I have never partaken of marihuana (or, the one with the "j") and don't exactly condone it, but I can assure all of my readers that, given the choice between saying Reefer Madness is good for society and toking... who's got the weed?
Score: 1/10 (It doesn't go any lower)
1. You will begin to laugh hysterically, and for no reason.
2. You will begin to listen to, and like, jazz music.
3. You will lose the ability to function normally and appropriately.
4. You will become uncontrollably violent.
5. Other irreparably terrible things will happen to you, as well. Consider your life over.
I only actually really wanted to watch the movie because there is a RiffTrax attached to it. I think that my brother Matt and I could have enjoyed it without the RiffTrax being on, but the "movie" is so ungodly terrible that I'm glad the humor could have been supplied. Now, I can honestly avow that I have never partaken of marihuana (or, the one with the "j") and don't exactly condone it, but I can assure all of my readers that, given the choice between saying Reefer Madness is good for society and toking... who's got the weed?
Score: 1/10 (It doesn't go any lower)
#112 - The Lady Vanishes (1938)
Another early, pre-America Hitchcock film, this one set aboard a train (how I love these one-setting dramas!), is the 18th film I've seen that Hitchcock directed. This particular one centers around a lady (Dame May Whitty, who I love, having seen her in movies like Mrs. Miniver and Gaslight) who vanishes (surprise!), but there is a giant conspiracy among the train passengers, who all claim that she was never aboard. The only person who is sure that she was aboard was a young woman (Margaret Lockwood) that she befriended before boarding the train. (Did anyone see Flightplan? It's kind of like that, except as I recall, very few people had actually seen Jodie Foster's child.)
A young man (Michael Redgrave, yes those Redgraves) who had fought with the young woman prior to boarding (conflict!! Whoooo!) believes her because she's pretty, and the two of them embark on their own detective case to find the missing woman. Unsurprisingly, she is found (spoiler alert?) and the ending is silly, but there is some pretty good suspense built up along the way, and you'll find yourself genuinely pleased at the path of the film, as well as the relationship between the two main characters, which is actually very well done.
Score: 8/10
A young man (Michael Redgrave, yes those Redgraves) who had fought with the young woman prior to boarding (conflict!! Whoooo!) believes her because she's pretty, and the two of them embark on their own detective case to find the missing woman. Unsurprisingly, she is found (spoiler alert?) and the ending is silly, but there is some pretty good suspense built up along the way, and you'll find yourself genuinely pleased at the path of the film, as well as the relationship between the two main characters, which is actually very well done.
Score: 8/10
Sunday, April 24, 2011
#111 - The Servant (1963)
This small ensemble drama about a young, engaged man who hires a manservant to take care of his new household, only to find that the servant and his sister (really his lover - ta da!) are trying to slowly and assiduously insinuate themselves into the household. The young man doesn't realize this fact until much later in the movie, but his fiancée is much sharper and senses something is amiss (and acts like a complete and utter bitch to the servant). The four of them carry on their lives through several different relationship connections, including the servant's lover seducing the young man.
The film is complex without trying to be, which results in some very smooth storytelling. The psychological impact of the main relationship between the two men is by far the most intriguing. When they are onscreen together, it is most enjoyable (and most suspenseful) to regard the way they act together. Since they both play their parts so capably, it keeps the tension palpable and pushes the movie through to its only slightly less-fascinating end.
Score: 8/10
The film is complex without trying to be, which results in some very smooth storytelling. The psychological impact of the main relationship between the two men is by far the most intriguing. When they are onscreen together, it is most enjoyable (and most suspenseful) to regard the way they act together. Since they both play their parts so capably, it keeps the tension palpable and pushes the movie through to its only slightly less-fascinating end.
Score: 8/10
#110 - Heartbreaker (2010)
As part of my Easter Movie Marathon, I decided that I wanted to watch a current comedy, after the two dramas and the two classic films, and so I chose Heartbreaker, a movie I've been wanting to rewatch since seeing it at the Traverse City Film Festival last summer. The premise of the movie is somewhat that of the anti-Hitch: the main character runs a small business whose income is gained by breaking up couples. People hire them when they know a girl who is unhappy in a relationship, but they don't know it.
Yes, it's a romantic comedy, but let me give you a couple of reasons why you'll actually want to watch this one: it's French, and even people who don't really care for romcoms really liked it. Now, when I saw it in the theatre, there was a slight increase of the enjoyment factor (there is an ambience at the TCFF that you just can't beat), and there were a couple of minutes that I laughed/giggled non-stop (it helped that Dara kept laughing, too, and we kept setting each other off). Even though I expected these parts the second time around, it was still great.
Definitely take a watch: there were also rumors that there was going to be an American remake of the film, but I don't know that it could match this one.
Score: 9/10
Yes, it's a romantic comedy, but let me give you a couple of reasons why you'll actually want to watch this one: it's French, and even people who don't really care for romcoms really liked it. Now, when I saw it in the theatre, there was a slight increase of the enjoyment factor (there is an ambience at the TCFF that you just can't beat), and there were a couple of minutes that I laughed/giggled non-stop (it helped that Dara kept laughing, too, and we kept setting each other off). Even though I expected these parts the second time around, it was still great.
Definitely take a watch: there were also rumors that there was going to be an American remake of the film, but I don't know that it could match this one.
Score: 9/10
#109 - The Machinist (2004)
An unbelievably emaciated Christian Bale plays the title character in this drama about an insomniac who's a little out-of-sorts. Okay, a lot out-of-sorts. When I was working at the FamVid, lots of my coworkers liked the movie, but all of them complained about how skinny Bale is and I kind of just dismissed it. The movie itself fell into the "rented it from the 2-for-1 section a bunch of times but never watched" category - sadly, a category with a lot of entries. It's true, though: Bale is so skinny that it's gross. When he's shirtless (and, God forbid, flexing) and you can see all the ribs and the upper vertebrae, and all kinds of other bone things and protrusions.
I'll say one thing right off the bat: I did not understand this movie at all. And by that, I don't mean that I couldn't follow it (though it was, at times, a bit Lynchian), but rather that I just didn't get the "Why?" Even when the movie was "cleared up", I didn't get a sense of completion. Overwhelmingly, I found that I didn't really care. I cared that I knew how it ended and what the filmmakers were actually going for, but that didn't really reach far enough toward me. This is a fault of the story itself, not of the acting, as Bale, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Aitana Sanchez-Gijon are great.
This movie also suffers from the trap of thinking that sometimes showing the near-ending at the beginning is a good thing. Here, it does absolutely nothing. Also, the ending itself was a real "okay, fine" moment. Of course, since I stopped really caring long before then what was really going on, it didn't really hit me that hard. And come on, who didn't absolutely know that the first letter was going to be a "K"? DUH.
Score: 5/10
I'll say one thing right off the bat: I did not understand this movie at all. And by that, I don't mean that I couldn't follow it (though it was, at times, a bit Lynchian), but rather that I just didn't get the "Why?" Even when the movie was "cleared up", I didn't get a sense of completion. Overwhelmingly, I found that I didn't really care. I cared that I knew how it ended and what the filmmakers were actually going for, but that didn't really reach far enough toward me. This is a fault of the story itself, not of the acting, as Bale, Jennifer Jason Leigh, and Aitana Sanchez-Gijon are great.
This movie also suffers from the trap of thinking that sometimes showing the near-ending at the beginning is a good thing. Here, it does absolutely nothing. Also, the ending itself was a real "okay, fine" moment. Of course, since I stopped really caring long before then what was really going on, it didn't really hit me that hard. And come on, who didn't absolutely know that the first letter was going to be a "K"? DUH.
Score: 5/10
#108 - Brief Encounter (1945)
Brief Encounter is another foreign, small ensemble, arty Criterion Collection selection that I went into hoping for something interesting and new. Unfortunately, I have been less-than-enthralled with the CC films that I have watched so far (none of the previous three earned scores higher than a 6.5), but nonetheless, I went into the movie high expectations. I enjoy movies with just a small cast focusing on one particular plot element, and just absolutely zeroing in on the emotions and consequences associated with it.
From this film, I got exactly what I'd hoped for. I'm not saying that it's going to blow anyone away, but from the two leads, Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard, we get very good acting to complement a simple plot: Johnson is a normal housewife who does little that is interesting (Thursday is her "shopping day" and it is clear early on that this seems to be one of the only things she has to herself) and doesn't really seem to want (or know of) anything else, until she meets a (reasonably handsome) doctor who takes an interest in her (and, eventually, vice versa).
The thing I like about this film is the way that Johnson is the P.O.V. Howard's story is far less interesting, and Johnson is the one who is married, so we can see all the conflicts inherent in the situation at that point. The two do things together, he lavishes attention on her, and eventually she tells him she's married, but that doesn't necessarily mean they stop seeing one another. Call it "Same Time, Next Week" for a period of time prior to the film's inevitable resolution.
It's not a terribly long film, nor is it what I would call exciting, but the acting and pacing are worth seeing, and the emotional chords it strikes are so often glossed over or overwrought in so many movies that try this formula and fail.
Score: 8.5/10
From this film, I got exactly what I'd hoped for. I'm not saying that it's going to blow anyone away, but from the two leads, Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard, we get very good acting to complement a simple plot: Johnson is a normal housewife who does little that is interesting (Thursday is her "shopping day" and it is clear early on that this seems to be one of the only things she has to herself) and doesn't really seem to want (or know of) anything else, until she meets a (reasonably handsome) doctor who takes an interest in her (and, eventually, vice versa).
The thing I like about this film is the way that Johnson is the P.O.V. Howard's story is far less interesting, and Johnson is the one who is married, so we can see all the conflicts inherent in the situation at that point. The two do things together, he lavishes attention on her, and eventually she tells him she's married, but that doesn't necessarily mean they stop seeing one another. Call it "Same Time, Next Week" for a period of time prior to the film's inevitable resolution.
It's not a terribly long film, nor is it what I would call exciting, but the acting and pacing are worth seeing, and the emotional chords it strikes are so often glossed over or overwrought in so many movies that try this formula and fail.
Score: 8.5/10
#107 - The General (1926)
I have a new leader for earliest-made movie (this was made the year before the amazing Sunrise), and, unsurprisingly, it's a silent film. (Though I guess anything before 1927 must be a silent film, since isn't The Jazz Singer the first talkie?) Another one of the things I wanted to accomplish with this blog was to watch some different kinds of films, as well as more tried-and-true classics, and since I've never seen any Chaplin or Keaton films.
The General is all about Keaton and his locomotive. Disallowed from enlisting in the Confederate Army due to his strength as an engineer (railroad, not electrical or mechanical), and thus possibly losing the amour of his ladyfriend Annabelle, but when Annabelle is abducted on board his locomotive, Johnnie Gray (Keaton), desires to rescue both his lady and his locomotive.
I didn't know that much about the film going in, other than it is, 85 years later, still very highly regarded. I also read that it was a really funny comedy, so I had a preconceived notion that it was going to be a little slapstick or that it would rely heavily on sight gags. What I got, instead, was an extremely well-measured kind-of-comedy with wonderful comedic timing (the thirty seconds of Johnnie, Annabelle, and the bear trap had me almost in tears) and some terrific athleticism from Keaton running up and down the train.
The story itself is simple, and, really, it only really provides the backdrop for Keaton to do his thing for 78 minutes. That being said, it was really heartwarming. In the same way that Sunrise kept me in suspense the whole time (which, at the time, I felt may have been slightly incidental, though I now realize not to assume that the film was truly going for that is somewhat of a disservice), Keaton kept me entranced. I have a couple more of his in my IMDb Watchlist that I'm excited to get to some time this year.
Score: 9.5/10
The General is all about Keaton and his locomotive. Disallowed from enlisting in the Confederate Army due to his strength as an engineer (railroad, not electrical or mechanical), and thus possibly losing the amour of his ladyfriend Annabelle, but when Annabelle is abducted on board his locomotive, Johnnie Gray (Keaton), desires to rescue both his lady and his locomotive.
I didn't know that much about the film going in, other than it is, 85 years later, still very highly regarded. I also read that it was a really funny comedy, so I had a preconceived notion that it was going to be a little slapstick or that it would rely heavily on sight gags. What I got, instead, was an extremely well-measured kind-of-comedy with wonderful comedic timing (the thirty seconds of Johnnie, Annabelle, and the bear trap had me almost in tears) and some terrific athleticism from Keaton running up and down the train.
The story itself is simple, and, really, it only really provides the backdrop for Keaton to do his thing for 78 minutes. That being said, it was really heartwarming. In the same way that Sunrise kept me in suspense the whole time (which, at the time, I felt may have been slightly incidental, though I now realize not to assume that the film was truly going for that is somewhat of a disservice), Keaton kept me entranced. I have a couple more of his in my IMDb Watchlist that I'm excited to get to some time this year.
Score: 9.5/10
Saturday, April 23, 2011
#106 - A Serious Man (2009)
This was one of the two Coen Brothers movies I missed between the Oscar-winning No Country for Old Men and the excellent True Grit revitalization. It was one of the pictures that was nominated for Best Picture the year the Academy went back to ten Best Picture Nominees. It was never really a consideration to win (it would not have been nominated had there been only five) but goodness knows that the Coens can do little wrong when it comes to the Academy (and as an ardent fan, I'm okay with this) in much the same way that Christopher Nolan can seem to do little right (though his films have won several Oscars).
Unfortunately for A Serious Man, my favorite part of the film was the first six minutes, which was a cautionary tale in Yiddish about a dybbuk, that seemed to be a short allegory for the rest of the piece as a whole. The misfortune lies in the fact that that was the most interested I felt in the whole film. I really didn't understand what was considered so great about it. Other than Michael Stuhlbarg's performance as the main character, Larry Gopnik, there was little to truly enjoy about the film.
Unfortunately for A Serious Man, my favorite part of the film was the first six minutes, which was a cautionary tale in Yiddish about a dybbuk, that seemed to be a short allegory for the rest of the piece as a whole. The misfortune lies in the fact that that was the most interested I felt in the whole film. I really didn't understand what was considered so great about it. Other than Michael Stuhlbarg's performance as the main character, Larry Gopnik, there was little to truly enjoy about the film.
All the other characters were surprisingly flat: the son is a pot-smoking TV-watcher preparing for his Bar Mitzvah (and every single one of his lines comes from the first two things, basically); the daughter washes her hair, and the wife does very little. Strangely, I felt as though there was a disconnect between the movie Gopnik was playing in and everyone else was playing in. If that was the point, then I felt it off-putting, not über-intellectual. It's certainly one of my least favorite Coen films, if not my absolute least favorite.
ü
Friday, April 22, 2011
#105 - Source Code (2011)
It would be fitting that my first 2011 movie of the year would be one with Jake Gyllenhaal. Actually, it just happened that way much more than it was planned out. I've been hearing some decent things about it, and I wanted to reconnect with my friend Jessica, who I haven't seen in awhile. Thusly, these things conspired to bring this about.
We went to the AMC at Hall and Mound (it's been awhile since I've been there, but Jess had a free ticket, and the ten dollars I paid for mine reminded me why we started going to the MJR in the first place) for a 720 showing. This was after Erika and Parviz and I played two games of Ticket to Ride (I came in second place for about the seventh time) and we went shopping at The Somerset Collection (it was my first time; it's huge). I bought a few nice shirts (all different shades of blue: just call me Duncan Kane) at American Eagle. Then I drove to the theatre to meet Jess.
The film starts just a little bit confusingly at first, but it doesn't take too long to really get into it. And, since it's much more of a "popular" film than an "arty" film, the confusion is cleared up pretty quickly. (As the film continues, it becomes clearer and clearer that Jeffrey Wright's sole purpose in the film is to clearly explain the "intricacies" of Source Code... take him out and we get a little bit from Vera Farmiga and we have to figure the rest out. Hmm...) Jake Gyllenhaal is pretty great in the film (like always; plus, he looks great), and Michelle Monaghan does a really nice job repeating some of the same words over and over (and, she looks great), and Vera Farmiga has a very soothing voice (and I love her, of course, if you've read my synopses of either Up in the Air or Nothing But the Truth).
The movie is fine; it's the kind of film I would recommend as a rental, but not to paper double-digit dollars for to see in the theatre. It's enjoyable enough, being neither cloying nor overly "intelligent", though everything about the ending that I heard was very true: the last five or so minutes were really pretty awful, and exactly what you'd expect from a movie that had no idea how they wanted to end it. (Hint to the studios: it should have ended at the kiss. DUH.)
Score: 7.5/10
We went to the AMC at Hall and Mound (it's been awhile since I've been there, but Jess had a free ticket, and the ten dollars I paid for mine reminded me why we started going to the MJR in the first place) for a 720 showing. This was after Erika and Parviz and I played two games of Ticket to Ride (I came in second place for about the seventh time) and we went shopping at The Somerset Collection (it was my first time; it's huge). I bought a few nice shirts (all different shades of blue: just call me Duncan Kane) at American Eagle. Then I drove to the theatre to meet Jess.
The film starts just a little bit confusingly at first, but it doesn't take too long to really get into it. And, since it's much more of a "popular" film than an "arty" film, the confusion is cleared up pretty quickly. (As the film continues, it becomes clearer and clearer that Jeffrey Wright's sole purpose in the film is to clearly explain the "intricacies" of Source Code... take him out and we get a little bit from Vera Farmiga and we have to figure the rest out. Hmm...) Jake Gyllenhaal is pretty great in the film (like always; plus, he looks great), and Michelle Monaghan does a really nice job repeating some of the same words over and over (and, she looks great), and Vera Farmiga has a very soothing voice (and I love her, of course, if you've read my synopses of either Up in the Air or Nothing But the Truth).
The movie is fine; it's the kind of film I would recommend as a rental, but not to paper double-digit dollars for to see in the theatre. It's enjoyable enough, being neither cloying nor overly "intelligent", though everything about the ending that I heard was very true: the last five or so minutes were really pretty awful, and exactly what you'd expect from a movie that had no idea how they wanted to end it. (Hint to the studios: it should have ended at the kiss. DUH.)
Score: 7.5/10
#104 - The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964)
Now, I have used the English title here, since here in England the U.S. of A. that's what we squawk speak, but the French title uses the word "parapluies", which happens to be one of my favorite words. I feel like our word for "umbrella" is the least exciting of all languages. I mean, who wouldn't want to ask someone to pass him his bumbershoot?
Anyways, on to the film: it holds a distinction of being quite experimental in that it is a non-musical with only sung dialogue. One thing that is immediately apparent is that the purpose of the sung dialogue is to elevate the situation above the mundane: the lovely Catherine Deneuve is a young woman who works in her mother's umbrella shop (yes, an umbrella shop), and the very pretty Nino Castelnuovo is a mechanic, and they're both so in love and wanting to get married. Awww. And both of them (and Deneuve's mother) all have very nice voices. Of course, it is funny to hear dialogue like "Bonjour" and "Pourquoi?" sung, but that's part of the whole mood.
As you watch the film, there are several inevitabilities, and when they occur, there is a duality of "I knew that was going to happen" and "Yet, I liked the way the film handled it". The acting is terrific, and it has to be, since the dialogue is a little more basic (it can't be too complicated due to the singing), and the acting and singing work together very completely. Though the film seemed a bit hokey at first, it really grew on me as it went.
Score: 9/10
Anyways, on to the film: it holds a distinction of being quite experimental in that it is a non-musical with only sung dialogue. One thing that is immediately apparent is that the purpose of the sung dialogue is to elevate the situation above the mundane: the lovely Catherine Deneuve is a young woman who works in her mother's umbrella shop (yes, an umbrella shop), and the very pretty Nino Castelnuovo is a mechanic, and they're both so in love and wanting to get married. Awww. And both of them (and Deneuve's mother) all have very nice voices. Of course, it is funny to hear dialogue like "Bonjour" and "Pourquoi?" sung, but that's part of the whole mood.
As you watch the film, there are several inevitabilities, and when they occur, there is a duality of "I knew that was going to happen" and "Yet, I liked the way the film handled it". The acting is terrific, and it has to be, since the dialogue is a little more basic (it can't be too complicated due to the singing), and the acting and singing work together very completely. Though the film seemed a bit hokey at first, it really grew on me as it went.
Score: 9/10
Thursday, April 21, 2011
#103 - Little Shop of Horrors (1986)
The drama teacher who has a room next door to mine wanted to show her kids a musical (but not an old one, since West Side Story hadn't gone over well), so I told her she could bring her kids next door to my classroom and use the Netflix instant stream to show her kids. Plus, I could spend two of my lunch periods watching the film for my blog (it was also very coincidental, since I had, on a whim, started to watch the film about a week ago, but it was too late to try to start one and I fell asleep).
I have wanted to watch the movie for a long time, because I've never seen it, but my friend Erica actually operated Audrey II in her high school's play. I know several people who have seen the stage musical done professionally and they all really enjoyed it, but I have to say that there was very little that I actually really liked about this movie.
I enjoyed the musical numbers with the Shirelles-like trio at the beginning of the film (then again singing "Skid Row") and a couple of the songs were okay (I also like the Martin, Murray, Guest, and Belushi cameos), but the acting is campy and pretty awful (Rick Moranis, really?), the majority of the singing is pretty awful (Moranis, the squeaky Ellen Greene, whose voice is much better when she's allowed to just belt it instead of "staying in character", and Audrey II, the plant), and the story is really dumb.
It's so very 80s, and there was very little that a critical movie viewer like me could really get into, regardless of its Oscar nominations (LOL). The entire Rick Moranis filmography will not be on my to-watch list. "That's tough titty, kid." Uh-huh.
Score: 5/10
I have wanted to watch the movie for a long time, because I've never seen it, but my friend Erica actually operated Audrey II in her high school's play. I know several people who have seen the stage musical done professionally and they all really enjoyed it, but I have to say that there was very little that I actually really liked about this movie.
I enjoyed the musical numbers with the Shirelles-like trio at the beginning of the film (then again singing "Skid Row") and a couple of the songs were okay (I also like the Martin, Murray, Guest, and Belushi cameos), but the acting is campy and pretty awful (Rick Moranis, really?), the majority of the singing is pretty awful (Moranis, the squeaky Ellen Greene, whose voice is much better when she's allowed to just belt it instead of "staying in character", and Audrey II, the plant), and the story is really dumb.
It's so very 80s, and there was very little that a critical movie viewer like me could really get into, regardless of its Oscar nominations (LOL). The entire Rick Moranis filmography will not be on my to-watch list. "That's tough titty, kid." Uh-huh.
Score: 5/10