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.