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 It may be a little outdated in its purpose but perhaps the fact that I think that is in and of itself part of the issue he is trying to show us.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?