Shine (1996)

Nominee

When I think of great movies I often get blinded by the idea of an epic: long sweeping shots, loud emotional soundtracks, and the biggest actors giving stunning performances. However, as I completed watching Shine last night I was reminded that often a great movie can merely be a simple love poem to its own content.

Shine is based on the life of David Helfgott, a profound pianist who developed a mental disorder, who then proceeds with the help of those around him to rise to prominence again. Helfgott is played by Geoffrey Rush, who at this point has established himself as one of my favorite character actors. Rush is able, as he is in most of his work, to completely lose himself in the character. Some actors like to always put a certain edge of their own personality into their work, which is also good, but Rush, especially here seems to fling himself into a reckless committed abandon. Adding small things and nuances to make us love this man.

We also see a real respect for piano playing throughout the entire movie. Sometimes I worry in movies about musicians and sports players that the film will not grasp a real depiction of the work at hand. Here the shooting seems like an ode to the art of music, offering us very specifically chosen angles and often smooth and poignant lighting. We see what passion goes into the piano playing by the passion you can see for filming. Especially when he plays the Rach 3, he leaves everything on that piano and we feel it through the lens of a someone with passion for their own work.

I was a little torn by the script at times. At the beginning in particular they over play the commanding father figure. Some of the scenes are very sharply put back in Helfgott's seemingly insane mutterings later, but I think at times it was over done. Also I did have some issues with musical choices, if you are going to play mostly gorgeous classical pieces you should not also include that awful over synthesized soundtrack music that they used in the late 80's and  90's, it fails atrociously by comparison, even if they didn't realized that at the time, my forgiveness is lacking.

Overall: This is a pleasant, sometimes hard and sometimes humorous movie. A cleanly filmed story that reaches its viewers. I can see why it did not win in comparison to Fargo, or yes even the winner that year The English Patient, but it is certainly worth the watch if you are a music lover, or like a good comeback story. Happy Watching  

Its a Wonderful Life (1946)

Nominee

AFI Top 100: #20

There are so many reasons this movie is one of the ultimate timeless classics but just to name a few:

1.) It tells us about the importance of life without any blatant dialogue discussing its deeper meaning: 

We could have just had long discussions about life's purpose and obtained the same outcome of discovering life's meaning, but that is not the magic of this movie. The magic lies in the fact that the meaning is discovered through  a simple and poetic style that gives tribute to a small but not forgotten life. Specifically a man who does not see his own worth because he never achieved what he wanted, but he needs someone else to show him what he has done. A subtle but powerful way to give us a lesson. 

2.) There are extremely likable (and unlikable) characters who are memorable:

This a town that has truly been built around the people. They are what gives the movie its real atmosphere, even as I am writing I can think of many of the bit characters in this movie...Bert the police officer, Ernie the cab driver, Violet, Harry, Mr. Gower, Martini, Sam "Hee-Haa" Wainwright. You come to know and care about all these little people. On top of that you have the leading cast from forgetful Uncle Billy, to lovable Clarence, to one of the worst villains in movie history, Mr.Potter, and of course, George and Mary Bailey. Here I will once again confess my undying love for Jimmy Stewart and add Donna Reed to my praise, they really make this work.  If you love the characters you are going to love the movie. 

3.) It provides one of the first real looks at life, no Hollywood sugar coating:

This movie was made by real people, for real people, about real people. They did not try to make some over the top fast moving plot as was the norm back then. They merely tried to tell a simple but important story and I think that still translates today. We still enjoy the flirtation as they walk back soaking wet from the high school dance, we still get so frustrated as we see Uncle Billy forget the money in the newspaper. These people are real and flawed and we like them that way. 

4.) Its has Christmas as an prominent mood setter: 

IT'S CHRISTMAS!!! Who doesn't like Christmas? It's bound to put a little joy in your heart right from the onset, you are sure to be singing along to Auld Lang Syne at the end. 

5.) The Ending:

It is the ultimate feel good ending. I have a friend from college who says "I would like to constantly experience two feelings, the feeling of putting on sweat pants and the feeling that you get at the end of It's a Wonderful Life." I of course agree, but what truly makes this ending great is the rest of the movie. We earn this ending as viewers, we were taken through a lifetime of hardship and love, and are given the ultimate gift of camaraderie and happiness. It is a great feeling.

Overall: At this point if you haven't guessed I love this movie. Now go watch it and then ring a bell, I am sure there is an angel who wouldn't mind some wings. :) Merry Christmas!

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

AFI Top 100: #41

Nominee

So I have not posted in far too long...which I now intend to make up for because I am on winter break and will be able to watch tons of movies!! Good stuff.

I saw this movie for the first time when I was little and did not fully understand the humor, so I found it boring and well...black and white. However I realized that I was probably missing out on a great film and decided to give it another go. I mean look at this cast! We have Cary Grant, Katharine Hepburn, and Jimmy Stewart, some of the best character actors on and off the screen. Oh and that third guy at the end, I guess he is pretty cool too. We also have the simplicity that was early 1940's cinema, elegantly telling a story with likable characters and seamless unnoticeable style, which in some ways is just as hard to achieve as the prominent stylistic choices of today.

The potential was there and as I discovered on my second viewing it certainly delivers. Filled with witticisms, and believe it or not drunken debauchery, this film is *commence Katharine Hepburn voice* chaaaarming. We have the young socialite, Tracy Lord, who is preparing for her wedding to her "ideal man", George Kittredge, when in walks her ex-husband, C.K. Dexter Haven, with the press, Elizabeth Imbrie, and Macaulay Connor. A night of impulse ensues and as the wedding approaches our certainty  of who she is going to marry changes rapidly.

The all-star cast gives us the performances that only they can give, along with the supporting cast providing nuanced and enjoyable characters. I would like to shout out to Ruth Hussey as Elizabeth Imbrie for being my favorite character, and Virginia Weidler for a stirring rendition  of Lydia the Tattooed Lady.

My only qualm with this film is its outdated sub-message about marrying inside your class.  Although realistically people probably still do it seems to say that not only should you but you're not going to find love anywhere else. Maybe my romanticism is showing too much but I don't think that is really the case. You can marry someone from another class and be happy. Or at least it worked out okay for the Disney Princesses.

Overall: A fun film to watch that I promise you will enjoy. Definitely a seminal classic for comedy!  

Do the Right Thing (1989)

AFI Top 100: 96

This movie is one of the strongest examples I have seen of utilizing angles and color in order to achieve the overlying mood of a film. This mood can be stated in one word: Tension.

The plot itself is simple, you have the streets of Brooklyn with all the different lifestyles that are seen within a few blocks colliding on the hottest day of the year. There is the Black community full of beat and anger towards their history and their place in society. You have the Italians trying to make an honest living while also trying to keep their traditions alive and struggling with the conflict of the two. Spike Lee also highlights some other ethnic groups but the main tension lies between the Italians and the Blacks. It is on this fault line that we are given our protagonist Mookie. He works for Sal's Famous Pizzeria but is trying to represent and defend his culture.

If that weren't enough dissonance in just the story world. Lee is able to create even more through the sharpness of his script, his camera angles and lens choices and the color saturation of the film. The dialogue is unforgiving in its blunt approach and the "up in your face" distorted angles provide the aggression that is being presented. In addition, the vibrancy of the color that he uses gives us a sense of heat but also of clashing cultures. The colors are eye catching and beautiful might not cohesive.

My one major qualm with this film is it leaves its message too ambiguous to be of use. I found even after seeing it a second time that Lee really gives us no clue whether he believes violence to be the answer or not. I am not saying that it had to be a squeaky clean everyone goes home happy kind of ending, but the ending that was provided left me wondering why I even bothered to watch this movie. I felt that I was at the same square I started at, I need a movie to give me more than that. I think it's purpose as a  film is to get you thinking about the issues instead of persuading you to one side. I think as a modern day American we are already knowledgeable about the issues, I wanted answers not just the question.

 Overall: It is a cinematographic masterpiece. I say watch it and appreciate that and how it deals with the subject matter. It may be a little outdated in its purpose but perhaps the fact that I think that is in and of itself part of the issue he is trying to show us. Something to consider.
.

Citizen Kane (1941)

AFI Top 100: 1

Nominee

It has taken a number of viewings (namely three) but Citizen Kane is actually the greatest film ever made...at least that I have seen so far....WHY YOU MAY ASK??? The amount of precision and care and the willingness to be innovative in a time when making movies was formulaic.

The script is soooooo sharp, sometimes it states things that it doesn't really need to because we already figured it out from the shots but besides that we have a level of wit and heightened drama that makes great entertainment.

Then there is the acting. The cast is practically all unknowns, which is nice because we have no previous recollection of any of their work so it does not distract from the story. They provide the emotion that is needed to tell this story while also having a profound understanding of how their parts are adding to the piece, every character seems and is important and they all provided what was required.

The storyline is also intriguing being driven by pure curiosity. What keeps us in our seats? We want to know how he ended up the way he did, and what is rosebud. Those are the only two things keeping us there. There is nothing fancy about it.

Lastly but most importantly (I could go on for hours about this movie but I am cutting myself off) THE SHOOTING!!! Gorgeous, wonderful, rich, innovative story telling. Every shot you could pause the screen and examine every inch of the frame. You will find endless amounts of flawlessly made choices in each one. Which is why you can watch it every time and pick up on something new! A movie that is a new experience every time is hard to find. This is one of them.

Overall: A phenomenal commentary on a life done in a sincerely profound and genuine way. A must see. I might just go watch it again myself.

Awakenings (1990)

Nominee

This a story about the human experience, about how we connect to each other on such poignant levels of understanding, and what the acts of one other person can do to our lives.

Dr.Sayer, played by Robin Williams, is a man who in some ways is just as cut off by society as the catatonic patients he has been given to work with, and for that reason he is willing to put in the time to try to give them what he is having trouble obtaining for himself: human contact. He begins with Leonard Lowe (Robert DeNiro) slowly showing that the simplest things stir him back into our world such as music and physical touch. This leads to a very subtle but strong commentary on what we take for granted and how to best live our lives.

This whole movie could have been dreadfully cliche but it wasn't. The shooting was honest and simple it was not looking to be something grand because like the message of the story, even the little things can mean so much. So the shooting was kept to simple shots that highlighted faces and moments. The acting was along the same lines, it sought just to be real and haunting. I would like to bring up one moment when you see the seamless connection between the shooting and its relationship to the acting, when Leonard sees his mother for the first time in years. He spreads out his arms to embrace her and we see his face from the angle where his mother would be standing. We feel we could just step into the screen and give him that hug.

Robert DeNiro was heart retching in his fight for a life worth living. Also, I feel they always bring Robin Williams in when they need a funny guy, or the outside the box thinker (e.i. Dead Poets Society, Good Will Hunting). This movie was before the other two so his performance is probably the least polished out of the three but you can see how this was a needed step in his process toward Good Will Hunting.

Overall: This movie brings a very strong important message to the viewer. And it is simply to live, to live and feel every moment of your life. This and the fact that it was done in such a genuine and soft way, I can see how a movie like this might end up being overlooked. However I think so far it should have won over Dances with Wolves. This movie was not meant to be a grand spectacle, it was meant to reach out to you, and I received it whole heartily. 

Roman Holiday (1953)

Nominee

I shouldn't like this movie...I mean what is this besides a very classy chick flick...however I do like it because of one word in that statement: CLASSY.

I mean look at this cast we have: AUDREY HEPBURN and GREGORY PECK...you almost can't get classier or more sophisticated than that.

Plot: Down to earth newspaper man meets a Princess for a day? IT SOUNDS REALLY BAD BUT ITS ACTUALLY WELL DONE!!!!

Now look at the Setting: ROME...we have the grandeur of the Romans, the Art of the Renaissance and the pace of a city of love. I mean this may not be Paris, but is this really any less romantic?

The script is flirty and funny. The music flowing and Romantic. The direction is straightforward but elegant. The side kick character is funny and abused.

Overall: A well done enjoyable chick flick. Should it be nominated? Well not really...but there is something to be said for a well done simple love story.





Sideways (2004)

Nominee

ACADEMY!!!! I GOT IT!!!! I FIGURED OUT YOUR PROBLEM!!!! READY:

1.) Dictionary.com:

com·e·dy

noun, plural -dies.

a play, movie, etc., of light and humorous character with a happy or cheerful ending; a dramatic work in which the central motif is the triumph over adverse circumstance, resulting in a successful or happy conclusion.

2.) Urban Dictionary.com :

	comedy
	1)anything that makes you laugh 2)the best medicine 3)what keeps everyone happy

See Academy we like hahaha comedy...not okay someone got married in the end therefore this is a comedy comedy! Its not Shakespeare's time anymore...

This movie was slightly better than Lost in Translation because at least it had a pace to it but otherwise we have two foiled characters who are both extremely frustrating that go on a road trip. Also we never really know if either of them get to a better place then where they began, so its not even a real road trip movie.

 They have a couple fun moments (crashing the car and playing golf) but otherwise it could be more of a giant advertisement for wine tasting. This movie really made me want to become more acquainted with wine.  1.) To achieve a higher level of cultural know how and 2.) To wash down my disappointment of this movie. I mean the shooting was okay but not thought provoking, the music...I don't remember...and the acting was just okay whatever quality...I will give the screenplay a little shout out for some poetic moments.

Also the Oscar people were just confused but Marketing you have no excuse:
hi·lar·i·ous

adjective

arousing great merriment; extremely funny

You missed this twice now when there is really no excuse. IT NEEDS TO BE EXTREMELY FUNNY TO USE THIS WORD!!!!

Overall: If you are deciding between Lost in Translation and this film...maybe watch this one...but better yet pick up basket weaving...you will have a better time...

Munich (2005)

Nominee

UMMMMM...hmmmm...well...it was....okay? I am slightly confused. Because I don't really have an opinion on this movie, and because I thought I was going to love it...I think it let me down?? Maybe? Here is the deal: Dearest Steven I expect a lot from you...I expect either a blockbuster entertainment classic, or a chillingly graceful commentary on some important event. However this was not the epic fight sequences of Indiana Jones nor the subtle poignant messages of Schindler's List. It was somewhere in the middle and for that it did not entirely hold my attention.

The plot is actually fascinating. We have a horrible event which leads to a huge moral dilemma: How should Israel react? Is aggression just turning them into the violent people that the terrorist want the world to see them as? Or should they show that they aren't going to stand by anymore? Okay Steven  you got my attention but then what did you do with it...

You showed me a motif around cooking? With kitchens being an important theme? You juxtaposed a violent massacre with...an orgasm? I mean that's just weird. I am usually first to jump at a cool visual commentary but...that was just AWKWARD! Also Steven the cast was just okay. Everytime I see Eric Bana though I just kinda wish someone got Liam Nesson or Colin Firth instead. Everyone else was just alright, the exception being Geoffrey Rush, he is always good.

There were some good shots though. A lot of interesting light effects and the deathes are still presented in that brutally honest way that only you, dear Steven, can seem to do. Oh and the blood and the milk moment, nice, the perfect visual image to allude to the balance of life and death, purity and violence.

Wait wait, Johnny my boy, Steven is not the only one who did not get it right here. Your music alone can usually make a good movie. Here it just sounded sad, wailing, and Jewish...I wanted a little bit more from you...

Overall: This is like when your all star Olympic Team brings home the bronze. It was still better than most movies but it just was not quite up to par with what they are capable of. So...I am going to go with a...good? Yes I will let you have a good because I know what your capable of and I still saw some of it here. Just don't let it happen again.

Mildred Pierce (1945)

Nominee

This movie is a classic who done it with great characterization. With no butler to pin it on you would think that you don't have a go to answer, and guess what you don't but this movie makes you think you do! This is a great demonstration of the simple mind games cinema used to play with the audience, now we have crazy out there plots like Inception and the Adjustment Bureau, before things were much simpler and they worked just as well.

The characters are what keep this movie afloat. You have our leading lady, Mildred Pierce, who is severely flawed and right when you think she has finally triumphed and done what she needed to do, you realize once again she didn't. Then you have her daughter Veda. I did not think anyone could beat Scarlet O'Hara (speaking of Gone with the Wind, you know the maid girl with the really annoying voice...SHE IS IN THIS MOVIE! So instructions for increase in the quality of your viewing experience: every time she appears plug your ears and count to ten...all set...back to business) in being selfish and annoying but here you are ladies and gents, the winner. I wanted to jump into the screen and hit her so many times. Mildred's right hand lady in all her business endeavors, Ida is the hard hitting realist of a feminist that is always a fun character. Then we have Wally, you know that guy who thinks he is a really smooth operator but then actually isn't so is really awkward to watch however kinda endearing?? you know that one?? Well that's him. Then there is Monte Beragon, the smarmy leeching going bankrupt rich guy, and her ex who is ex like. WAIT one more...Kay!!! She dies but is really cute and one of two entirely likable characters, Ida being the other.

Otherwise this film was average. No particularly interesting shooting choices or scoring....so now for the ...OVERALL!

Overall: I do recommend this one. It is not an example of a milkshake (i.e. the perfect blend of all parts of film making). However it displays how the story and the players in it are a huge component, and can make a movie if done well on their own. So who done it?

The Russians are Coming,The Russians are Coming! (1966)

Nominee

First post of August!!! How did we get here???

This movie is to Lost in Translation as Gandalf the White is to Saruman...its what it should have been...or at least could have been. (My geek is showing hardcore...GENERAL WIN!) It was FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!! So many one-liners and ridiculous situations that I didn't know what to do with myself. I mean look at the premise we have a small American island town that thinks they are being invaded by the Soviets. Splendid, just wonderful. There is also just an ensemble cast of bit characters that provide us with the heightened reality that is comedy. People in comedies ,like the ones in this movie, are funny because we have met them in real life but they are even bigger! When the actors are uninhibited our laughter is equally given in return.

Also I was equally pleased with that fact that it had a moral. It reminded me of the cartoons I used to watch on PBS and I was almost waiting for some over excited middle aged male voice to come out of no where and say "HERE'S WHAT WE LEARNED TODAY KIDS!!!" Don't worry it did not happen but what did happen was soooo cheesy...but comedies are allowed to do that and it did so I did not care! 

Overall:This is situational comedy at its finest. It may not be high art but it provides us with the quality entertainment I expect from a good movie. I reccommend it and I promise you won't regret it.

West Side Story (1961)

AFI Top 100:51

Academy Award Winner

The fact of the matter is...I really like this film...a lot...I always have and always will. Yet unlike most films...I am having trouble explaining why because there are a lot of flaws in it....I think it comes down to this the quality of the things that were done right out shines the quantity of things that were done wrong.

What was wrong? This story is ridiculous and always has been. I mean you have a teenage couple fall in love in what? A Day? I am pretty sure even in Shakespeare's time most teens did not just fall in love, get married and seal the deal in under 24 hours. Also the way it is shot almost feels like a stage production instead of a movie. You can only do the what I like to call "the Broadway in love couple embrace" so many times.(Don't get me wrong I love theater but I love theater for being theater and film for being film) Also the lighting was very stagey...sometimes being all red or all white...it reminded me of some of the bad local stage productions that I have seen.

BUT!!!!! Its still a good movie and here is why...

Lets get rid of the big elephant in the room...MUSIC!!! With the quick wit and tightness of Sondheim lyrics and the musical genius of Bernstein you have an unstoppable duo. I found myself waiting for the next song right when the last one finished. aka WONDERFUL!

Okay I lied there were two elephants...DANCING!!! WOW! I mean I know virtually nothing about dance so I can't really say much but I know this: usually in movies I hate drawn out dance numbers (American in Paris? Swing Time? anyone?)....in this one I could not stop watching. Also there is just something fun about a bunch of guys dancing like guys.

Also the way the racial tension is addressed. At the beginning we find ourselves laughing along during "America" then later we can only remember laughing about it. The mood in this movie takes a huge turn making you realize how horrible the situation actually is.

Some side notes. Natalie Wood was beautiful but sounds strangely like Audrey Hepburn...aka thank you Marni Nixon for those soring high notes. Also Tony's perfect teeth are really distracting...

Overall: Watch it. Forgive it for its faults and see the quality in what its good at. That's why its an American classic.



Mystic River (2003)

Nominee

Okay I would like to use this film to clarify something that I feel would be confusing if I were following my blog. In some of the posts I say that the director focuses too much on the message and not the story and in others I say that straight up story telling is not ideal. So how does a director win you might ask? Well by being Clint Eastwood. But if you can't be Clint Eastwood then you just need to find the balance he finds in this film.

We have here an insightful commentary on the lifestyle of people in this particular area of Boston's working class society. However it is seen through the lens of three men who were once childhood friends and were separated by a specific event, and who are brought back together by the murder of one of their daughters. They all take on the only roles that living in a town full of crime can take you: Dave, the forever damaged victim of crime, Jimmy, the rash and passionate man who takes the "if you can't beat them join them approach" and becomes a local criminal, and Sean, who becomes a cop to try to fight out the corruption. So yes he tells this story but how to show the message within without being overbearing or cheesy?

One way Eastwood does this is by repetition. The movie opens of a shot of two men talking on a porch out back. Later we have a shot of Dave and Sean on a similar if not the same porch. This alludes to the fact that people are stuck in this town, there are not many options and you will repeat the generation before you because you have no choice. Another good example is the two shots of Dave driving away in the car as a child and as an adult. He gives us the same angle so that the second time we see it we remember the first. By doing that he brought forth the unfortunate circumstance in a subtle way but he also banked on the intelligence of his audience to remember.

He also gave us shots that speak without words. These are my favorites! One example: during the parade when the women make eye contact. We see a certain pitying and disdain in each other's eyes. Nothing is said by the actors in words but the shot tells us what we need to know.

The acting was great. We have Sean Penn who is obviously cocky but good. Tim Robbins, (SHAWSHANK GUY!!...thats what I thought when I saw him anyway) who was believable in his victim aspects and his anger. And lastly, we have Kevin Bacon, I feel like this guy is an unsung hero of Hollywood. If you want your film to be a success cast Kevin Bacon in it. Marcia Gay Harden and Laura Linney also gave respectable performances.

The only thing that was occasionally a little off was the script. If you already said it in the shot we don't need it said on screen. Some lines felt a little superfluous.

Overall: Thanks you Clint Eastwood for the first film this month that I enjoyed (beside Harry Potter). Here is a story that is told with insight that also gives some of the responsibility to the audience. That is how to do drama!

Lost in Translation (2003)

Nominee

BORING!!! SOOOOOOOOOO BORRRINNNNNGGGG!!!! I can barely discuss it because there is really nothing to discuss...NOTHING HAPPENS!!! Okay I got that out of my system now I am going to try and say what went so very wrong here...

Problem 1: This movie is based around a relationship...a relationship that we are never quite sure what it really is...friends??? but there is sexual tension??? but he is also sorta a father figure??? Also the characters were bored with life so we got all these long shots of them being boring...so guess what...it was BORING!!!!...damn I was trying not to do that again....re-focus...Bill Murray you granted me some chuckles...Scarlett Johansson you did a great job of wearing head phones and staring out windows...yay!!!!

Problem 2: This one is short... it was marketed completely wrong...on the back of the DVD we have Peter Travers of Rolling Stone saying it was "FLAT OUT HILARIOUS!" Peter...I am mad at you... I did not lol, rolftercopter, or lmfao...this means it is in fact not FLAT OUT HILARIOUS! In fact it is not even Flat out hilarious! or even flatouthilarious...its just not funny

Problem 3: I have never been to Japan but Tokyo is supposed to be a high energy place...I feel like a broken record but why do directors feel things have to be slow to be artsy...YOUR AUDIENCE IS NOT STUPID!!! You want to show us Japan, show us the true energy not some slowed down shots that feel like we are stuck in a time warp...

Problem 4: Francis Ford Coppola apparently has too much money from the Godfather movies and Apocalypse Now that he feels the need to fund his little baby girls boring useless projects...Francis I can point in the direction of some very nice charities if you like...at least that would give society something.

Overall: Just go watch Groundhog Day instead.

Peyton Place (1957)

Nominee

I have stalled about four times in writing this review because I really do not have that much to say about it...

Acting VERY 50s...and not in the good way often it is the "I am looking straight at you saying this line very directly with unchanging rhythm and intensity " deal...I hope other people know what I mean by that. Also the score was over-dramatic or just seemed wrong. My musically-inclined older brother exclaimed a one point, "Why is there pizzicato? This is not Peter and the Wolf she is running from her rapist!" And he was right...

In addition the filming was boring...there was no interesting angles, it was straightforward just telling the story...which is fine it was the primary style of the era.

The one place where I will give this movie a bit of a shout out is the message we receive at the end about living in a community of support instead of gossip, and some of the content. I had no previous knowledge of Peyton Place, so I was a little suprised by how sex was discussed on screen. It was very tame compared to our openness about it today but at that time it was progressive in that regard.

Overall: Okay. Its a fine film. However if you have an extra two and a half hours to spare...find a different movie. 

The Hours (2002)

Nominee

YAY!! First post of July!!! Very exciting!!!

Okay so I am going to start of this whole thing by admitting overall I did not like this film and I think it was only one part of the whole project that ruined it for me...the directing...but before I leap into a tirade on that I would first like to give credit to the other parts of this film which were actually very good.

The story as a whole is an interesting idea. We have three generations of women being affected by the novel, Mrs. Dalloway. Woolf who is writing it, Laura Brown who is reading it in her 1950's picturesque life, and Clarissa Vaughan who for all intensive purposes is Mrs. Dalloway in the modern world. The inter-connectedness is sharp, and well represented. It is intriguing to see Woolf writing and know that it is going to spiral down to the other two plots. So yes this was a plot worth making into a movie.

Then we have the acting. It was superb. Nicole Kidman is astonishing, you still see parts of her, however certainly she immersed herself into character. She brings her subtle confidence while also displaying Woolf, a woman with inner turmoil. She deserved her Oscar. Then there is Julianne Moore who also did a respectable job but her performance was probably the most brutally ruined by the direction. Then of course there is Meryl Streep...she is Meryl Streep she understands how to act, she is going to be good.

The score though minimalist was pleasing, and one more shout out before my tirade: MAKE UP!!! WOW!!! I would say for the first ten minutes all you can think about is...THAT'S NICOLE KIDMAN???? Very impressive.

Okay...Directing...was horrible. You could tell from the very beginning that the director was fixated on displaying the deep messages about life in the story, instead of telling the story and letting the audience discover what it means. In addition, the pretentiousness that was shown in the shooting was both irritating and distracting. This was most clearly displayed in the pacing. The shots were often too prolonged, I think because the director was putting so much into the deepness and art aspect of film making that he was babying his audience. He thought they would need long artsy shots to get his point when in actuality, we got it at the beginning of the shot and as he draws it out it feels painful. So many times I wanted to stand up and scream to the rooftops: I GOT IT ALREADY!!!! Also this really damaged the script, lines that otherwise would have been fine became cheesy because they were given to much time. In addition, as I mentioned earlier, it hurt some of the acting. Julianne Moore was good but because her plot is in part about displaying the mundane lifestyle of a 1950's housewife it was already slow and then he slowed THAT down...it was not only painful it was awkward to watch.

Overall: Some aspects were impressive, and some of the shots were beautiful but I think Stephen Daldry would have made a better painter than a director. He was to fixated on what was lying under the story rather than the story itself. This may just be my opinion but you lose what could be a great film that way, and here we lost one.

Gone With the Wind (1939)

AFI Top 100:6

Academy Award Winner

Here was my dilemma: I had seen this movie as a kid and hated it. I mean HATED it...I kept wondering why everyone thought this was such a great film. I thought it was long, the characters were all annoying and the blatant racism was unappealing. But I had recently given Citizen Kane a second chance(which I also changed my mind about) and is three hours and forty four minutes really that long? Why yes, yes it is... but it is, as I just discovered, worth it.

Here we have a snapshot of what the south used to be. A time that seemed to emulate the medieval chivalry and propriety. And in that you can see the devastation that occurred when it was torn away by war. However the one qualm I have with it is its inexcusable ignorance to how the slaves were truly treated. There is no apology in this film for slavery which is frustrating but it is depicting the era through the lens of a southerner so if we except that fact and move forward we find one of the greatest cinematic experiences.

Vivien Leigh plays her role as the spoiled, selfish southern belle with great poise and talent. She is fantastically grating in everything she does.  Clark Gable offers the sleek, and devilishly elegant southern gentleman who seems both a realist and a secret hopeless romantic. In addition I find  Hattie McDaniel's performance of Mammy one of the most memorable and endearing.

Besides its acting feats, we also have a sweeping, beautiful score, and gorgeous shooting. The shooting is displayed by the famous silhouettes against the sunset, in addition to simple shots that let us in on small underlying emotions that make the film more real. In particular, I would like to point out the shot where Rhett Butler realizes that Bonnie is exactly like her mother. Its in London, and she talks about wanting to go home, we get a glimpse of his face and you can see the realization. This nuance is something that makes film an exciting experience.

Overall: I rescind any comments that this movie is a waste. It was an excellent and needed step in American Film and everyone should see it at some point, and if you disagree...well...Frankly my dear I don't give a damn.

Babel (2006)

Nominee

Alejandro González Iñárritu is a genius. Having just finished Amorres perros for my Spanish class and now watching this film, you see an obsession in what separates us and what can bring us together. In addition, there is an interest in domino effects, how one small act can lead to something earth shattering to someone else. He wants us all to recognize that we are connected to people we will never meet and our decisions effect their lives.

I went into this film sort of dubiously. I had read the back on put it back on the shelf at the library so many times, it just sounded like a different version of Crash (2005). In addition, my older brother told me that he thought the film was unbelievable in the sense that the people in this film seemed to have no sense of responsibility. However I feel that is a perfect example of what Iñárritu is attempting to show us. Our perception of cultures cannot be judged in the scope of out own social boundaries. Cultural necessities change based on what we do to survive. You would send your child out with a gun to protect the goats if that was the only thing you could do to survive. However I will agree that the inter connecting is a little contrived but I forgive it based on the way the film is able to show us raw human emotion. We may be separated by language, but we are united by emotion, one specified in this film as anguish.

The shots in this film were beautiful, this film relies on facial expression and it was captured with grace and honesty. To be frank the most disappointing portion of this film was Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Both have displayed more poignant characterization in the past and their scenes fell a little flat for me. The biggest problem with their plot line was we got a glimpse of their back story but it was not filled in enough so their reconciliation seemed empty to me.

Overall: A well done insightful film. Definitely worth the watch, and in my opinion should have won that year.

A Quote this film reminded me of: "Thou canst not stir a flower without troubling a star."

Master and Commander (2003)

Nominee

If good, realistic, epic entertainment is what you're looking for this film delivers. Here we have a Captain "Lucky" Jack who is willing to push on beyond the call of a mission to what he calls duty in pursuit of a French ship, the Acheron. They will go to what ever measures necessary to accomplish British naval Supremacy in the waters again.

This is the classic story that everyone loves. The passionate leader that will do anything for country and victory. The best friend who although he wants to support him will bring forth the ethical dilemma of what cost will be paid for passion. And a crew full of bit characters that bring forward the character of the HMS Surprise. There is nothing particularly original here. The shots in the film are all from a storytelling stand point and don't really provide us with any symbolism or new information, however I feel that often in action any attempts at symbolism will often fall flat and appear as cheesy or ridiculous. So in this case it was right decision. Here is a story that is engrossing enough to hold our attention with out any deep meaning. Its less of a moral lesson and more of a fun historical one.

The cast is good. As usual Russell Crowe provides his subtle rugged performance. The children really stood out for me, displaying the decorum which was expected of them in the time period although truly beyond their years. In addition, the score was fun because a lot of it was recognizable but it never over powered the movie as a whole.

Overall: This is fun! This movie was made to be both entertaining and an insightful history lesson. Now go watch!

I am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang (1933)

Nominee

When I first picked this movie up I thought I was in for it. I mean you should never judge a book by its cover but look at this cover!! We have a ridiculous facial expression accompanied by one of the longest titles ever in Christmas tree colors...I thought I was in for an hour and a half of 1930's over dramatized facial expressions and painful dialogue.

What I found was surprisingly not that bad, in fact not bad at all. This still of course is quite dated in some ways. The scene transitions are definitely some of the first attempts at suggestion the passage of time for all they are are pages of a calendar falling away. In addition some of the acting is still juvenile but surprisingly enough Paul Muni, who plays the main character is actually quite persuasive. I was worried because I had seen him in The Life of Emilie Zola, and his performance in that certainly dragged.

In addition, this film is interesting to watch because it is trying to display fault in a standing social system and it pleasantly succeeds. The closing moment sealed the deal for me as you realize from his final words that the chain gang which was supposed to reform men created the exact opposite effect.

Overall: It was good for its time and I think in someways a hidden gem of the period. The only qualms I had were the datedness of some of the acting, and the lack of any music...but I am a big soundtrack fan so I think mostr people would not have a big problem with that. However for a film junky it was kinda fun to watch their 1930 attempts at things we have refined more over the ages. I would not include it on my must sees but it is definately worth the watch!

Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)

AFI Top 100: 98

Nominee

I remember watching this for the first time when I was a little kid. At that time I thought the musical numbers were the best part and found the dialogue boring as hell. So when my sister got it for my Dad for father's day I was looking forward to the musical numbers with the glamorous costumes and the classic vaudeville dancing. And in this department it certainly provided, but I realized in my seasoned almost twenty years that the sharpness and human insight in the script was heart warming, humorous, and entertaining.

This movie is truly a classic American film. Not only does it pay testament to one of the most important American icons, George M. Cohan. It shows us the acting versatility of James Cagney, usually a player of the tough gangster archetype, we see him now showing his roots. He won an Oscar for his efforts and he deserved.

Overall: This is true classic American entertainment at its finest. You will find yourself singing Cohan songs, doing Cagney impressions, and just feeling happy in general. I recommend this film to anyone. Period

So in conclusion: "My Father thanks you. My Mother thanks you. My Sister thanks you. And I thank you."

Jerry Maguire (1996)

Nominee

Okay, I feel kinda silly starting with this one but it is what I watched last night...Here we have Tom Cruise...Tom Cruise...tom cruise...TOM CRUISE!!!!...I don't really think he can act and for some odd reason I don't care...okay we all know the reason...and I am not usually this shallow but come on HE IS HOT...anyway then we have Renee Zellweger which usually when she opens her mouth to speak to me it sounds like nails on a chalk board but in this movie her voice is not as grating and then there is some cute kid who I recognize only from some ad in the 90's for a movie about a kid dracula...or something like that I never saw it I just remember the TV Spot...Anyway
Jerry Maguire is about a man who works for a sports agency gets disenchanted by the way its run and one night drunkenly writes a mission statement, (not a memo), about how impersonal the buisness is. He then gets fired but then proceeds to begin his own company with one client, Tidwell, one partner, Dorothy Boyd, and one gold fish...Guess what after much trouble finding his connection to both...EVERYTHING WORKS OUT!!! Tidwell gets the giant contract and single mother Dorothy was had at hello... and we get a little glimpse that the company will grow. yay!!!

This is a romantic comedy...its cute...it makes you laugh...you get that warm cuddly feeling inside...but honestly why is this nominated for best picture. Its great fun, and if you think that good movies are made by straight up entertainment its there but it does not offer what I expect from a GREAT movie...I was not swept away by an interesting score...I was not enlightened into plot motifs by any insinuations from shooting angles...I saw no orginality besides the fact that it is a chick flick that is over 2 hours long...especially when it was up as the same year as Fargo...I expected a little more

Overall: Enjoyable. Should it have been nominated for best picture? No. Bright side: I got to look at Tom Cruise and be charmed by cute little kids...I only suggest this movie if you already know you like this sort of thing.

Thats a wrap

The Quest

Watching Movies. Which movies? The best ones...all of them...I don't even remember anymore when all this began but I decided in one of my fits of inspiration to watch all the top 100 AFI films...I then added all the best picture films, which when I completed both of those...I decided the next most interesting thing would be the nominees for best picture...all of them...what can I say I love film. I have always loved art and I feel that film is the product of putting music, visual art, and theater in a blender and making the most delicious milkshake ever. So guess what... "I DRANK YOUR MILKSHAKE!!"...yup bad reference, I put it there deal with it as you please.

So now for the mission of this blog: Voice Opinions! I will give mine...I want to hear yours...I am pretty hard hitting, but I can be persuaded, I like nothing more than a good debate :)

Last thing: My Progress
Original AFI List: 100/100
Updated AFI List:100/100
Best Picture Films: 89/89...and counting of course
Nominees: 322/448