Because I got a bit behind, I had to finish a second movie today in order to catch up. And thus, through the first two months of the year, I have watched exactly as many movies (59) as there have been days this year. I'm very pleased with my sticktoitiveness. Don't bother looking it up. That's not at all a word. :D
In homage to the wrong decision being made at the Oscars last night (Tom Hooper?!?!) I decided on a movie that is often considered one of the worst ever to win the Best Picture Oscar: 1933's Cavalcade. As you can tell, I have little expectation for this film.
First of all, something that is clear right from the get-go is the complete range of acting abilities showcased in this movie. Some of the acting is so bad, it hurts, though the dialogue is largely to blame. Gems like:
"We have a great marriage."
"Yes, we do."
Yikes.
This is then followed by the obligatory grasp-and-stare so common in older films. It happens two more times in the next five minutes. Scary.
The basic premise of the film is that it follows a family through about 30 years of New Years' Days, from 1899 to 1933, through significant world events: The Boer War, WWI, the voyage of the Titanic (this was a really lousy and stupid thing to have included), etc. I really thought the premise sounded kind of neat, but the movie is far too uneven. Characters disappear and reappear later and I find that I've forgotten that I cared about them (or didn't care about them). The matriarch of the family spends most of the movie being morose, and it bothers me to no end. First: the part is thankless. Her husband goes off to war, then her son drowns when the Titanic sinks, then her other son is enlisted in the war. It never ends. It's a lot like Mrs. Miniver, except not as good, and Greer Garson is a much more solid actress. (Plus, she's written more heroically than tragically.)
The most consistent parts of the film were definitely the parts where the life of Fanny Bridges, the daughter of an old family friend, intertwines with the Marryotts. She's quite a good singer and one of the best actors in the film, but also her affiliation with the family feels normal and salient.
And the end of the film has a crappy pat ending where the married couple we've been following shares a drink at the New Year and makes a toast to "the spirit of gallantry", their dead sons, their country, blah blah blah. It's easy to see why the Academy fell all over it, but it's mediocrity personified in and of itself.
Score: 6/10
Monday, February 28, 2011
#58 - Birdemic: Shock and Terror (2008)
For the first time this year, I am actually a movie behind. I still blame Twin Peaks for losing me the lead I had (damn David Lynch and his magnificently woven drama!) and I now can add The Mary Tyler Moore Show to the list of blame, since I have also been working my way through the 24-episode fourth season over the last week or so, just finally finishing it today. And, finally, I blame the Oscars for being yesterday and taking up all my time with both the boring telecast, and the hours and hours of prepwork that I (and my friends Erika and Parviz) put into the little soirée we put together. For shame, all of you pop culture things that aren't movies for this blog. For shame.
While I was doing this party prep work, two of my brothers were watching a movie that has just recently become known to me: Birdemic: Shock and Terror. It was featured on an episode of The Soup the other night, which showed two different parts of the movie: one featured the worst CGI birds ever, hovering about before dive-bombing buildings and exploding; the other featured "the boardroom scene" which lasts minutes longer than it should, all the time is spent focusing on people clapping. It was atrocious. At one point yesterday I walked into the room where they were watching the movie and caught one line that was so poorly written and delivered that I laughed myself hoarse. I just know I'm in for a treat right now.
The movie starts even less auspiciously than I might have thought, with the several-minute intro shot from inside a moving car, with the background score playing a 50-second track on loop. Oh my God, the main actor doesn't even know how to walk normally. I can already tell that this main actor is likely the worst actor in the film. Which is saying something, because we haven't met anyone else, yet.
He just made a $1 million sale over the phone in about ten seconds. What the hell does he do?
The main female is model? 'Cause that didn't look like a real photoshoot at all.
Yikes, the audio is terrible. Half the people sound like they're in a wind tunnel.
You're not allowed to complain about how hot the weather is when you're wearing a long-sleeved tee under another tee.
This movie is vomitally (sure I just made it up) green: arguments for solar panels, lingering for several seconds on high gas prices, news broadcasts about global warming, etc.
We have the first bird sighting about 30 minutes in. Nothing to do with the title, yet, though.
How did that woman birth that chick as a daughter? Also, that mother figure has some of the exact same advice for her daughter as Claudette in The Room.
The boardroom scene I mentioned in my intro? Worse. I think the main actor had a stroke: he becomes less and less coherent as the movie goes on.
GREEN ALERT: His Mustang's a hybrid? That gets 100 miles to the gallon?
GREEN ALERT: Actual quote: "Man, that was a great movie. An Inconvenient Truth." Horrible syntax AND completely unnecessary.
Nice jump in the scene. More birds, but not Birdemic @ 37 minutes.
Wow, this dialogue is great: "I like traveling. I like to cruise. I like watching television." Hum.
I cannot believe how awful this actor is. Not even an actor. Also, his white-boy-dancing is worse than mine. No kidding.
Why did he take her to a hotel when he owns his own home, with brand new solar panels and everything?
AHHH BIRDEMIC @ 47 minutes in. And they show up unbelievably abruptly, with the most ungodly and unbelievable screeching noises. And they just explode after dive-bombing buildings. Not that we see the aftermath at this point. No, instead, we go back to the hotel room.
I'm guessing they didn't have sex, despite the implication, because not only is Rod (that's the lead) fully clothed, his belt is fastened, too.
Oh. My. God. This movie is so bad. I can't even go on with the blogging. Get your friends together, find a copy of this movie (preferably a free bootleg, because you don't want to pay money for this shit), and prepare to laugh.
Yay! It's the first
Score: 1/10
While I was doing this party prep work, two of my brothers were watching a movie that has just recently become known to me: Birdemic: Shock and Terror. It was featured on an episode of The Soup the other night, which showed two different parts of the movie: one featured the worst CGI birds ever, hovering about before dive-bombing buildings and exploding; the other featured "the boardroom scene" which lasts minutes longer than it should, all the time is spent focusing on people clapping. It was atrocious. At one point yesterday I walked into the room where they were watching the movie and caught one line that was so poorly written and delivered that I laughed myself hoarse. I just know I'm in for a treat right now.
The movie starts even less auspiciously than I might have thought, with the several-minute intro shot from inside a moving car, with the background score playing a 50-second track on loop. Oh my God, the main actor doesn't even know how to walk normally. I can already tell that this main actor is likely the worst actor in the film. Which is saying something, because we haven't met anyone else, yet.
He just made a $1 million sale over the phone in about ten seconds. What the hell does he do?
The main female is model? 'Cause that didn't look like a real photoshoot at all.
Yikes, the audio is terrible. Half the people sound like they're in a wind tunnel.
You're not allowed to complain about how hot the weather is when you're wearing a long-sleeved tee under another tee.
This movie is vomitally (sure I just made it up) green: arguments for solar panels, lingering for several seconds on high gas prices, news broadcasts about global warming, etc.
We have the first bird sighting about 30 minutes in. Nothing to do with the title, yet, though.
How did that woman birth that chick as a daughter? Also, that mother figure has some of the exact same advice for her daughter as Claudette in The Room.
The boardroom scene I mentioned in my intro? Worse. I think the main actor had a stroke: he becomes less and less coherent as the movie goes on.
GREEN ALERT: His Mustang's a hybrid? That gets 100 miles to the gallon?
GREEN ALERT: Actual quote: "Man, that was a great movie. An Inconvenient Truth." Horrible syntax AND completely unnecessary.
Nice jump in the scene. More birds, but not Birdemic @ 37 minutes.
Wow, this dialogue is great: "I like traveling. I like to cruise. I like watching television." Hum.
I cannot believe how awful this actor is. Not even an actor. Also, his white-boy-dancing is worse than mine. No kidding.
Why did he take her to a hotel when he owns his own home, with brand new solar panels and everything?
AHHH BIRDEMIC @ 47 minutes in. And they show up unbelievably abruptly, with the most ungodly and unbelievable screeching noises. And they just explode after dive-bombing buildings. Not that we see the aftermath at this point. No, instead, we go back to the hotel room.
I'm guessing they didn't have sex, despite the implication, because not only is Rod (that's the lead) fully clothed, his belt is fastened, too.
Oh. My. God. This movie is so bad. I can't even go on with the blogging. Get your friends together, find a copy of this movie (preferably a free bootleg, because you don't want to pay money for this shit), and prepare to laugh.
Yay! It's the first
Score: 1/10
Saturday, February 26, 2011
#57 - The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
My brother Mike is home for the weekend working on something for school (yay!) and my brother Matt has the day off work, so we decided to sit down, the three of us, and watch a movie for my blog. I suggested that we watch something Oscar-y from our DVR (thank you 31 Days of Oscar) and Matt chose today's film: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre.
This is one of those old movies that I've known about, it being one of the AFI's Top 100, and having the cachet of being the first (only?) movie to earn an Oscar for a son (John Huston) directing his father (Walter Huston) to an Oscar, as well. The movie also stars Humphrey Bogart asRick Dobbs.
The movie takes awhile to get going (despite the extremely quick speech yielded by several of the characters-- Matt said that in this day and age, you'd expect the movie to last another hour just based on the dialogue), but once it does, it becomes very much a movie about paranoia. Dobbs is clearly the least trusting (and trustworthy) character of the three prospectors, and seems to forget later on in the movie that one of the others, Curtin, saved his life when a mine collapsed on him, when the latter could have just left him there.
It's not a flawless movie: sometimes the acting is rollercoaster-y, the story isn't that interesting for the first 45 minutes or so, and the dialogue is forced and rushed and stilted at times. But once it gets going, the film is really first-rate.
Score: 8/10
This is one of those old movies that I've known about, it being one of the AFI's Top 100, and having the cachet of being the first (only?) movie to earn an Oscar for a son (John Huston) directing his father (Walter Huston) to an Oscar, as well. The movie also stars Humphrey Bogart as
The movie takes awhile to get going (despite the extremely quick speech yielded by several of the characters-- Matt said that in this day and age, you'd expect the movie to last another hour just based on the dialogue), but once it does, it becomes very much a movie about paranoia. Dobbs is clearly the least trusting (and trustworthy) character of the three prospectors, and seems to forget later on in the movie that one of the others, Curtin, saved his life when a mine collapsed on him, when the latter could have just left him there.
It's not a flawless movie: sometimes the acting is rollercoaster-y, the story isn't that interesting for the first 45 minutes or so, and the dialogue is forced and rushed and stilted at times. But once it gets going, the film is really first-rate.
Score: 8/10
Friday, February 25, 2011
#56 - The Blue Lagoon (1980)
Now, I know that this movie has never appeared on any "Best of..." lists, but every once in awhile it gets bantered about in conversation and I always have to admit that I've never seen it. This admission doesn't elicit much shock (like when I tell people I've never seen The Matrix, for example) from the listeners, but I have been told several times that I should see it, if for nothing else than its elaborate and odd coming-of-age-ness. This is in addition to a very young Brooke Shields and a very naked slash almost naked Christopher Atkins.
LOL. Mr. Feeny is in the movie in the first few minutes, too.
I really like the part where they're trying to sing Christmas carols and they keep stopping after the first line. It made me think of the years of language acquisition they've lost, as they only have some pictures with captions on them to increase their vocabulary. Otherwise, the only words they can use are the ones they acquired before being shipwrecked on the island.
Some of the parts of the movie have this "nature documentary" feel to them, like the octopus eating the crap, or the big fish attacking the smaller fish Richard is trying to reel in, or the crab crawling out of the dead man's mouth. I kinda wanted there to be a voice-over narration during those parts. Yeah, I'm probably the only one.
Of course, the kind of the big picture is the young pair's realization and subsequent exploration of their burgeoning sexuality. It makes sense that the film spends about fifteen consecutive minutes on it, since what else is there to do on the island, really, once you've discovered what sex is?
Overall, I mean I know that it's never been presented as some sort of great movie, but I don't know... I really liked it. There was some beautiful scenery, a nice score, a story that was interesting and not at all hackneyed.... I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the acting was pretty great, too. I mean, they sucked, they really did. But when your x years old but you have the vocabulary, social skills, and ideologues of y years old when you were shipwrecked, you're not going to be totally couth and refined all the time. And the ridiculous temper outburst with the forced dialogue and weird intonation? Sounded like a y year-old kid to me.
This is one of the neat things about this blog; I absolutely guarantee that I wasn't supposed to like this movie as much as I did, but I'm sure as hell not going to make any apologies for it.
Score: 8.5/10
LOL. Mr. Feeny is in the movie in the first few minutes, too.
I really like the part where they're trying to sing Christmas carols and they keep stopping after the first line. It made me think of the years of language acquisition they've lost, as they only have some pictures with captions on them to increase their vocabulary. Otherwise, the only words they can use are the ones they acquired before being shipwrecked on the island.
Some of the parts of the movie have this "nature documentary" feel to them, like the octopus eating the crap, or the big fish attacking the smaller fish Richard is trying to reel in, or the crab crawling out of the dead man's mouth. I kinda wanted there to be a voice-over narration during those parts. Yeah, I'm probably the only one.
Of course, the kind of the big picture is the young pair's realization and subsequent exploration of their burgeoning sexuality. It makes sense that the film spends about fifteen consecutive minutes on it, since what else is there to do on the island, really, once you've discovered what sex is?
Overall, I mean I know that it's never been presented as some sort of great movie, but I don't know... I really liked it. There was some beautiful scenery, a nice score, a story that was interesting and not at all hackneyed.... I'm probably in the minority, but I thought the acting was pretty great, too. I mean, they sucked, they really did. But when your x years old but you have the vocabulary, social skills, and ideologues of y years old when you were shipwrecked, you're not going to be totally couth and refined all the time. And the ridiculous temper outburst with the forced dialogue and weird intonation? Sounded like a y year-old kid to me.
This is one of the neat things about this blog; I absolutely guarantee that I wasn't supposed to like this movie as much as I did, but I'm sure as hell not going to make any apologies for it.
Score: 8.5/10
Thursday, February 24, 2011
#55 - Of Mice and Men (1992)
This is the second of two movies that I have watched with my students because we're doing the novels in class, and of the two it's the one I liked less. I suppose it all comes from the fact that I find the book pretty simplistic (at 107 pages, it's a quick read, even for me) and while it's interesting, I don't find it much deeper. And for me, that makes any possible screen adaptation rely SO much on the characters that it's easy for it to go wrong.
Gary Sinise is a very mediocre George, but John Malkovich is a pretty good Lennie. The character of Lennie, especially, is a tricky one. The character is obviously mentally challenged, but in among the things he immediately forgets and his inability to know his own strength or fully appreciate the consequences of his actions, there lies an occasional lucidity that shows itself whenever his good buddy George tells him something. Beyond this, neither the novel nor the movie are that complicated.
The pair has been together for a while now, and we learn that they've been run out of the last place they were working because of an unspecified "bad thing" that Lennie did. It is obvious that despite all the talk these two of getting their own place and living off "the fat of the land" that this is never going to come to fruition. Enter Sherilynn Fenn (she was in Twin Peaks! This is funny because I didn't know her from Adam before these simultaneous viewings) just to cause trouble. Fie, Audrey Horn!
We just watched it and I'm amazed they were able to stretch it out to 110 minutes. Mostly this happens because of several scenes of the teams actually working, which doesn't really happen in the novel at all. At least, not in any sort of detail. It did give the movie time to showcase the awful awful score, as well. It smacks of all the crappy guitar-twanging country ballads from western movies that sound all the same.
Overall, it's just okay. If it weren't part of the curriculum, I wouldn't have even cared if my kids saw it or not, and for the most part they didn't like it. This is mostly because a dog died. I know this because they all went "Awwwww" and proceeded to exclaim that now they hated the movie. Ah, children.
Score: 6/10
Gary Sinise is a very mediocre George, but John Malkovich is a pretty good Lennie. The character of Lennie, especially, is a tricky one. The character is obviously mentally challenged, but in among the things he immediately forgets and his inability to know his own strength or fully appreciate the consequences of his actions, there lies an occasional lucidity that shows itself whenever his good buddy George tells him something. Beyond this, neither the novel nor the movie are that complicated.
The pair has been together for a while now, and we learn that they've been run out of the last place they were working because of an unspecified "bad thing" that Lennie did. It is obvious that despite all the talk these two of getting their own place and living off "the fat of the land" that this is never going to come to fruition. Enter Sherilynn Fenn (she was in Twin Peaks! This is funny because I didn't know her from Adam before these simultaneous viewings) just to cause trouble. Fie, Audrey Horn!
We just watched it and I'm amazed they were able to stretch it out to 110 minutes. Mostly this happens because of several scenes of the teams actually working, which doesn't really happen in the novel at all. At least, not in any sort of detail. It did give the movie time to showcase the awful awful score, as well. It smacks of all the crappy guitar-twanging country ballads from western movies that sound all the same.
Overall, it's just okay. If it weren't part of the curriculum, I wouldn't have even cared if my kids saw it or not, and for the most part they didn't like it. This is mostly because a dog died. I know this because they all went "Awwwww" and proceeded to exclaim that now they hated the movie. Ah, children.
Score: 6/10
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
#54 - The Great Gatsby (1974)
I'm back, after a brief hiatus! I'm in the middle of a few other things right now, so at the moment, I'm going to try to keep exactly on track between days and movies, until a time when I can jump a little ahead. (I like having that cushion.) Today's entry is another movie I've actually seen before (this makes four in all, to this point), but I come at it from a completely different viewpoint than previously.
I saw The Great Gatsby when I was in high school, and I hated it. I mean, really loathed it. At the time, I read reviews about it that were glowing and laudatory and thought that such things had never been written more untrue. The movie seemed interminable, I found the characters dull, the Harpy Mia Farrow I couldn't stand (which hasn't entirely changed, though now I can recognize the distinction), and I didn't even care for or understand the dancing and party scenes. And I had actually really liked the novel!
Things change.
In retrospect, I think the difficulty I never got over was that the picture in my head didn't gel with what I got onscreen. It's only now that I can truly appreciate this translation onto film.
It still feels a bit long, and Mia is still screechy and aloof to the point of exasperation, but annoying as she is, she is Daisy. The other characters are on-the-money, as well: Robert Redford's Gatsby is a romantic and has a one-track-mind; Sam Waterston's Nick is bland and slightly more moralistic, and captures perfectly the duality between scorn and appreciation for Gatsby's world; Tom is brutish and racist, devoted and stupid; Jordan is often-present and rarely-heard.
My students were confused as to why the movie went on so long after Gatsby was shot, but that's because most of them weren't paying enough attention to know that the story is only, in part, Gatsby's. The infinitely less exciting Nick Carraway is the true eyes of most of the novel (think Tommy Lee Jones's Ed Tom Bell from No Country for Old Men), though as it happens, Nick's story revolves very much around his devotion to Gatsby.
I'm really glad I had this opportunity to re-discover this film (I guess I should be even luckier that it's part of the mandatory English 12 curriculum!) because (and yes, I can admit this) I missed this film the first time around. It's far better than I ever gave it credit for and I can still admit that I am not looking forward to the new adaptation that's in the works. Hogwash.
Score: 8.5/10
I saw The Great Gatsby when I was in high school, and I hated it. I mean, really loathed it. At the time, I read reviews about it that were glowing and laudatory and thought that such things had never been written more untrue. The movie seemed interminable, I found the characters dull, the Harpy Mia Farrow I couldn't stand (which hasn't entirely changed, though now I can recognize the distinction), and I didn't even care for or understand the dancing and party scenes. And I had actually really liked the novel!
Things change.
In retrospect, I think the difficulty I never got over was that the picture in my head didn't gel with what I got onscreen. It's only now that I can truly appreciate this translation onto film.
It still feels a bit long, and Mia is still screechy and aloof to the point of exasperation, but annoying as she is, she is Daisy. The other characters are on-the-money, as well: Robert Redford's Gatsby is a romantic and has a one-track-mind; Sam Waterston's Nick is bland and slightly more moralistic, and captures perfectly the duality between scorn and appreciation for Gatsby's world; Tom is brutish and racist, devoted and stupid; Jordan is often-present and rarely-heard.
My students were confused as to why the movie went on so long after Gatsby was shot, but that's because most of them weren't paying enough attention to know that the story is only, in part, Gatsby's. The infinitely less exciting Nick Carraway is the true eyes of most of the novel (think Tommy Lee Jones's Ed Tom Bell from No Country for Old Men), though as it happens, Nick's story revolves very much around his devotion to Gatsby.
I'm really glad I had this opportunity to re-discover this film (I guess I should be even luckier that it's part of the mandatory English 12 curriculum!) because (and yes, I can admit this) I missed this film the first time around. It's far better than I ever gave it credit for and I can still admit that I am not looking forward to the new adaptation that's in the works. Hogwash.
Score: 8.5/10
Monday, February 21, 2011
#53 - Vertigo (1958)
I am very excited! On the heels of the three-hour adventure that was Heat, I am now sitting down to one of the last great Hitchcock films I've yet to see, the highest-ranking suspense film on the AFI Top 100 list: Vertigo.
I'm very honored to count among my friends Jessica, whose love for Hitchcock spilled over while we lived together. Most of the following we watched together, or I watched on her suggestion: Rebecca, Suspicion, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, Rope, Strangers on a Train, Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy. Vertigo is my 14th film, and there's not a one among them I haven't really liked.
That being said, one hour into this film, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. I mean, it's fine but not spectacular.
And of course, seconds-- literally, seconds-- after finishing that sentence, we got a nice "Huh?" moment that kind of turned things around for now.
"But we're not here to pass judgment..." LOL.
Hitchcock was of course a genius when it came to filmmaking, and I found out that Vertigo is remembered for Hitch's use of zooming in and combining it with reverse tracking to create the "vertigo effect" that so many directors have used since.
There is agreement here that while it's a fine movie, it's a little slow moving. I don't doubt that some of the seemingly endless scenes of Jimmy Stewart as the worst "tailer" of a detective ever could have been truncated. The final rising action and climax/denouement/unraveling were pretty sweet. Very Hitchcockian. But overall, I'd sooner rewatch quite a few of the other films that I prize more highly.
Score: 7.5/10
I'm very honored to count among my friends Jessica, whose love for Hitchcock spilled over while we lived together. Most of the following we watched together, or I watched on her suggestion: Rebecca, Suspicion, Shadow of a Doubt, Spellbound, Rope, Strangers on a Train, Dial M for Murder, Rear Window, The Man Who Knew Too Much, North by Northwest, Psycho, The Birds, and Frenzy. Vertigo is my 14th film, and there's not a one among them I haven't really liked.
That being said, one hour into this film, I'm not seeing what the big deal is. I mean, it's fine but not spectacular.
And of course, seconds-- literally, seconds-- after finishing that sentence, we got a nice "Huh?" moment that kind of turned things around for now.
"But we're not here to pass judgment..." LOL.
Hitchcock was of course a genius when it came to filmmaking, and I found out that Vertigo is remembered for Hitch's use of zooming in and combining it with reverse tracking to create the "vertigo effect" that so many directors have used since.
There is agreement here that while it's a fine movie, it's a little slow moving. I don't doubt that some of the seemingly endless scenes of Jimmy Stewart as the worst "tailer" of a detective ever could have been truncated. The final rising action and climax/denouement/unraveling were pretty sweet. Very Hitchcockian. But overall, I'd sooner rewatch quite a few of the other films that I prize more highly.
Score: 7.5/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)