Monday, May 9, 2011
DAY 22, MOVIE 1:
Sense and Sensibility (1955), directed by Ang Lee. I keep reading good things about Ang Lee’s films, and every time I watch one of them I have always felt uninvolved and bored. He always seems to suck every story he touches dry of anything resembling entertainment value. I don’t care how well you can wield a camera, or if you can get good performances out of actors, or whatever it is people like about his movies; if you can’t use all the elements of filmmaking to create something remotely entertaining, then you are not a good director. Even the most hardcore artistic film directors can make their stories entertaining, but for some reason Lee’s films are simply dull to me. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was nothing more than something pretty to look at. Hulk was an obvious unwatchable mess. But his film The Ice Storm was a rape of the very medium of movies. The film used to capture the images of that so called movie is the unluckiest film in the world. Now that I’ve gotten my personal feelings of Lee’s films out of the way, this brings me to the fourth movie of his I’ve seen: Sense and Sensibility. The big question for me is: was it any better than his other movies? Unfortunately, no. I’m afraid I have the same complaints as stated above. The moment the film started, all the energy was sucked out of my room, thus beginning this 2 hour and 16 minute endurance test. It’s about a woman whose husband dies, and due to a technicality of the time, she and her three daughters get cheated out of the inheritance they deserve. Sense and Sensibility felt more like an exercise for actors rather than an actual story. It’s an acting showcase, an excuse for the performers to recite Jane Austen dialogue. As for Lee’s direction, he does nothing to make Sense and Sensibility a story for the screen. When a director takes on the task of adapting a book, he has to be able to sift through what works for the printed page and what works for the camera. The pacing of a book is different from the pacing of a movie, and if the director does nothing to get the point of the book across as quickly as possible using a perfect balance of acting, editing, cinematography, sound, and music, then the audience will be left with a slow paced bore. For the fourth time, that is unfortunately what Ang Lee has delivered to me.
DAY 22, MOVIE 2:
Tropic Thunder (2008), directed by Ben Stiller. Tropic Thunder is one of my favorite comedies from the past ten years. The story is nothing we haven’t already seen, but the cast and variety of characters raise the bar for big ensemble comedies. Tropic Thunder is about an all-star cast in a Vietnam movie that’s thrown into the jungle in order to get some realism out of their performances. But of course, everything goes wrong. All forms of actors are represented by the characters. Ben Stiller plays the action hero, Robert Downey Jr. is the actor who takes his roles way too seriously, Jack Black is the comedian, Jay Baruchel is the young actor making his breakout performance, and Brandon T. Jackson is the rapper breaking into acting. The whole movie is making fun of the Hollywood system of making movies, and it does a good job at it. Nothing is left untouched by Tropic Thunder, there are scenes poking fun at agents, producers, directors, awards, trailers, talk shows, stunt and effects men, everything! One of the smaller jokes that I think is hilarious is how rapper Alpa Chino (Jackson) uses his performance as a chance to cross-promote his line of energy drinks. This is clearly a crack at the excessive product placement seen in action movies these days (just look at any Michael Bay film for examples). If you always find yourself constantly researching the filmmaking process, and you haven’t yet seen Tropic Thunder, then you will be in for a treat.
Monday, May 9, 2011
Sunday, May 8, 2011
Day 21: Money Makes the World Go Round
Sunday, May 8, 2011
DAY 21, MOVIE 1:
Slumdog Millionaire (2008), directed by Danny Boyle. I remember when I saw this at the theater, this movie left me with such high feelings, there was no way I couldn’t love it. Slumdog Millionaire is easily my favorite Danny Boyle film. The premise is great, a poor Indian man goes on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and thinks back to his life experiences to answer each question. Danny Boyle uses this film to show us what energetic direction is all about. From the fast pace, to the bombastic sound design, and to the music, right down to even how the subtitles are displayed. There is not a single moment where I am not entertained, thrilled, or moved. And that right there is what makes a movie great.
DAY 21, MOVIE 2:
Casino (1995), directed by Martin Scorsese. For crime movies, you can’t do much better than the works of Martin Scorsese. But out of all of his crime films, I would say Casino is the only one that screams the word “epic.” While movies like Mean Streets and Goodfellas take on the task of delving into the characters, Casino’s goal is to show how an entire city once operated. Using two mobster friends as the narrators, Scorsese paints the story of mob rule in 1970s and ‘80s Las Vegas. As usual, Scorsese is a master craftsman when it comes to constructing a scene. The most effective sequence comes early on, only a half hour into this three hour mammoth of a movie. As two guys run a cheating scam in the casino, the camera takes us through the process that Ace (played by Robert De Niro) uses to catch them, and deal with them. The use of guitar music builds tension right up to when Ace asks the cheater if he’s right handed. And then there is a brief silence from the characters as everyone processes everything that had just been said and done. Finally, that silence is broken by the most memorable use of a hammer I have ever seen in any movie. It’s scenes like those that places Casino in the ranks of the great crime epics. And somehow, the constant narration doesn’t bog down the quality of the storytelling. Most times I hate excessive narration, but Scorsese is one of the few directors that make it work.
DAY 21, MOVIE 1:
Slumdog Millionaire (2008), directed by Danny Boyle. I remember when I saw this at the theater, this movie left me with such high feelings, there was no way I couldn’t love it. Slumdog Millionaire is easily my favorite Danny Boyle film. The premise is great, a poor Indian man goes on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire, and thinks back to his life experiences to answer each question. Danny Boyle uses this film to show us what energetic direction is all about. From the fast pace, to the bombastic sound design, and to the music, right down to even how the subtitles are displayed. There is not a single moment where I am not entertained, thrilled, or moved. And that right there is what makes a movie great.
DAY 21, MOVIE 2:
Casino (1995), directed by Martin Scorsese. For crime movies, you can’t do much better than the works of Martin Scorsese. But out of all of his crime films, I would say Casino is the only one that screams the word “epic.” While movies like Mean Streets and Goodfellas take on the task of delving into the characters, Casino’s goal is to show how an entire city once operated. Using two mobster friends as the narrators, Scorsese paints the story of mob rule in 1970s and ‘80s Las Vegas. As usual, Scorsese is a master craftsman when it comes to constructing a scene. The most effective sequence comes early on, only a half hour into this three hour mammoth of a movie. As two guys run a cheating scam in the casino, the camera takes us through the process that Ace (played by Robert De Niro) uses to catch them, and deal with them. The use of guitar music builds tension right up to when Ace asks the cheater if he’s right handed. And then there is a brief silence from the characters as everyone processes everything that had just been said and done. Finally, that silence is broken by the most memorable use of a hammer I have ever seen in any movie. It’s scenes like those that places Casino in the ranks of the great crime epics. And somehow, the constant narration doesn’t bog down the quality of the storytelling. Most times I hate excessive narration, but Scorsese is one of the few directors that make it work.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
Day 20: Held Hostage
Saturday, May 7, 2011
DAY 20, MOVIE 1:
Key Largo (1948), directed by John Huston. John Huston is one of my favorite directors of the 1940s. Every time he time he teamed up with actor Humphrey Bogart, it seemed a classic was brought to the screen. The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and The African Queen all immediately come to mind when I think of these two legends. Today I watched one of their lesser known films, Key Largo. In Key Largo, a gangster holds a family and a cowardly GI hostage in a Florida hotel, as a hurricane is approaching. This movie was based on a play, and Huston directs it as such. There isn’t anything fancy about the filmmaking, but the acting is superb. The performances were what created the tension in the situation portrayed onscreen. One great scene was when gangster Johnny Rocco (played by Edward G. Robinson) dares Bogart to shoot and kill him. However, Bogart’s character was too much of a coward, but was too afraid to show he was a coward. He simply throws the gun down and says killing Rocco isn’t worth it. The highlight of the scene is after the gun is revealed to be unloaded, and Lauren Bacall states that Bogart didn’t know the gun wasn’t loaded, and calls him a coward in front of everyone. But my favorite scene is at the end, taking place on a boat. Bogart had killed all the gangsters, except Rocco. Rocco begs for his life, and without saying a word, Bogart sits there silently, letting Rocco go crazy by trying to bargain his way out of being killed. Writing about the scene doesn’t do the performances justice, but if you’re a fan of Bogart, Huston, or 1940s crime films, then you owe it to yourself to check out Key Largo.
DAY 20, MOVIE 2:
Jurassic Park (1993), directed by Steven Spielberg. I’m not the biggest Spielberg fan on the planet, and in fact I would say he’s overrated. But I will admit that Jurassic Park was a gigantic achievement. The visual effects in this film are among the greatest of all time. Most times CGI effects become dated within a couple of years, but Jurassic Park is one of the few that still holds up today, almost twenty years later. Those dinosaurs looked real in 1993, and they still look real today. Of course the CG wouldn’t hold up half as much if they didn’t use animatronics whenever in conjunction with the CG effects. The blend of both computer and physical effects gives this movie a realistic edge over most effects driven movies put out today. But a movie can’t truly pass the test of time based on its effects alone; it also needs a well rounded, well told story. Jurassic Park is about an amusement park that clones dinosaurs, and puts them on display like a zoo. A group of scientists is brought to the park for a preview tour, and of course everything goes wrong, and the dinosaurs escape. It is a basic story, but Spielberg is able to create suspense by putting likeable characters, who feel real, right into the midst of the action. Plus it doesn’t hurt that John Williams’ score heightens the tension, with some of the most famous music ever created for a film.
DAY 20, MOVIE 3:
Toy Story 3 (2010), directed by Lee Unkrich. Since I watched the first two Toy Story movies last weekend, it was inevitable that I watch the third one this weekend. This is a movie that I have already talked and written about numerous times. Toy Story 3 is easily my favorite of the three, and my favorite animated film of all time. The writers take characters from more than ten years ago, who are so strongly written, and puts them through the dregs. It is the ultimate adventure for the conclusion of a trilogy. In Toy Story 3, Andy is grown up and on his way to college, and the toys are donated to a daycare center, and then eventually thrown into every toy’s nightmare: the garbage dump. This is a movie with an ending so powerful, that I don’t even dare spoil anything about it. But I will say that there is a moment at the climax that will make you realize just how well written these characters have always been. Toy Story 3 is the perfect ending for some perfect characters.
DAY 20, MOVIE 1:
Key Largo (1948), directed by John Huston. John Huston is one of my favorite directors of the 1940s. Every time he time he teamed up with actor Humphrey Bogart, it seemed a classic was brought to the screen. The Maltese Falcon, The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, and The African Queen all immediately come to mind when I think of these two legends. Today I watched one of their lesser known films, Key Largo. In Key Largo, a gangster holds a family and a cowardly GI hostage in a Florida hotel, as a hurricane is approaching. This movie was based on a play, and Huston directs it as such. There isn’t anything fancy about the filmmaking, but the acting is superb. The performances were what created the tension in the situation portrayed onscreen. One great scene was when gangster Johnny Rocco (played by Edward G. Robinson) dares Bogart to shoot and kill him. However, Bogart’s character was too much of a coward, but was too afraid to show he was a coward. He simply throws the gun down and says killing Rocco isn’t worth it. The highlight of the scene is after the gun is revealed to be unloaded, and Lauren Bacall states that Bogart didn’t know the gun wasn’t loaded, and calls him a coward in front of everyone. But my favorite scene is at the end, taking place on a boat. Bogart had killed all the gangsters, except Rocco. Rocco begs for his life, and without saying a word, Bogart sits there silently, letting Rocco go crazy by trying to bargain his way out of being killed. Writing about the scene doesn’t do the performances justice, but if you’re a fan of Bogart, Huston, or 1940s crime films, then you owe it to yourself to check out Key Largo.
DAY 20, MOVIE 2:
Jurassic Park (1993), directed by Steven Spielberg. I’m not the biggest Spielberg fan on the planet, and in fact I would say he’s overrated. But I will admit that Jurassic Park was a gigantic achievement. The visual effects in this film are among the greatest of all time. Most times CGI effects become dated within a couple of years, but Jurassic Park is one of the few that still holds up today, almost twenty years later. Those dinosaurs looked real in 1993, and they still look real today. Of course the CG wouldn’t hold up half as much if they didn’t use animatronics whenever in conjunction with the CG effects. The blend of both computer and physical effects gives this movie a realistic edge over most effects driven movies put out today. But a movie can’t truly pass the test of time based on its effects alone; it also needs a well rounded, well told story. Jurassic Park is about an amusement park that clones dinosaurs, and puts them on display like a zoo. A group of scientists is brought to the park for a preview tour, and of course everything goes wrong, and the dinosaurs escape. It is a basic story, but Spielberg is able to create suspense by putting likeable characters, who feel real, right into the midst of the action. Plus it doesn’t hurt that John Williams’ score heightens the tension, with some of the most famous music ever created for a film.
DAY 20, MOVIE 3:
Toy Story 3 (2010), directed by Lee Unkrich. Since I watched the first two Toy Story movies last weekend, it was inevitable that I watch the third one this weekend. This is a movie that I have already talked and written about numerous times. Toy Story 3 is easily my favorite of the three, and my favorite animated film of all time. The writers take characters from more than ten years ago, who are so strongly written, and puts them through the dregs. It is the ultimate adventure for the conclusion of a trilogy. In Toy Story 3, Andy is grown up and on his way to college, and the toys are donated to a daycare center, and then eventually thrown into every toy’s nightmare: the garbage dump. This is a movie with an ending so powerful, that I don’t even dare spoil anything about it. But I will say that there is a moment at the climax that will make you realize just how well written these characters have always been. Toy Story 3 is the perfect ending for some perfect characters.
Friday, May 6, 2011
Day 19: Two of the Weirdest Movies You Will Ever See
Friday, May 6, 2011
DAY 19, MOVIE 1:
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), directed by Nicolas Roeg. If you want weird, then look no further than The Man Who Fell to Earth. This film stars David Bowie as an alien named Thomas Jerome Newton, who travels to earth in search of water to bring back to his dying home planet. During his stay on Earth, he introduces a number of new inventions, which brings him millions of dollars in profit. He falls in love with a hotel employee, and becomes addicted to many aspects of life on Earth (most notably television and alcohol). What makes this film so weird is the combination of Bowie’s performance with the irregular story structure. Bowie plays Newton as a figure who knows he looks human on the outside, but on the inside he is far from it. You can tell by looking in his eyes, that there is something missing in the way he fits into the world around him. The story structure is also odd. This movie is very nonlinear, and doesn’t have any apparent rhyme or reason to the sequence of the scenes. If you’ve seen 21 Grams, then you’ll have an idea of what to expect here. The Man Who Fell to Earth is a movie that no two people look at the same way. Some will love it for being completely different from every other movie out there and its unique performances and infinite metaphors, while others will hate it for its lack of answers and linear structure. This is my third time watching the film, so obviously I like the strangeness of Roeg’s direction and Bowie’s performance. Seeing that this was made back in 1976, The Man Who Fell to Earth is the earliest example I can think of which experimented with such strangeness and sporadic nonlinear structure.
DAY 19, MOVIE 2:
Slaughterhouse-Five (1972), directed by George Roy Hill. All I knew about this movie before I watched it was that it is about a man who is unstuck in time. I had no idea if this meant he was living several eras of his life at the same time, or if he was jumping from place to place, or if he even had any control over his time travel. My questions were answered very early on. He doesn’t live multiple eras simultaneously; he randomly jumps from one time to the next with no control, rhyme, or reason. There are many times in his life that we get a window into, but the one event he keeps going back to is his time in a POW camp during World War II. And that’s really all there is to it. This movie was all concept and no substance. The movie is very easy to follow, I do credit George Roy Hill’s direction for seamlessly cutting from time to the next, without disorienting the audience. The downfall of this movie is that the novelty wears off fast. After a couple of jumps through time I was ready to see something new, but never did. Hill never added any insight from any of the characters as to what this man was experiencing. And after the first half hour I forgot this man was actually jumping through time, and thought this movie was merely structured similarly to The Man Who Fell to Earth. The meaning of the time travel itself was completely lost, until the very end where everything was wrapped up all too quickly in the most lifeless manner possible. Without any character development, or an overarching story of some sort, Slaughterhouse-Five was nothing more than an interesting premise turned into a very hollow film. I never read the book, so I have no idea if these problems are inherent in the source material. Even if I had read the book, I would still have these same criticisms for the movie, because I believe a book should be judged as a book, and a movie should be judged as a movie. So as far as movies go, you can skip this one.
DAY 19, MOVIE 1:
The Man Who Fell to Earth (1976), directed by Nicolas Roeg. If you want weird, then look no further than The Man Who Fell to Earth. This film stars David Bowie as an alien named Thomas Jerome Newton, who travels to earth in search of water to bring back to his dying home planet. During his stay on Earth, he introduces a number of new inventions, which brings him millions of dollars in profit. He falls in love with a hotel employee, and becomes addicted to many aspects of life on Earth (most notably television and alcohol). What makes this film so weird is the combination of Bowie’s performance with the irregular story structure. Bowie plays Newton as a figure who knows he looks human on the outside, but on the inside he is far from it. You can tell by looking in his eyes, that there is something missing in the way he fits into the world around him. The story structure is also odd. This movie is very nonlinear, and doesn’t have any apparent rhyme or reason to the sequence of the scenes. If you’ve seen 21 Grams, then you’ll have an idea of what to expect here. The Man Who Fell to Earth is a movie that no two people look at the same way. Some will love it for being completely different from every other movie out there and its unique performances and infinite metaphors, while others will hate it for its lack of answers and linear structure. This is my third time watching the film, so obviously I like the strangeness of Roeg’s direction and Bowie’s performance. Seeing that this was made back in 1976, The Man Who Fell to Earth is the earliest example I can think of which experimented with such strangeness and sporadic nonlinear structure.
DAY 19, MOVIE 2:
Slaughterhouse-Five (1972), directed by George Roy Hill. All I knew about this movie before I watched it was that it is about a man who is unstuck in time. I had no idea if this meant he was living several eras of his life at the same time, or if he was jumping from place to place, or if he even had any control over his time travel. My questions were answered very early on. He doesn’t live multiple eras simultaneously; he randomly jumps from one time to the next with no control, rhyme, or reason. There are many times in his life that we get a window into, but the one event he keeps going back to is his time in a POW camp during World War II. And that’s really all there is to it. This movie was all concept and no substance. The movie is very easy to follow, I do credit George Roy Hill’s direction for seamlessly cutting from time to the next, without disorienting the audience. The downfall of this movie is that the novelty wears off fast. After a couple of jumps through time I was ready to see something new, but never did. Hill never added any insight from any of the characters as to what this man was experiencing. And after the first half hour I forgot this man was actually jumping through time, and thought this movie was merely structured similarly to The Man Who Fell to Earth. The meaning of the time travel itself was completely lost, until the very end where everything was wrapped up all too quickly in the most lifeless manner possible. Without any character development, or an overarching story of some sort, Slaughterhouse-Five was nothing more than an interesting premise turned into a very hollow film. I never read the book, so I have no idea if these problems are inherent in the source material. Even if I had read the book, I would still have these same criticisms for the movie, because I believe a book should be judged as a book, and a movie should be judged as a movie. So as far as movies go, you can skip this one.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Day 17 & 18: Carol Reed's The Third Man
Wednesday, May 4, 2011 - No movies. Didn't watch a single thing.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
DAY 18, MOVIE 1:
The Third Man (1949), directed by Carol Reed. This is a movie that I watched for the third time today, and each time I watch it, it gets a little better. The Third Man is about a writer who travels to Vienna for a job offer given to him by a friend. When he discovers his friend has been killed in an accident, he starts asking around about the incident. When stories start to contradict, he begins to dig to the bottom of what actually happened. I wouldn’t place this at the top of my best suspense and noir lists, but it is a very good entry in the genre. But despite me liking this movie, I really don’t have much to say about it. I agree with everyone about the cinematography, it is beautiful. The use of shadow and the way some shots are slight tilted practically create the tone of the film. But as far as technical aspects go, it’s the music that has stayed with me; the use of the instrument, the zither, is something that you will never hear in any other movie before or since The Third Man. The score really stand out to you the first time you watch it, and will be stuck in your head for a while. The first half of the movie strikes me as basic, but interesting. It’s well made and acted, but nothing special. However, the last 40 minutes are fantastic. Once Orson Welles shows up, the story becomes something greater than the basics established in the first half. To me, Orson Welles’ mysterious performance as Harry Lime makes the movie. His screen time is only brief, but the scenes he is in are all great. His introduction on the dark streets of Vienna, his conversation with Joseph Cotton on the Ferris wheel, and my personal favorite: the sewer chase. All of these scenes are among the best of the 1940s decade.
Thursday, May 5, 2011
DAY 18, MOVIE 1:
The Third Man (1949), directed by Carol Reed. This is a movie that I watched for the third time today, and each time I watch it, it gets a little better. The Third Man is about a writer who travels to Vienna for a job offer given to him by a friend. When he discovers his friend has been killed in an accident, he starts asking around about the incident. When stories start to contradict, he begins to dig to the bottom of what actually happened. I wouldn’t place this at the top of my best suspense and noir lists, but it is a very good entry in the genre. But despite me liking this movie, I really don’t have much to say about it. I agree with everyone about the cinematography, it is beautiful. The use of shadow and the way some shots are slight tilted practically create the tone of the film. But as far as technical aspects go, it’s the music that has stayed with me; the use of the instrument, the zither, is something that you will never hear in any other movie before or since The Third Man. The score really stand out to you the first time you watch it, and will be stuck in your head for a while. The first half of the movie strikes me as basic, but interesting. It’s well made and acted, but nothing special. However, the last 40 minutes are fantastic. Once Orson Welles shows up, the story becomes something greater than the basics established in the first half. To me, Orson Welles’ mysterious performance as Harry Lime makes the movie. His screen time is only brief, but the scenes he is in are all great. His introduction on the dark streets of Vienna, his conversation with Joseph Cotton on the Ferris wheel, and my personal favorite: the sewer chase. All of these scenes are among the best of the 1940s decade.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Day 16: Imprisonment
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
DAY 16, MOVIE 1:
In the Name of the Father (1993), directed by Jim Sheridan. This is based on the true story of an Irish man who is falsely imprisoned for the bombing of a pub. He spends 15 years in prison with his father, as they try to prove their innocence. The movie stars Daniel Day-Lewis as the falsely imprisoned, and as always he gives a great performance. He plays Gerry Conlon the he should have, by portraying him as the far from perfect man he was prior to his conviction, and as a strong fighter for justice once he is thrown into prison with his father. This separates In the Name of the Father from other courtroom dramas about a falsely accused, most times the portrayals of the accused are watered down, in an attempt to make the audience like them (The Hurricane comes to mind), but director Jim Sheridan and Daniel Day-Lewis do not shy away from the fact that Conlon was not a good man before he was a prisoner. The first half of the film was the most interesting, as it followed Conlon in his daily life as he runs from the police, hangs out with hippies, and steals. Then he is suddenly captured by the British police, and is tortured until he confesses to a bombing he didn’t commit, and is sentenced to thirty years in prison. That whole half was very engaging, because the story spent time with this man who delved into who he was. However, once he and his father were sent to prison, that’s where the entertainment value hit a snag. The movie became more like every other prison/courtroom movie. Conlon’s life in prison felt explained, rather than shown. And the courtroom scene at the end was exactly the same as every other movie about a person being proven innocent (lawyers shouting, the judge’s oh-so-dramatic freeing of the defendant, etc.). This was a good movie, and I will say it did deserve its seven Oscar nominations, but due to the lack of going the extra mile in the second half, I’m not surprised it didn’t win anything.
DAY 16, MOVIE 2:
Network (1976), directed by Sidney Lumet. This is one of Lumet’s three best films, as well as one of the greatest films of all time. Network is about a TV news anchor who goes mad, and the network he works capitalizes on his rants and ravings. Even though the events portrayed in this movie are rather fantastic, this movie is not too far from the truth. If you’ve ever wondered the thought process behind TV networks and the news, then just watch Network. Every day this movie becomes more relevant to our time. There are so many aspects of the media that this movie addresses, including: using shock value to grab viewers, overnight successes, squeezing every bit of profit out of a hit, sacrificing actual news for entertainment, disguising corporate agendas as news or entertainment, and of course the influence of the media on the public. This movie blatantly explores society’s enslavement to television, and does a good job at it. When news anchor Howard Beale becomes a raving lunatic ranting about society, everyone listens to what he says. Why? Because he’s on television. One of the most powerful lines in this movie is Beale’s rant about television itself, and how there is an entire generation that gets their “truth” entirely from TV. But as he says, “Television isn’t the truth, it’s an amusement park.” What I’m amazed by with this film is how its still relevant today. The way Beale shouts his political and social viewpoints can be compared to the radio’s Rush Limbaugh. The way people blindly accept Beale’s viewpoints can is very similar to Oprah’s following. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg; I am positive there are hundreds of other parallels between this movie, and people in the media today. So now I think I’m going to end my blogpost of the day with a question to those of you have seen Network: What are some parallels you see between this movie and our society today?
DAY 16, MOVIE 1:
In the Name of the Father (1993), directed by Jim Sheridan. This is based on the true story of an Irish man who is falsely imprisoned for the bombing of a pub. He spends 15 years in prison with his father, as they try to prove their innocence. The movie stars Daniel Day-Lewis as the falsely imprisoned, and as always he gives a great performance. He plays Gerry Conlon the he should have, by portraying him as the far from perfect man he was prior to his conviction, and as a strong fighter for justice once he is thrown into prison with his father. This separates In the Name of the Father from other courtroom dramas about a falsely accused, most times the portrayals of the accused are watered down, in an attempt to make the audience like them (The Hurricane comes to mind), but director Jim Sheridan and Daniel Day-Lewis do not shy away from the fact that Conlon was not a good man before he was a prisoner. The first half of the film was the most interesting, as it followed Conlon in his daily life as he runs from the police, hangs out with hippies, and steals. Then he is suddenly captured by the British police, and is tortured until he confesses to a bombing he didn’t commit, and is sentenced to thirty years in prison. That whole half was very engaging, because the story spent time with this man who delved into who he was. However, once he and his father were sent to prison, that’s where the entertainment value hit a snag. The movie became more like every other prison/courtroom movie. Conlon’s life in prison felt explained, rather than shown. And the courtroom scene at the end was exactly the same as every other movie about a person being proven innocent (lawyers shouting, the judge’s oh-so-dramatic freeing of the defendant, etc.). This was a good movie, and I will say it did deserve its seven Oscar nominations, but due to the lack of going the extra mile in the second half, I’m not surprised it didn’t win anything.
DAY 16, MOVIE 2:
Network (1976), directed by Sidney Lumet. This is one of Lumet’s three best films, as well as one of the greatest films of all time. Network is about a TV news anchor who goes mad, and the network he works capitalizes on his rants and ravings. Even though the events portrayed in this movie are rather fantastic, this movie is not too far from the truth. If you’ve ever wondered the thought process behind TV networks and the news, then just watch Network. Every day this movie becomes more relevant to our time. There are so many aspects of the media that this movie addresses, including: using shock value to grab viewers, overnight successes, squeezing every bit of profit out of a hit, sacrificing actual news for entertainment, disguising corporate agendas as news or entertainment, and of course the influence of the media on the public. This movie blatantly explores society’s enslavement to television, and does a good job at it. When news anchor Howard Beale becomes a raving lunatic ranting about society, everyone listens to what he says. Why? Because he’s on television. One of the most powerful lines in this movie is Beale’s rant about television itself, and how there is an entire generation that gets their “truth” entirely from TV. But as he says, “Television isn’t the truth, it’s an amusement park.” What I’m amazed by with this film is how its still relevant today. The way Beale shouts his political and social viewpoints can be compared to the radio’s Rush Limbaugh. The way people blindly accept Beale’s viewpoints can is very similar to Oprah’s following. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg; I am positive there are hundreds of other parallels between this movie, and people in the media today. So now I think I’m going to end my blogpost of the day with a question to those of you have seen Network: What are some parallels you see between this movie and our society today?
Monday, May 2, 2011
Day 15: Murder and Drugs
Monday, May 2, 2011
DAY 15, MOVIE 1:
Murder on the Orient Express (1974), directed by Sidney Lumet. This is a Sidney Lumet film I’ve wanted to see for a while. As I said before in a previous blog post, Sidney Lumet is one of my all-time favorite directors, and I hope to see all of his films at some point. Murder on the Orient Express stars Albert Finney (one of my favorite actors) as a detective who investigates a murder on a train. I love a good murder mystery, so watching this seemed like a natural choice. The main plot of the movie is mostly confined to the train, which was fine with me. Lumet has proved once before that he can make an exciting story in a single location with his masterpiece, 12 Angry Men. However, the storytelling was rather basic, and even felt repetitive in the middle. The story consisted mostly of Albert Finney interviewing suspects, and coming to a conclusion of who the murderer is. It’s straight forward, and everything we’ve seen before. The real highlight of this movie is Albert Finney as detective Hercule Poirot. Last week I had said that The Dresser was probably Finney’s best performance, but now I retract that statement. Finney gives a performance unlike any of his other work in Murder on the Orient Express. It is an over-the-top performance, with the accent and loud speaking voice, but that’s what I liked about it. It was Finney’s ostentatious portrayal of the detective that got me through this movie, and I can’t help but think that the film would have been extremely drab without him in the lead role.
DAY 15, MOVIE 2:
American Gangster (2007), directed by Ridley Scott. In my opinion, American Gangster is Ridley Scott’s last good movie. I’ve been a fan of some his work, and he is definitely talented, and I hope he will soon redeem himself from his last two movies. But despite his recent missteps, American Gangster is a very solid film. And even though this film doesn’t add anything new to the crime genre, it is still an example of excellent storytelling and was one of the most entertaining movies of 2007. This movie is based on the true story of drug kingpin Frank Lucas, and the cop trying to bring him down. Director Ridley Scott extracts superb performances from both Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe; Washington giving what I think is his best. Much like The Departed, this movie follows two characters on opposite sides of the law, until they meet up at the end. So what we have here is a dual-edged story with some fine performances. As for Scott’s direction, his films are usually highly stylized, but without sacrificing the impact of the story. This time Scott brings his style more down to earth, making for a grittier, truer to life experience. He lets the characters inhabit their characters, so they can give the story the personal touch that’s so important to the overall impact.
DAY 15, MOVIE 1:
Murder on the Orient Express (1974), directed by Sidney Lumet. This is a Sidney Lumet film I’ve wanted to see for a while. As I said before in a previous blog post, Sidney Lumet is one of my all-time favorite directors, and I hope to see all of his films at some point. Murder on the Orient Express stars Albert Finney (one of my favorite actors) as a detective who investigates a murder on a train. I love a good murder mystery, so watching this seemed like a natural choice. The main plot of the movie is mostly confined to the train, which was fine with me. Lumet has proved once before that he can make an exciting story in a single location with his masterpiece, 12 Angry Men. However, the storytelling was rather basic, and even felt repetitive in the middle. The story consisted mostly of Albert Finney interviewing suspects, and coming to a conclusion of who the murderer is. It’s straight forward, and everything we’ve seen before. The real highlight of this movie is Albert Finney as detective Hercule Poirot. Last week I had said that The Dresser was probably Finney’s best performance, but now I retract that statement. Finney gives a performance unlike any of his other work in Murder on the Orient Express. It is an over-the-top performance, with the accent and loud speaking voice, but that’s what I liked about it. It was Finney’s ostentatious portrayal of the detective that got me through this movie, and I can’t help but think that the film would have been extremely drab without him in the lead role.
DAY 15, MOVIE 2:
American Gangster (2007), directed by Ridley Scott. In my opinion, American Gangster is Ridley Scott’s last good movie. I’ve been a fan of some his work, and he is definitely talented, and I hope he will soon redeem himself from his last two movies. But despite his recent missteps, American Gangster is a very solid film. And even though this film doesn’t add anything new to the crime genre, it is still an example of excellent storytelling and was one of the most entertaining movies of 2007. This movie is based on the true story of drug kingpin Frank Lucas, and the cop trying to bring him down. Director Ridley Scott extracts superb performances from both Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe; Washington giving what I think is his best. Much like The Departed, this movie follows two characters on opposite sides of the law, until they meet up at the end. So what we have here is a dual-edged story with some fine performances. As for Scott’s direction, his films are usually highly stylized, but without sacrificing the impact of the story. This time Scott brings his style more down to earth, making for a grittier, truer to life experience. He lets the characters inhabit their characters, so they can give the story the personal touch that’s so important to the overall impact.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
