Broadcast News (1987)

Nominee

Here is a movie that is not quite Network (1976) and not quite an awful romanitc comedy. So what is it? Well it is solid, it tries to hard to be somethings but it succeeds effortlessly at others.

In the characters, the actors and the brief endearing moments of wit and personal encounters we are given a movie that seems so at ease with its content. William Hurt, Holly Hunter, and Albert Brooks all give clean perfomances of the real people behind the news. We have the pretty faced not to bright anchor, Tom,  the bright and obsessive producer, Jane, and her best friend Aaron, who cannot be an anchor but knows how to write the news. The three find each other in the double context of work and personal life, and in these two settings of interaction we find some real and funny moments. When watching these characters interact you almost forget you're watching a movie.

However where I do find some fault is its attempt to show the inner working of the news station. It tries to be ground breaking in a way its just not. People getting fires, the intergrity of work vs. the need for viewership. It's already been done and its been done better. Not that I didn't enjoy some of the sequences, watching a lot of the techinical process of a newsroom was fun, but the themes the movie was pushing just wasn't notable.

Also this is no fault of the movie itself but rather the 80's. I don't know what they were doing back then but their soundtracks and shooting styles usually fall flat for me.

Lastly, Jack Nicholson is in this movie in a very small role which I though was strange. Also Disney/Pixar fans! A fun game: close your eyes and listen...you will hear Jessie the Yodeling Cowgirl, Elastagirl, and Marlin. This was very distracting for me...in a good way!

Overall: This is not the great ethical commentary that it thinks it is, but what it is instead is a solid film about love and friendship in a chaotic context. If I did stars I would give it a 3.5/5...perhaps not earth shattering but a good watch. 

Gladiator (2000): HAPPY 50TH POST!!

Academy Award Winner

I cannot believe I am at 50 posts! Just a little update on the whole; I am now 162 movies in with 247 to go to and rapidly approaching halfway, and in case you were wondering I update my status on my original post: The Quest , so if you want to keep track of my progress it is there. Thanks for your readership, I have a great time writing, and I hope you enjoy reading :)

Now, I know I have discussed the Epic before and I know I have also talked about straight up entertainment value. Here is an example of the collision of these two motives of movie making. Is it perfect? No. Is it entertaining and epic? Yes. Then throw in ancient Roman society with it's strength but fragile inner structure and you have yourself a backdrop. Lastly, add the ultimate hero, a man who has been beaten down but cannot be beaten and you have yourself a movie worth making, but more importantly worth watching.

This story may not be historically accurate but it's victory lies in capturing a culture not specifics. It's attention is paid to the customs and traditions that is ancient Rome; the wars for the empire, the constant conflict of empire vs. democracy, and  the gladiator fights all encompass the essence of the time through narrative. Yet we are also given Rome through a visual recreation that is achieved most successfully. They have rebuilt the Colosseum, they have clad the gladiators in intricate armor, they show the luxury of the emperor and for all of this we are visually committed to this film.

So our backdrop and it's execution are compelling, but now the other main player in this movie's success is Maximus. The unwilling but rightful ruler of Rome, father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife, and he will have his vengeance in this life or the next. (Sorry I couldn't really help it)  What makes this character so compelling is he is not complex, he is a man with a single purpose, and that is the only reason he is alive. He will endure so that he may die, but not until he has killed the emperor of Rome. Yet, to have a great hero you must have a villain of equal proportions. As much as we love Maximus we must hate Commodus. Russell Crowe successfully wins our admiration and Joaquin Phoenix our disdain.

The other characters in this story play their parts, and we are given a story of a lifetime, complete with the epic battles required from a film entitled Gladiator. Also the score is awesome, swelling and well...EPIC!

I do have one qualm but it is an unavoidable bi product of all action films. Action films have a tendency to have one theme and beat you over the head with it. Here it is death, and we are clobbered by it, you cannot go five minutes without someone saying something about shadows and dust...but it is typical of the genre so I will let it pass.

Overall: You want to know Rome? Skip Three Coins in the Fountain (1954), and instead follow Maximus through his lifetime. You won't regret it and if you do...well don't worry your regrets will follow you into death for all eternity. (Reference to tag line: check) But in all seriousness you won't regret it, it's not possible. Happy Watching!



Three Coins in the Fountain (1954)

Nominee

Whelp, here we have a movie that encompasses a travel advertisement and a B version of Roman Holiday, and it only really succeeds at one. Lets just say I really want to see Rome for myself after this film because I want to make sure it is more exciting live than it is stagnant on the screen.

We have an hour and forty minutes total. The first hour shows areal shots of Italy which apparently in 1954 warranted a win for best cinematography. But lets face it how hard is it really to get beautiful shots of...Italy?...I think I rest my case, nothing particularly notable or impressive here.

The last forty minutes are poorly developed love plots with boring characters, save perhaps Miss Frances, played by Dorothy McGuire who presents the only memorable scene in the entire movie. Yes six double scotches later we have some entertainment in this movie from Miss Frances.  However everyone else could easily have been replaced by anyone, there is no real character work needed.

In addition, what little plot there is was not even good. Three American women try to find love in Italy after throwing TWO coins in the fountain. That's right readers, there aren't even three coins in the fountain...even the title gives us expectations it doesn't meet. Also, the ending is the most heinous thing I have ever watched. If you are looking  for the definition of contrived watch the last three minutes of this movie.

Overall: I will acknowledge this may be in part a generational gap, but if I would liken this movie to something in modern media it would be the Bachelorette. We are watching attractive people doing fun things in beautiful places, but it has no actual substance. I would say in lieu of watching this movie book a trip to Rome. It may be way more expensive but incredibly more worthwhile.

In Bruges (2008)

This post is in strict dedication to a friend, namely Caleb Bowers. And it is because of him that I will take this opportunity to state the beauty of film is that it is technically one product but what makes it an active experience is that that one product can reach different people in so many varying ways.

I liked a lot of things about this film. So I will start there.

The premise: We have an aged hit man and a novice who are at impasses in their lives, they are frozen in time, as is the location they are sent to inhabit by their boss while awaiting their next assignment. So here we have characters, and even a space that must negotiate an identity crisis. This is an intriguing story.

The cinematography: Many of the chosen angles were intricate and reminded the viewer of our viewership. We were witnesses to this story, not participants, but that was still a role we had to fill and that role was given to us by the camera making us active in our watching.

The setting: In Bruges, presents a visually rich backdrop with cultural vibrancy that has fallen into history. Its certainly a crossroad of a location and strongly mirrors much of the inner conflict of the given characters. Leading to my next point...

The characters and the actors portraying them are the strongest aspect of the film. Colin Farrell plays his part with great empathy. His whole character embodies youth and the struggles of the innocent, or at very least those perceived to be so. Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes play the men on the other side, they have moved on from youth and have found survival in their own moral systems. Which ironically bring their deaths as well.

I also appreciated many of the themes touched on throughout: human intimacy, perception, morality, repentance...all strong motivations to tell a story.

This whole thing comes with a big caveat, and my most humble apologies to Mr. Bowers. I did not like the humor...I only found a few parts actually funny, but for the most part I felt it was...well...stupid... and formulaic. Jokes about midget suicide and fat people just aren't really my style and you can't really claim it's dry or dark humor. Those styles take things you wouldn't have found funny otherwise and surprise you with their humor. Yet as I already said it was formulaic so....we weren't surprised. Literally, a character would say something and then you would wait ten minutes and it would come up again later without fail. Repetition is a great weapon of humor. However when over used it can also be it's downfall especially when it is an attempt at being dry. Also expletives become tiresome, as does watching bored people for two hours.

Overall: There are many things I liked about this film, but it lost me at the jokes, and some what in the pacing. HOWEVER, the whole point of the blog is exploration of opinions! I can appreciate that to someone  else this may resonate better than it did with me. In fact I know it does. So give it a watch, perhaps you have a different sense of humor than I do.

Slumdog Millionaire (2008)

Academy Award Winner

It is not often that I find a movie absolutely visually intoxicating whilst also being intricately woven into an interesting narrative structure. This film resoundingly succeeds at both while also brutally imposing the realism of life onto to the viewer. And yet this is realism with hope as it's perpetrator, unlike most films that think happiness must be sacrificed for truth.

We are given a boy, Jamal Malik, from the slums who experiences seemingly endless loss and still is motivated to find his true love, Latika, at any cost.  This film sweeps the span of a lifetime effortlessly and reminds the viewer of the struggle to survive. The narration weaves the past with the the present allowing us to see the characters grow on an intimate level, making their emotions all the more real to us. Their frustrations, their losses, and their dreams become ours. This is seen in the style of the film in an unforgettable fashion.

The flashbacks are presented in a way that evokes a dream-like state. The saturation of color, the stilted motions and pacing, the canted angles that impose a certain "peering" angle. We see the memories as we would see one of our own, not clear and not perfect but with a certain vibrancy for the details we do remember. It is beautiful, and a strong tool of story telling.

I would also be in the wrong if I wrapped this post with mentioning the expertly composed and complied soundtrack. The music speaks directly with the narrative adding another level of film viewing to be submersed in.

If I have one problem with the film it is the fleeting moments of troublesome dialogue. some discussions of "destiny" feel a little too contrived and forced. However because of this films dedication to it's theme of hope I am able to forgive the film as a whole.

Overall: This film is a testament to the greatness of collaborative work. Bollywood and Hollywood have both put in their finest contributions, and it is phenomenal.  And I must say it's refreshing to have a happy ending, albeit it a bittersweet one. Jai Ho, and Happy Watching!

L.A. Confidential (1997)

Nominee

This is a very cool movie that converses intimately with its time period, its location, and the flaws of the justice system it illuminates while also paying homage to the film noir of the past.

Set in L.A. during the 1950's we are submerged into a mess of glamour and what lies slightly lower than skin deep: corruption. A restaurant massacre brings to light the injustices of the system, a system where sex, drugs and violence are the currency to power. This is a film with a lot of potential but certainly has the risk of being done poorly. Yet this film reaches success through admiral acting, flawless pacing, and attention to shooting and editing that gives the viewer multiple layers of access.

I don't really feel I have to go into to much depth with the members of the cast. Although it is fun to see many of these now veterans of the screen at the beginning of their careers. Guy Pearce and Russell Crowe play their character foil against each other well. They embody two sides of the system, both of which are ultimately needed to solve the case. It's good cop/bad cop at it's finest. Kevin Spacey and Danny Devito both play strong characterizations as they are products of the media component of L.A. And Kim Basinger gives us a strong performance as woman who is just trying to get by in a world where she is helpless.  All of these were commendable efforts.

The pacing of the narration was impeccable. Moving with realistic haste whilst also making sure the audience was not lost in the shambles of details it was engaging in. However it also left some of the responsibility to the audience without neglecting them. A well done execution of a script.

Lastly, The shooting and editing worked closely with each other making the movie interesting to watch.  Using point of view shots and graphic matches, we were allowed into the minds of the characters and then released while remaining rooted in the reality of the story.

Overall: This is a sharp murder mystery spiced with Hollywood glamour and social commentary. I found it an enjoyable watch that I never would have seen without doing this quest. Happy Watching!

Braveheart (1995)

Academy Award Winner

If you are Scottish or just love yourself some haggis read this:

This is a film that swells with wailing bagpipes, epic battles, and lots of kilts. You will be shouting "Alba gu Brath!" or FREEEEEDOM!!!!! for days involuntarily. (Warning: stay away from public spaces)

If you are not Scottish start here:

This is a very overdone movie that just has way too much Mel Gibson all over it. He is not Orson Welles, he does not get to produce, director and star in a film unless he is good at it.  As a director he does not give us anything. The shots all fall flat to me, I see nothing in them of particular note beyond the fact that there is way too much slow motion. There are other ways, more artful and innovative ones at that,  to give emphasis than to slow everything down, and you need to use them especially in a movie that is three hours long.

His performance as a leading actor also leaves something to be desired. You can tell the script was attempting to depict a man with many faces. A warrior, a lover, a country man, a savage. But Gibson's William Wallace only seems capable of saying everything at one level of intensity. I feel we lost what could have been a complex, dynamic character to a mediocre performance.

The other actors were okay. There was nothing exceptional about the cinematography or the editing. I will mention that I enjoyed the score, but what can I say, I have Scottish and Irish blood in me.

What bothers me the most is the premise itself is a good story. It's the small rising against impossible odds for something they have never had: freedom. That is a great story, and when placed in a historical setting such as this one it has great potential as a period piece. It just was not executed in a way that was conducive to what it ultimately could have been.

Overall: Yes this movie is able to draw out pride in my heritage so it is not without the power to elicit emotion. However it could have been so much more than that had it not been for Mel Gibson. Perhaps someone should try it again sometime.

Ninotchka (1939)

Nominee

I have been blindsided.... This looked like a film that was going to be another run of the mill 1930's romance. We will have the glamour shots of Greta, the smooth talking of Melvin, and two hours of dated innocence leading to some very sappy ending. Well yeah that was there but sitting beneath this very tidy package of a classic Hollywood film....lied something else.

This film is about a Bolshevik woman who ends up in the fun loving atmosphere of Paris. As you may be able to tell from this statement alone...this film has really hysterical moments. I mean the blatant capitalist propaganda must have been funny back then because they absolutely believed it to be true. Now the same things are funny because of their utter ridiculous and blatant execution regardless of your feelings on the subject.  They even put in a minor poke at Nazism (even the Soviets don't like the Nazis), and the general depiction of the Soviets is just so over the top that I am not even sure they could make this film today. (Not without a Sacha Baton Cohen level of political incorrectness).

That in general really sold this as an entertaining watch for me. The actors all do a respectable job, its all done in invisible style so nothing to say there, and the only qualm I will mention is Ninotchka's character transition is almost completely not motivated but that is part of what makes it so funny to a modern audience.

Overall: This is a hidden piece of history that results in some moments of real hilarity. Yes it also has the schmaltzy love plot but the humor makes up in the originality department. Happy Watching Comrade!

Gosford Park (2001)

Nominee

There is something inherently fun about British people doing very British things. And if you round up the best of them and they do the best of British activities, well its great sport. Here we have an incredible ensemble cast that keeps reminding that you should watch Harry Potter at some point this summer. With names like Michael Gambon, Maggie Smith, and Helen Mirren gracing the cast there are spot on character performances that create this world of duality.

The main focus of this film is the structure of this social system. There are the servants who stand on the sidelines of the rich accessing this world through the whims of those they serve. Then there are the rich who live in a world of artificial pleasantries and only gain the real motives of their relatives through their gossiping servants. This of course leads to the ultimate problem...murder.

This story succeeds in discussing morality and the varying measures we go through to maintain loyalty, or rather relationships. It is in the conclusion that we access what the ultimate message is, that it is love that motivates the actions of some but because of this flawed system murder is the culmination of this emotion.

The shooting is clean, and the editing allows us to foreshadow the end. Also the score, which I haven't discussed with a movie in a while, is notably adequate at setting the mood throughout the film.

I did have one problem with the film, there are so many characters that at times it is hard to keep track of them. You can only keep track of so many bit characters and side plots. I am not entirely sure that some of them actually did anything for this story.

Overall: This is a solid watch. It's a who done it that seeks to expose a flaw in socioeconomic gaps.  I liked it but I will state it is hard to keep track of some of the characters. However they are all British so listening to them talk makes it forgivable.  Happy Watching!