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.
Sunday, May 1, 2011
Day 14: A Farewell to Arms, and a Renewal of Life
Sunday, May 1, 2011
DAY 14, MOVIE 1:
127 Hours (2010), directed by Danny Boyle. I wish more people would see this wonderful movie. It is so easy to make a dark and depressing movie, but Danny Boyle has given us two of the most inspirational movies of modern cinema (this and Slumdog Millionaire). Even though this movie gets really intense (especially at the end), that only adds to emotion at the end. Based on the true story of Aron Ralston, a hiker who gets his arm trapped under a boulder in an isolated canyon for five days. This is a story about a man who refused to give up and die, and would go to extreme lengths just to keep living. Everyone seems to know this movie for its climatic scene, but the story keeps going after that. Those minutes after his escape when he’s trying to walk to safety are just as emotionally involving as the rest of the movie. And that ending montage was simply perfect, as it shows all of Aron’s accomplishments since the incident with the rock. The combination of music and editing makes you feel as glad as he probably was just to be alive. As for Boyle’s direction, he definitely shows off his skill. He’s able to make an exciting film, while only limited to one stationary location. With the use of creative camera angles, quick editing when necessary, an energetic soundtrack, and an intense score by A.R. Rahman, Boyle shows us how big a small story can look. Sometimes you can tell if a director enjoys life by looking at the movies they make, and I think it’s safe to assume that Danny Boyle is one of those directors.
DAY 14, MOVIE 2:
Toy Story 2 (1999), directed by John Lasseter. Watching and writing about the first Toy Story last night put me in the mood to watch the sequel today. I’ll be honest and say that when I was younger, I thought this was significantly worse than the first Toy Story. On my last birthday I got the entire Toy Story trilogy on blu-ray, and going through those movies was the first time I saw the second one in about eight years. Re-watching it now that I’m older, I have no idea why I didn’t like this movie. Most sequels are rehashes of the original, but Toy Story 2 gives the characters a completely new adventure, delves deeper into the characters, and even adds some new ones. In Toy Story 2, Woody the cowboy gets his arm torn, and is shelved by his owner. Soon after which he is stolen during a yard sale, and the other toys set out to rescue him. These past two nights were the first time that I watched these two movies with my surround sound system, and got the full effect of the sound mixes. They were amazing. Pixar doesn’t just pay attention to the details in their animation and stories, but also their sound designs. Both movies did such a great job at making you experience the sounds the way the toys would. The sound mixers designed the sounds in such a way that everything sounds big, thus making you feel as small as a toy. There are numerous examples of this in the first movie, but I’ll keep it with Toy Story 2. The scene where the toys are trying to cross the street, hiding themselves in traffic cones is where the sound really gets a chance to show off. As the cars zoomed by, you can feel them rush by as if you’re down on the street, almost getting hit by them. Then there’s the large cylinder that falls off the truck, which sounds larger than anything. The sound mixers of the Toy Story movies are clearly masters of their craft, and can immerse you in the dangerous world of a toy.
DAY 14, MOVIE 1:
127 Hours (2010), directed by Danny Boyle. I wish more people would see this wonderful movie. It is so easy to make a dark and depressing movie, but Danny Boyle has given us two of the most inspirational movies of modern cinema (this and Slumdog Millionaire). Even though this movie gets really intense (especially at the end), that only adds to emotion at the end. Based on the true story of Aron Ralston, a hiker who gets his arm trapped under a boulder in an isolated canyon for five days. This is a story about a man who refused to give up and die, and would go to extreme lengths just to keep living. Everyone seems to know this movie for its climatic scene, but the story keeps going after that. Those minutes after his escape when he’s trying to walk to safety are just as emotionally involving as the rest of the movie. And that ending montage was simply perfect, as it shows all of Aron’s accomplishments since the incident with the rock. The combination of music and editing makes you feel as glad as he probably was just to be alive. As for Boyle’s direction, he definitely shows off his skill. He’s able to make an exciting film, while only limited to one stationary location. With the use of creative camera angles, quick editing when necessary, an energetic soundtrack, and an intense score by A.R. Rahman, Boyle shows us how big a small story can look. Sometimes you can tell if a director enjoys life by looking at the movies they make, and I think it’s safe to assume that Danny Boyle is one of those directors.
DAY 14, MOVIE 2:
Toy Story 2 (1999), directed by John Lasseter. Watching and writing about the first Toy Story last night put me in the mood to watch the sequel today. I’ll be honest and say that when I was younger, I thought this was significantly worse than the first Toy Story. On my last birthday I got the entire Toy Story trilogy on blu-ray, and going through those movies was the first time I saw the second one in about eight years. Re-watching it now that I’m older, I have no idea why I didn’t like this movie. Most sequels are rehashes of the original, but Toy Story 2 gives the characters a completely new adventure, delves deeper into the characters, and even adds some new ones. In Toy Story 2, Woody the cowboy gets his arm torn, and is shelved by his owner. Soon after which he is stolen during a yard sale, and the other toys set out to rescue him. These past two nights were the first time that I watched these two movies with my surround sound system, and got the full effect of the sound mixes. They were amazing. Pixar doesn’t just pay attention to the details in their animation and stories, but also their sound designs. Both movies did such a great job at making you experience the sounds the way the toys would. The sound mixers designed the sounds in such a way that everything sounds big, thus making you feel as small as a toy. There are numerous examples of this in the first movie, but I’ll keep it with Toy Story 2. The scene where the toys are trying to cross the street, hiding themselves in traffic cones is where the sound really gets a chance to show off. As the cars zoomed by, you can feel them rush by as if you’re down on the street, almost getting hit by them. Then there’s the large cylinder that falls off the truck, which sounds larger than anything. The sound mixers of the Toy Story movies are clearly masters of their craft, and can immerse you in the dangerous world of a toy.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Day 13: Simply Good Storytelling
Saturday, April 30, 2011
DAY 13, MOVIE 1:
Psycho (1960), directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This is one of the five greatest films ever made. This movie is proof that Alfred Hitchcock is the director who wrote the rulebook on filmmaking. In every scene there are numerous shots and lines of dialogue that have layers and layers of subtext. Most notable in my opinion is Marion Crane’s conversation with Norman Bates, as the two of them eat at the motel. Norman starts by talking the meal he made, and that he made it all for Marion, since he’s not hungry. Once she begins eating, he makes the famous remark “You eat like a bird.” This brings the conversation to the subject of birds, when Marion says “You would know,” referring to all the stuffed birds in the room. Norman then says he doesn’t know much about birds, but what he does know about is stuffing things, or taxidermy. After talking about taxidermy for a minute, Marion says “A man should have a hobby.” To which Norman responds by talking about what the purpose of hobby should be, “A hobby should pass the time, not fill it.” And Marion asks him “Is your time really that empty.” This now brings Norman to talk about all the errands he has to run during the day. And finally when Marion asks Norman if he has any friends, Norman starts talking about his relationship with his mother. The topics the two talk about are the meal, ornithology (study of birds), taxidermy, hobbies, errands, and relationships. And if you take the first letter of each of those topics, it spells M-O-T-H-E-R. If you’ve seen this film, then you know the significance that word holds.
DAY 13, MOVIE 2:
Toy Story (1995), directed by John Lasseter. After a long day at work, I just needed something light and short to watch. And the original Toy Story jumped right out at me from my shelf. As everyone knows, this is the movie that changed animation forever, being the first ever fully computer generated animation film. Even though this is the movie where 3D animation made its mark, looking back 16 years later, it’s amazing to see how far the technology has come. These older 3D animated movies always look better in your head than they actually are, when you haven’t seen them in a long time. The animation still looks as smooth as the day it was first shown, and the little details in the textures are still there (the work done on Mr. Potato Head impresses me the most. At first glance his surface looks completely smooth, but when you look closely you can see all the little engravings in him). But everything has this look to it as if Vaseline has been smeared all over everything. However, after the initial shock of seeing the animation from its early days, it doesn’t even matter. The story is so well told, that you completely forget that this was made in the mid-1990s. Toy Story is a timeless story with characters that have lived on for years after they were first introduced, and have even returned in two excellent sequels. Pixar really aimed to tell a story with state-of-the-art animation, instead of only showing off what they can do. The effort in the writing shows. This family film will live on for generations, and will never be outgrown.
DAY 13, MOVIE 1:
Psycho (1960), directed by Alfred Hitchcock. This is one of the five greatest films ever made. This movie is proof that Alfred Hitchcock is the director who wrote the rulebook on filmmaking. In every scene there are numerous shots and lines of dialogue that have layers and layers of subtext. Most notable in my opinion is Marion Crane’s conversation with Norman Bates, as the two of them eat at the motel. Norman starts by talking the meal he made, and that he made it all for Marion, since he’s not hungry. Once she begins eating, he makes the famous remark “You eat like a bird.” This brings the conversation to the subject of birds, when Marion says “You would know,” referring to all the stuffed birds in the room. Norman then says he doesn’t know much about birds, but what he does know about is stuffing things, or taxidermy. After talking about taxidermy for a minute, Marion says “A man should have a hobby.” To which Norman responds by talking about what the purpose of hobby should be, “A hobby should pass the time, not fill it.” And Marion asks him “Is your time really that empty.” This now brings Norman to talk about all the errands he has to run during the day. And finally when Marion asks Norman if he has any friends, Norman starts talking about his relationship with his mother. The topics the two talk about are the meal, ornithology (study of birds), taxidermy, hobbies, errands, and relationships. And if you take the first letter of each of those topics, it spells M-O-T-H-E-R. If you’ve seen this film, then you know the significance that word holds.
DAY 13, MOVIE 2:
Toy Story (1995), directed by John Lasseter. After a long day at work, I just needed something light and short to watch. And the original Toy Story jumped right out at me from my shelf. As everyone knows, this is the movie that changed animation forever, being the first ever fully computer generated animation film. Even though this is the movie where 3D animation made its mark, looking back 16 years later, it’s amazing to see how far the technology has come. These older 3D animated movies always look better in your head than they actually are, when you haven’t seen them in a long time. The animation still looks as smooth as the day it was first shown, and the little details in the textures are still there (the work done on Mr. Potato Head impresses me the most. At first glance his surface looks completely smooth, but when you look closely you can see all the little engravings in him). But everything has this look to it as if Vaseline has been smeared all over everything. However, after the initial shock of seeing the animation from its early days, it doesn’t even matter. The story is so well told, that you completely forget that this was made in the mid-1990s. Toy Story is a timeless story with characters that have lived on for years after they were first introduced, and have even returned in two excellent sequels. Pixar really aimed to tell a story with state-of-the-art animation, instead of only showing off what they can do. The effort in the writing shows. This family film will live on for generations, and will never be outgrown.
Friday, April 29, 2011
Day 12: A Brief Look Into Relationships
Friday, April 29, 2011
DAY 12, MOVIE 1:
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), directed by Wes Anderson. Every once in a while there comes a film that I didn’t really care for the first time I saw it, but as time went by I appreciated it more and more. The Royal Tenenbaums is one of those movies. The first time I saw it, I thought the premise was intriguing, but I thought the acting (with the exception of Gene Hackman) was rather stale. The movie is about three child prodigies, whose heydays have passed in their adult lives, and all move back home. Meanwhile, their estranged father tries to get back into their lives by pretending to have stomach cancer. Every time I watch this movie, I notice a little more in at least one of the performance. Little by little I understand why so many see this as Wes Anderson’s masterpiece. In one way or another, every character has been hurt by another character, and they all try so hard to let that hurt show on the surface. And then they all try to deal with that hurt in their own way, all on their own. The scene that resonates most with me is when Luke Wilson’s character attempts suicide by slitting his wrists. The scene is so magnificently performed, shot, and edited, that I can’t help but feel emotionally involved with the scene. The color scheme of the scene is much bluer and darker than the rest of movie, which has a lot of warm colors. So the sudden transition in the look adds the right amount of intensity. And when Luke Wilson says, “I’m going to kill myself tomorrow,” a reference to Louis Malle’s The Fire Within, it’s just heart wrenching. But the touch that always gets me is that brief montage before he slits his wrists. Those quick shots of his childhood, of his hawk freely flying away, and of the woman he loves shown right before he tries to take his own life are a beautiful display of looking into the mind of a broken man.
DAY 12, MOVIE 2:
The Social Network (2010), directed by David Fincher. You may want to get used to reading about this movie, because I’ll be watching it a lot during this year. Since I only just covered this movie yesterday, I’ll be brief this time. Tonight I watched this movie with a friend who hadn’t seen it before, and he loved it. He even pointed out a few of his own interpretations, which I found to be intriguing. Specifically the boat race scene set to the music of In the Hall of the Mountain King. I had always seen that sequence as metaphorically showing the twins’ relationship to Zuckerberg, and their pursuit of claiming the Facebook as their own, but I could never quite put my thoughts into the exact words I wanted. My friend summed it perfectly, saying “I see that scene as showing that they were losing from the start.” Another thing he pointed out was how the Zuckerberg and Sean Parker characters were different from each other, in that Zuckerberg has a conscience. During the club scene, Zuckerberg asks Parker if he ever thinks about the girl he loved in high school, and Parker simply says “no.” And then at the very end, we see Zuckerberg can not forget about the girl who dumped him at the beginning of the movie, and is sorry for the way he treated her. For those of you who have seen the movie, you know how David Fincher was able to perfectly show this visually, without saying a single word.
DAY 12, MOVIE 1:
The Royal Tenenbaums (2001), directed by Wes Anderson. Every once in a while there comes a film that I didn’t really care for the first time I saw it, but as time went by I appreciated it more and more. The Royal Tenenbaums is one of those movies. The first time I saw it, I thought the premise was intriguing, but I thought the acting (with the exception of Gene Hackman) was rather stale. The movie is about three child prodigies, whose heydays have passed in their adult lives, and all move back home. Meanwhile, their estranged father tries to get back into their lives by pretending to have stomach cancer. Every time I watch this movie, I notice a little more in at least one of the performance. Little by little I understand why so many see this as Wes Anderson’s masterpiece. In one way or another, every character has been hurt by another character, and they all try so hard to let that hurt show on the surface. And then they all try to deal with that hurt in their own way, all on their own. The scene that resonates most with me is when Luke Wilson’s character attempts suicide by slitting his wrists. The scene is so magnificently performed, shot, and edited, that I can’t help but feel emotionally involved with the scene. The color scheme of the scene is much bluer and darker than the rest of movie, which has a lot of warm colors. So the sudden transition in the look adds the right amount of intensity. And when Luke Wilson says, “I’m going to kill myself tomorrow,” a reference to Louis Malle’s The Fire Within, it’s just heart wrenching. But the touch that always gets me is that brief montage before he slits his wrists. Those quick shots of his childhood, of his hawk freely flying away, and of the woman he loves shown right before he tries to take his own life are a beautiful display of looking into the mind of a broken man.
DAY 12, MOVIE 2:
The Social Network (2010), directed by David Fincher. You may want to get used to reading about this movie, because I’ll be watching it a lot during this year. Since I only just covered this movie yesterday, I’ll be brief this time. Tonight I watched this movie with a friend who hadn’t seen it before, and he loved it. He even pointed out a few of his own interpretations, which I found to be intriguing. Specifically the boat race scene set to the music of In the Hall of the Mountain King. I had always seen that sequence as metaphorically showing the twins’ relationship to Zuckerberg, and their pursuit of claiming the Facebook as their own, but I could never quite put my thoughts into the exact words I wanted. My friend summed it perfectly, saying “I see that scene as showing that they were losing from the start.” Another thing he pointed out was how the Zuckerberg and Sean Parker characters were different from each other, in that Zuckerberg has a conscience. During the club scene, Zuckerberg asks Parker if he ever thinks about the girl he loved in high school, and Parker simply says “no.” And then at the very end, we see Zuckerberg can not forget about the girl who dumped him at the beginning of the movie, and is sorry for the way he treated her. For those of you who have seen the movie, you know how David Fincher was able to perfectly show this visually, without saying a single word.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Day 11: Modern Masterpieces
Thursday, April 28, 2011
DAY 11, MOVIE 1:
The Departed (2006), directed by Martin Scorsese. Oh, there is so much to say about this movie. This is yet another movie I have seen countless times. It’s one of my all-time favorite movies, in my top 50. It’s easily one of Scorsese’s five best films he’s ever made, I’m happy he finally won his much-deserved Oscar for this movie. I remember after I first saw this movie I was constantly raving about it. Every single actor does a great job with the material given. But I’d have to say Matt Damon is the standout in my eyes, as he plays the product of the mind of a criminal genius, who goes undercover in the Massachusetts state police. He plays the part perfectly, faking his allegiance to the police, but knowing his true loyalty is to crime boss Jack Nicholson. But the real star of The Departed is director Martin Scorsese. As always, he proves his mastery of the craft of film, balancing the two stories of the undercover cop, and the undercover mobster. Each shot in the movie is composed with great care; every frame is easy on the eye. I can play this whole movie in my head, the shots are that good. The soundtrack is also great; I don’t think Scorsese has any problem fitting in the music he likes into the movies he makes (he uses The Rolling Stones’ Gimme Shelter three times. Twice in the same scene even!). And as for the score: how was that score not nominated for an Oscar? It added the write amount of intensity and emotion to each scene, and those guitar notes will stay in your head for a long, long time. I have nothing but praise for this film. This one will stand the test of time.
DAY 11, MOVIE 2:
The Social Network (2010), directed by David Fincher. 2010 had a couple of really good movies. Although I wouldn’t place it at the top of my list, The Social Network may be the movie from 2010 which I’ve watched the most. There is a lot to love about this movie, but the highlight to me is Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as Mark Zuckerberg. In my opinion, Eisenberg got robbed at the Oscars. Out of the five nominees for best actor, none of them had to take on the task of bringing a character as complex as this to life. At first glance, his character my only be an interpretation of the real Mark Zuckerberg, but I don’t think that’s true. I don’t see his performance as a portrayal of Zuckerberg himself, but rather a reflection of Zuckerberg’s creation, and its effect on modern society: emotionally distant, isolated, and detached. Playing someone who is still alive is a major challenge for an actor, but I think Eisenberg, along with the filmmakers, made the right choice for him to play Zuckerberg in such a way that every audience member has their own interpretation of his personality.
DAY 11, MOVIE 1:
The Departed (2006), directed by Martin Scorsese. Oh, there is so much to say about this movie. This is yet another movie I have seen countless times. It’s one of my all-time favorite movies, in my top 50. It’s easily one of Scorsese’s five best films he’s ever made, I’m happy he finally won his much-deserved Oscar for this movie. I remember after I first saw this movie I was constantly raving about it. Every single actor does a great job with the material given. But I’d have to say Matt Damon is the standout in my eyes, as he plays the product of the mind of a criminal genius, who goes undercover in the Massachusetts state police. He plays the part perfectly, faking his allegiance to the police, but knowing his true loyalty is to crime boss Jack Nicholson. But the real star of The Departed is director Martin Scorsese. As always, he proves his mastery of the craft of film, balancing the two stories of the undercover cop, and the undercover mobster. Each shot in the movie is composed with great care; every frame is easy on the eye. I can play this whole movie in my head, the shots are that good. The soundtrack is also great; I don’t think Scorsese has any problem fitting in the music he likes into the movies he makes (he uses The Rolling Stones’ Gimme Shelter three times. Twice in the same scene even!). And as for the score: how was that score not nominated for an Oscar? It added the write amount of intensity and emotion to each scene, and those guitar notes will stay in your head for a long, long time. I have nothing but praise for this film. This one will stand the test of time.
DAY 11, MOVIE 2:
The Social Network (2010), directed by David Fincher. 2010 had a couple of really good movies. Although I wouldn’t place it at the top of my list, The Social Network may be the movie from 2010 which I’ve watched the most. There is a lot to love about this movie, but the highlight to me is Jesse Eisenberg’s performance as Mark Zuckerberg. In my opinion, Eisenberg got robbed at the Oscars. Out of the five nominees for best actor, none of them had to take on the task of bringing a character as complex as this to life. At first glance, his character my only be an interpretation of the real Mark Zuckerberg, but I don’t think that’s true. I don’t see his performance as a portrayal of Zuckerberg himself, but rather a reflection of Zuckerberg’s creation, and its effect on modern society: emotionally distant, isolated, and detached. Playing someone who is still alive is a major challenge for an actor, but I think Eisenberg, along with the filmmakers, made the right choice for him to play Zuckerberg in such a way that every audience member has their own interpretation of his personality.
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Day 10: The Year 1933
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
DAY 10, MOVIE 1:
Lady for a Day (1933), directed by Frank Capra. This was not Frank Capra’s best. Coming from the same man who gave us It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, You Can’t Take It with You, and It’s a Wonderful Life, I expected more from this movie. But I guess there’s a reason why Lady for a Day is never mentioned alongside the above classics. Lady for a Day isn’t bad, but it doesn’t hold up. I can tell Capra made a film that had high-class humor for back in the day, but it lacks the liveliness that was present in It Happened One Night and You Can’t Take It with You. If I had to sum up my thoughts of this movie in one sentence, I would say, “It’s a well made, but lifeless movie.”
DAY 10, MOVIE 2:
The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933), directed by Alexander Korda. Another best picture Oscar nominee from 1933, this one is about the last five marriages of King Henry VIII. I mostly associate Charles Laughton with much darker material. I first saw him in Mutiny on the Bounty as the cruel Captain Bligh, and I also know he directed The Night of the Hunter. So I was surprised that he was able to deliver an exuberant performance as Henry VIII, instead of the brooding morose character I was expecting. But much like Lady for a Day, this movie doesn’t hold up. Laughton’s performance is the only thing worthwhile in this movie. It’s nothing more than a well acted soap opera, and I recommend this only to fans of Charles Laughton who want to see his Oscar winning performance. I guess 1933 was just a weak year at the Oscars. Oh well.
DAY 10, MOVIE 1:
Lady for a Day (1933), directed by Frank Capra. This was not Frank Capra’s best. Coming from the same man who gave us It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town, You Can’t Take It with You, and It’s a Wonderful Life, I expected more from this movie. But I guess there’s a reason why Lady for a Day is never mentioned alongside the above classics. Lady for a Day isn’t bad, but it doesn’t hold up. I can tell Capra made a film that had high-class humor for back in the day, but it lacks the liveliness that was present in It Happened One Night and You Can’t Take It with You. If I had to sum up my thoughts of this movie in one sentence, I would say, “It’s a well made, but lifeless movie.”
DAY 10, MOVIE 2:
The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933), directed by Alexander Korda. Another best picture Oscar nominee from 1933, this one is about the last five marriages of King Henry VIII. I mostly associate Charles Laughton with much darker material. I first saw him in Mutiny on the Bounty as the cruel Captain Bligh, and I also know he directed The Night of the Hunter. So I was surprised that he was able to deliver an exuberant performance as Henry VIII, instead of the brooding morose character I was expecting. But much like Lady for a Day, this movie doesn’t hold up. Laughton’s performance is the only thing worthwhile in this movie. It’s nothing more than a well acted soap opera, and I recommend this only to fans of Charles Laughton who want to see his Oscar winning performance. I guess 1933 was just a weak year at the Oscars. Oh well.
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Day 9: Some Fine Acting
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
DAY 9, MOVIE 1:
The Dresser (1983), directed by Peter Yates. Here’s another movie I’ve wanted to see for a while, mainly because Empire Online called Albert Finney’s (one of my favorite actors) performance in this his best. And it was also directed by Peter Yates, who also did Bullitt and Breaking Away, two movies that I really enjoyed. The Dresser is about a Shakespearian actor who is having a nervous breakdown during a performance of King Lear, and his assistant who is trying to get him through the performance. I will agree with Empire that this was Albert Finney’s best performance, as the actor who is having a massive breakdown. But it was Tom Courtenay’s performance as the dresser, Finney’s assistant, who got my attention. Finney definitely had the showier role, but Courtenay had the daunting task of keeping up with him. Courtenay flawlessly matched Finney’s energy, always ready to take on the tiring task of getting him through whatever trouble he gets himself into. From getting him into the right makeup, helping him remember his lines, and even trying to convince him to be brave enough to go out on the stage and face the audience. Tom Courtenay brought a down-to-earth human edge to the story, along with the right amount of comic relief, without becoming a “funny” character. The story itself was rather simple though, but the two lead actors are reason enough to watch this film.
DAY 9, MOVIE 1:
The Dresser (1983), directed by Peter Yates. Here’s another movie I’ve wanted to see for a while, mainly because Empire Online called Albert Finney’s (one of my favorite actors) performance in this his best. And it was also directed by Peter Yates, who also did Bullitt and Breaking Away, two movies that I really enjoyed. The Dresser is about a Shakespearian actor who is having a nervous breakdown during a performance of King Lear, and his assistant who is trying to get him through the performance. I will agree with Empire that this was Albert Finney’s best performance, as the actor who is having a massive breakdown. But it was Tom Courtenay’s performance as the dresser, Finney’s assistant, who got my attention. Finney definitely had the showier role, but Courtenay had the daunting task of keeping up with him. Courtenay flawlessly matched Finney’s energy, always ready to take on the tiring task of getting him through whatever trouble he gets himself into. From getting him into the right makeup, helping him remember his lines, and even trying to convince him to be brave enough to go out on the stage and face the audience. Tom Courtenay brought a down-to-earth human edge to the story, along with the right amount of comic relief, without becoming a “funny” character. The story itself was rather simple though, but the two lead actors are reason enough to watch this film.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Day 8: A Most Thrilling Monday
Monday, April 25, 2011
DAY 8, MOVIE 1:
The Fugitive (1993), directed by Andrew Davis. This is a movie I’ve wanted to see for a while, friends have been recommending it to me for years, and I really wanted to see the performance that Tommy Lee Jones won his Oscar for. As far as action movies go, The Fugitive was really well thought out. Unlike so many other action movies, which are just noise and have faded out of memory, The Fugitive has stood the test of time thanks to a number of memorable scenes, and story that’s character driven, rather than plot driven. So many scenes, especially the escape sequence and the sewer chase, have been referenced and spoofed countless times, and for good reason. Director Andrew Davis clearly knew what he was doing; he set out to tell the story of a man on the run trying to prove his innocence. The thrills in this movie are real; Davis crafted each scene with the utter most care, relying on perfect setups and character interaction, instead of incoherent noise, chaotic editing, and cheap jokes. Every event in this movie spawned from the decisions that characters made, which made the action so much more thrilling to me. More recent action movies can take a lesson or two from The Fugitive.
DAY 8, MOVIE 2:
Scream 4 (2011), directed by Wes Craven. This might get a little complicated, so try to stay with me here. I am a fan of the Scream movies; have been ever since my brother showed me the first one when I was only about six or seven years old. They’re the perfect blend of comedy and horror, satire and suspense. The first one, as we all know, was genius, as it dissected the very clichés that made up the horror genre. And now with Scream 4 we have an equally genius horror movie that takes on remakes and reboots. I don’t want to talk too much about Scream 4. I think you’ll get the most fun out of it knowing as little as possible. But I will say that my expectations were exceeded. The plot is simple: Sidney Prescott returns to Woodsboro, and a new batch of murders arise. But of course it’s not the story or the killings we care about in a Scream movie, it’s the dialogue. I will be bold and call Scream 4 the Inception of horror movies. This is in the way that it was a sequel about people trying to be a reboot to the movie that this is a sequel to, with a movie within a movie within a movie. There are so many layers to this movie, but everything is part of the same story, and it is all perfectly balanced. Think of it like a Twizzler, with each strand being either a sequel or a reboot, and the two are twisted into one delicious treat! Wes Craven uses Scream’s trademark self aware dialogue to his advantage to create some great suspense. By using the pattern of the first movie, he makes us think we know what will happen, but then do something completely different at just the moment we don’t expect it. And at the same time as of all this twisted craziness, the characters even dissect the original movie as they live through this “reboot” of those events. It was brilliant, but more importantly it was fun. Scream 4 was good, smart, bloody fun. If you’re as much of a movie geek as I am, then please see this movie, you’ll love it!
DAY 8, MOVIE 1:
The Fugitive (1993), directed by Andrew Davis. This is a movie I’ve wanted to see for a while, friends have been recommending it to me for years, and I really wanted to see the performance that Tommy Lee Jones won his Oscar for. As far as action movies go, The Fugitive was really well thought out. Unlike so many other action movies, which are just noise and have faded out of memory, The Fugitive has stood the test of time thanks to a number of memorable scenes, and story that’s character driven, rather than plot driven. So many scenes, especially the escape sequence and the sewer chase, have been referenced and spoofed countless times, and for good reason. Director Andrew Davis clearly knew what he was doing; he set out to tell the story of a man on the run trying to prove his innocence. The thrills in this movie are real; Davis crafted each scene with the utter most care, relying on perfect setups and character interaction, instead of incoherent noise, chaotic editing, and cheap jokes. Every event in this movie spawned from the decisions that characters made, which made the action so much more thrilling to me. More recent action movies can take a lesson or two from The Fugitive.
DAY 8, MOVIE 2:
Scream 4 (2011), directed by Wes Craven. This might get a little complicated, so try to stay with me here. I am a fan of the Scream movies; have been ever since my brother showed me the first one when I was only about six or seven years old. They’re the perfect blend of comedy and horror, satire and suspense. The first one, as we all know, was genius, as it dissected the very clichés that made up the horror genre. And now with Scream 4 we have an equally genius horror movie that takes on remakes and reboots. I don’t want to talk too much about Scream 4. I think you’ll get the most fun out of it knowing as little as possible. But I will say that my expectations were exceeded. The plot is simple: Sidney Prescott returns to Woodsboro, and a new batch of murders arise. But of course it’s not the story or the killings we care about in a Scream movie, it’s the dialogue. I will be bold and call Scream 4 the Inception of horror movies. This is in the way that it was a sequel about people trying to be a reboot to the movie that this is a sequel to, with a movie within a movie within a movie. There are so many layers to this movie, but everything is part of the same story, and it is all perfectly balanced. Think of it like a Twizzler, with each strand being either a sequel or a reboot, and the two are twisted into one delicious treat! Wes Craven uses Scream’s trademark self aware dialogue to his advantage to create some great suspense. By using the pattern of the first movie, he makes us think we know what will happen, but then do something completely different at just the moment we don’t expect it. And at the same time as of all this twisted craziness, the characters even dissect the original movie as they live through this “reboot” of those events. It was brilliant, but more importantly it was fun. Scream 4 was good, smart, bloody fun. If you’re as much of a movie geek as I am, then please see this movie, you’ll love it!
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Day 7: Easter Sunday
Sunday, April 24, 2011
DAY 7, MOVIE 1:
The Informer (1935), directed by John Ford. The Informer is a movie I’ve been trying to get my hands on for a really long time. This is mostly because it’s the movie that won John Ford his first of four best director Oscars. The Informer takes place in 1922 Ireland, and is about a man, Gypo, who turns in his friend, Frankie, who is wanted for murder, for a 20 pound reward. The movie then follows Gypo as his conscience tears him apart. After the opening credits the Bible verse, “Then Judas repented himself – and cast down the thirty pieces of silver – and departed,” appears, setting up the theme of the movie: the effects of guilt. From the very start I could tell that this would be a very dark film, a tone that I don’t associate with John Ford at all. The use of shadow in many of the shots reminded me of German expressionism films from the same era. This movie had such a dark tone to it; I had a hard believing this was an American film from the 1930s. The sequence from the first act where Frankie tries to escape from the police, and is shot dead by the police in front of his mother, was probably the most chaotic scene I have ever seen from any movie from the 1930s. Pairing the sounds of gunfire and the screaming mother with the editing between Frankie, his mother, and the police make that scene a true accomplishment that still holds up today. That scene alone proves that even before he was the John Ford we know today, he still knew how to craft a story.
DAY 7, MOVIE 2:
The Passion of the Christ (2004), directed by Mel Gibson. I think this is a perfect opportunity for me to talk about how difficult it is sometimes to judge a movie that’s based on a true story, especially one as powerful as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. When reviewing a movie such as this one, there are many aspects to consider: for one there is the true story itself, and if the film did that story justice. Then there’s what the director intended the audience to experience with this story, the emotions he wants to convey, the message he wants to send, and how well he actually does that. As I said before, The Passion of the Christ is a very powerful story, one that has moved many to tears. What Gibson set out to do with this film is to show us exactly what Jesus went through in his final days and final hours, and he succeeds in that. This film is brutal, graphic, and unflinching, just the way it should be. This film goes all out to tell this story, and because of that, the reward for seeing this movie is great. I can’t help but think if Gibson had held back even the slightest bit, then the message of this movie would have lost its impact. This film takes us from Judas’ betrayal of Jesus all the way through the crucifixion, and even Jesus’ conquering of the grave at the end. Gibson spared no detail in showing what Christ did for us. With this movie each of us can witness a reenactment of the crucifixion unlike any other, and reflect on what the real thing means to us. This film accomplished exactly what it set out to do, and I have no problem with that.
DAY 7, MOVIE 1:
The Informer (1935), directed by John Ford. The Informer is a movie I’ve been trying to get my hands on for a really long time. This is mostly because it’s the movie that won John Ford his first of four best director Oscars. The Informer takes place in 1922 Ireland, and is about a man, Gypo, who turns in his friend, Frankie, who is wanted for murder, for a 20 pound reward. The movie then follows Gypo as his conscience tears him apart. After the opening credits the Bible verse, “Then Judas repented himself – and cast down the thirty pieces of silver – and departed,” appears, setting up the theme of the movie: the effects of guilt. From the very start I could tell that this would be a very dark film, a tone that I don’t associate with John Ford at all. The use of shadow in many of the shots reminded me of German expressionism films from the same era. This movie had such a dark tone to it; I had a hard believing this was an American film from the 1930s. The sequence from the first act where Frankie tries to escape from the police, and is shot dead by the police in front of his mother, was probably the most chaotic scene I have ever seen from any movie from the 1930s. Pairing the sounds of gunfire and the screaming mother with the editing between Frankie, his mother, and the police make that scene a true accomplishment that still holds up today. That scene alone proves that even before he was the John Ford we know today, he still knew how to craft a story.
DAY 7, MOVIE 2:
The Passion of the Christ (2004), directed by Mel Gibson. I think this is a perfect opportunity for me to talk about how difficult it is sometimes to judge a movie that’s based on a true story, especially one as powerful as the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. When reviewing a movie such as this one, there are many aspects to consider: for one there is the true story itself, and if the film did that story justice. Then there’s what the director intended the audience to experience with this story, the emotions he wants to convey, the message he wants to send, and how well he actually does that. As I said before, The Passion of the Christ is a very powerful story, one that has moved many to tears. What Gibson set out to do with this film is to show us exactly what Jesus went through in his final days and final hours, and he succeeds in that. This film is brutal, graphic, and unflinching, just the way it should be. This film goes all out to tell this story, and because of that, the reward for seeing this movie is great. I can’t help but think if Gibson had held back even the slightest bit, then the message of this movie would have lost its impact. This film takes us from Judas’ betrayal of Jesus all the way through the crucifixion, and even Jesus’ conquering of the grave at the end. Gibson spared no detail in showing what Christ did for us. With this movie each of us can witness a reenactment of the crucifixion unlike any other, and reflect on what the real thing means to us. This film accomplished exactly what it set out to do, and I have no problem with that.
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Day 6: A Little Bit of Art House Cinema
Saturday, April 23, 2011
DAY 6, MOVIE 1:
The Seventh Seal (1957), directed by Ingmar Bergman. A common misconception I think a lot of people make these days is that these black & white art films from the ‘50s are nothing more than weird images with no actual plot. But that couldn’t be further from the truth when talking about The Seventh Seal. This was my second time watching it, and is so far the only Bergman film I’ve seen. The setup is simple, a knight returning from the Crusades challenges Death to a game of chess. Through this simple premise, Bergman tells a story that looks into the struggling faith of the knight, and how his chess game effects those knows and meets over the course of the movie. This movie is beautiful, and in more ways than one. Like any great piece of art, The Seventh Seal is able to reflect the emotions of real life. I don’t know how Bergman did it, but he was able to touch upon nearly every aspect of faith in only 90 minutes; both the belief and disbelief in God, and the struggles that come with keeping those beliefs. I’m sure anyone who watches this movie will see themselves in one of the characters, or maybe even in various traits of different characters. The scene that spoke the most to me was when the knight asked Death what his secrets are, and Death simply said he has no secrets, he doesn’t know anything. Which is true, death itself doesn’t know anything, all it does take us whenever it is our time, no sooner and no later. And then there was that shot of the Dance of Death at the very end. That shot was breathtaking, and is one of my favorite images from any movie. I want to get a giant poster of that shot and hang it on my wall. It is just that beautiful.
DAY 6, MOVIE 2:
La Strada (1954), directed by Federico Fellini. This is the first Fellini I’ve ever watched, and from my understanding it was also the first of his movies to be an international success. So I guess I picked a good starting point for viewing his work. I had no clue what to expect from this movie, and I literally knew nothing about it before watching it. La Strada is about the travels of a young woman who is sold to brutish traveling entertainer, Zampanò. There weren’t many single scenes that jumped out at me, although the first time Zampanò performed his chain routine was captivating. And there weren’t any images that I think will be stuck in my mind for very long. But the character of Zampanò I think will always stay with me. Zampanò’s angry behavior reminded me of another Italian film from around the same era, Il Grido, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Both Zampanò and Aldo (from Il Grido) had trouble with their relationships with women. Zampanò couldn’t accept the love of the woman in his life, and always reacted in anger towards her. And Aldo was always emotionally distant from the women in his life; always moving on from one woman to the next. But what I liked about La Strada over Il Grido is that Fellini ended his movie with Zampanò having to live with his regrets, whereas Antonioni ended Il Grido with Aldo killing himself. I don’t think it takes any creativity to end a movie with the main character killing himself, I believe that’s taking the easy way out when a director doesn’t know how to end his movie. I find watching a character having to live with his decisions much more interesting, and I applaud Fellini for ending his film on the right note.
DAY 6, MOVIE 1:
The Seventh Seal (1957), directed by Ingmar Bergman. A common misconception I think a lot of people make these days is that these black & white art films from the ‘50s are nothing more than weird images with no actual plot. But that couldn’t be further from the truth when talking about The Seventh Seal. This was my second time watching it, and is so far the only Bergman film I’ve seen. The setup is simple, a knight returning from the Crusades challenges Death to a game of chess. Through this simple premise, Bergman tells a story that looks into the struggling faith of the knight, and how his chess game effects those knows and meets over the course of the movie. This movie is beautiful, and in more ways than one. Like any great piece of art, The Seventh Seal is able to reflect the emotions of real life. I don’t know how Bergman did it, but he was able to touch upon nearly every aspect of faith in only 90 minutes; both the belief and disbelief in God, and the struggles that come with keeping those beliefs. I’m sure anyone who watches this movie will see themselves in one of the characters, or maybe even in various traits of different characters. The scene that spoke the most to me was when the knight asked Death what his secrets are, and Death simply said he has no secrets, he doesn’t know anything. Which is true, death itself doesn’t know anything, all it does take us whenever it is our time, no sooner and no later. And then there was that shot of the Dance of Death at the very end. That shot was breathtaking, and is one of my favorite images from any movie. I want to get a giant poster of that shot and hang it on my wall. It is just that beautiful.
DAY 6, MOVIE 2:
La Strada (1954), directed by Federico Fellini. This is the first Fellini I’ve ever watched, and from my understanding it was also the first of his movies to be an international success. So I guess I picked a good starting point for viewing his work. I had no clue what to expect from this movie, and I literally knew nothing about it before watching it. La Strada is about the travels of a young woman who is sold to brutish traveling entertainer, Zampanò. There weren’t many single scenes that jumped out at me, although the first time Zampanò performed his chain routine was captivating. And there weren’t any images that I think will be stuck in my mind for very long. But the character of Zampanò I think will always stay with me. Zampanò’s angry behavior reminded me of another Italian film from around the same era, Il Grido, directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Both Zampanò and Aldo (from Il Grido) had trouble with their relationships with women. Zampanò couldn’t accept the love of the woman in his life, and always reacted in anger towards her. And Aldo was always emotionally distant from the women in his life; always moving on from one woman to the next. But what I liked about La Strada over Il Grido is that Fellini ended his movie with Zampanò having to live with his regrets, whereas Antonioni ended Il Grido with Aldo killing himself. I don’t think it takes any creativity to end a movie with the main character killing himself, I believe that’s taking the easy way out when a director doesn’t know how to end his movie. I find watching a character having to live with his decisions much more interesting, and I applaud Fellini for ending his film on the right note.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Day 5: Vincente Minnelli's Lust for Life
DAY 5, MOVIE 1:
Lust for Life (1956), directed by Vincente Minnelli. This is the first non-musical I’ve seen by Vincente Minnelli, so I was very interested to see how this turned out. I saw his films An American in Paris and Gigi, but thought they were extremely dated. Although the technical aspects of those films were up there, everything in the stories and acting lacked depth. Now I’ve seen a straight-up drama by Minnelli, a biography of Vincent Van Gogh (played by Kirk Douglas). And what did I think? Well, I really liked this movie. The set design and cinematography were gorgeous, but unlike the other Minnelli films I’ve seen, the appeal doesn’t stop at the visuals. Kirk Douglas gave a really good performance as Van Gogh. But it wasn’t the way he played Van Gogh that intrigued me, but rather the way he interacted with the supporting cast. Douglas truly embodied the spirit of an obsessed artist. Whenever Douglas spoke with other characters, you could see his passion for art, and how he wants to present his own paintings. The best scenes were those where Douglas interacted with Anthony Quinn, who played another artist. I loved how they portrayed two artists who respected each other, but both had their own opinions of what art should be. This was something that really rang true to me, as in my personal life I’m always debating with the people I know over how the art of film should be looked upon. Overall I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, and I’m glad that there is a Vincente Minnelli film out there that has a story with enough depth to support his visual style.
Lust for Life (1956), directed by Vincente Minnelli. This is the first non-musical I’ve seen by Vincente Minnelli, so I was very interested to see how this turned out. I saw his films An American in Paris and Gigi, but thought they were extremely dated. Although the technical aspects of those films were up there, everything in the stories and acting lacked depth. Now I’ve seen a straight-up drama by Minnelli, a biography of Vincent Van Gogh (played by Kirk Douglas). And what did I think? Well, I really liked this movie. The set design and cinematography were gorgeous, but unlike the other Minnelli films I’ve seen, the appeal doesn’t stop at the visuals. Kirk Douglas gave a really good performance as Van Gogh. But it wasn’t the way he played Van Gogh that intrigued me, but rather the way he interacted with the supporting cast. Douglas truly embodied the spirit of an obsessed artist. Whenever Douglas spoke with other characters, you could see his passion for art, and how he wants to present his own paintings. The best scenes were those where Douglas interacted with Anthony Quinn, who played another artist. I loved how they portrayed two artists who respected each other, but both had their own opinions of what art should be. This was something that really rang true to me, as in my personal life I’m always debating with the people I know over how the art of film should be looked upon. Overall I was pleasantly surprised by this movie, and I’m glad that there is a Vincente Minnelli film out there that has a story with enough depth to support his visual style.
Thursday, April 21, 2011
Day 4: Before the Devil Knows You're Red
Thursday, April 21, 2011
DAY 4, MOVIE 1:
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007), directed by Sidney Lumet. As you may know, director Sidney Lumet has recently passed away. He was one of my favorite directors, and has given us some truly great films in his lifetime. One of those great films was also his last, it is a smaller movie called Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, about two brothers who rob a jewelry store. I saw this movie when it first came out in theaters, and I’m glad I did. The story kept moving, and the acting was excellent all around (especially by Philip Seymour Hoffman). Once the movie starts, it doesn’t stop, the first 90 minutes literally only feel like 45. This is one of those movies really is better when you go in knowing very little about it. My feelings about this movie haven’t really changed over the years. I still think the story is engaging and the acting is top notch. My only complaint with the movie is the ending. Without giving it away, I felt the writer took the easy way out with the ending, especially considering everything that came before it. The ending wasn’t terrible, but it didn’t live up to its fullest potential. I thought the writer and director really wasted an opportunity with the final conversation between Hoffman and Albert Finney. I can’t help but think if they had taken the time to really go into what these characters were thinking, then this great movie could have become a modern classic. That’s unfortunate, but you shouldn’t let that keep you from seeing this movie.
DAY 4, MOVIE 2:
Red (2010), directed by Robert Schwentke. I like Bruce Willis action movies, and I like good action-comedies, but I feel this one doesn’t quite hit the mark. The premise itself is nothing new; a retired black-ops agent must reassemble his old team when their lives are threatened. But with the right director behind the camera, and the right chemistry between cast members can give these tired old premises a fresh energy. Red meets one of those two requirements. The cast is great. Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, and especially John Malkovich are all funny in their own separate ways, but they still all blend together nicely. However, the plot itself feels thrown together; there aren’t any plot twists here that I haven’t seen anywhere else. And the quality of the movie pays for that after all the main characters are introduced. Good chemistry between actors can only keep a movie flowing for so long before weakness of the plot causes the story to cave in on itself. This is a movie I wanted to really like, and I did enjoy it, but there isn’t anything in this movie to make me want to revisit it multiple times.
DAY 4, MOVIE 1:
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007), directed by Sidney Lumet. As you may know, director Sidney Lumet has recently passed away. He was one of my favorite directors, and has given us some truly great films in his lifetime. One of those great films was also his last, it is a smaller movie called Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead, about two brothers who rob a jewelry store. I saw this movie when it first came out in theaters, and I’m glad I did. The story kept moving, and the acting was excellent all around (especially by Philip Seymour Hoffman). Once the movie starts, it doesn’t stop, the first 90 minutes literally only feel like 45. This is one of those movies really is better when you go in knowing very little about it. My feelings about this movie haven’t really changed over the years. I still think the story is engaging and the acting is top notch. My only complaint with the movie is the ending. Without giving it away, I felt the writer took the easy way out with the ending, especially considering everything that came before it. The ending wasn’t terrible, but it didn’t live up to its fullest potential. I thought the writer and director really wasted an opportunity with the final conversation between Hoffman and Albert Finney. I can’t help but think if they had taken the time to really go into what these characters were thinking, then this great movie could have become a modern classic. That’s unfortunate, but you shouldn’t let that keep you from seeing this movie.
DAY 4, MOVIE 2:
Red (2010), directed by Robert Schwentke. I like Bruce Willis action movies, and I like good action-comedies, but I feel this one doesn’t quite hit the mark. The premise itself is nothing new; a retired black-ops agent must reassemble his old team when their lives are threatened. But with the right director behind the camera, and the right chemistry between cast members can give these tired old premises a fresh energy. Red meets one of those two requirements. The cast is great. Bruce Willis, Helen Mirren, Morgan Freeman, and especially John Malkovich are all funny in their own separate ways, but they still all blend together nicely. However, the plot itself feels thrown together; there aren’t any plot twists here that I haven’t seen anywhere else. And the quality of the movie pays for that after all the main characters are introduced. Good chemistry between actors can only keep a movie flowing for so long before weakness of the plot causes the story to cave in on itself. This is a movie I wanted to really like, and I did enjoy it, but there isn’t anything in this movie to make me want to revisit it multiple times.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Day 3: A Look at The Hurt Locker
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
DAY 3, MOVIE 1:
The Hurt Locker (2009), directed by Kathryn Bigelow. This is a movie I’ve seen a couple times, I remember I first saw it in theaters July 2009, and when it was over I thought to myself, “There won’t be a better movie all year.” In other words, I thought it was great. If a director can create suspense throughout a film, then chances are I’ll love it. And Bigelow gave us some sheer nail biting suspense in this movie, in addition to accurately portraying the extreme dangers that soldiers face every day. Though it’s not the thriller aspect that I remember right away whenever I talk about The Hurt Locker. It’s how it portrayed the “war is a drug” point of view that’s been talked about in past movies, but never actually shown to the fullest extent. I think this is because in previous war movies, home in the United States has always been established as normal and the war was shown as something out of the ordinary. While in The Hurt Locker, war is the normal everyday life for the characters, and as seen in the last minutes of the movie, back home in the States is what feels out of place. I will never forget that momentary confusion when the story shifts without warning from Iraq to the United States, how the tone switches from dangerous to mundane, and we as an audience are thrown into something completely different from everything prior. I admire The Hurt Locker for the masterful suspense it displays, but I respect the film for the emotional weight all that suspense adds to the ending.
DAY 3, MOVIE 1:
The Hurt Locker (2009), directed by Kathryn Bigelow. This is a movie I’ve seen a couple times, I remember I first saw it in theaters July 2009, and when it was over I thought to myself, “There won’t be a better movie all year.” In other words, I thought it was great. If a director can create suspense throughout a film, then chances are I’ll love it. And Bigelow gave us some sheer nail biting suspense in this movie, in addition to accurately portraying the extreme dangers that soldiers face every day. Though it’s not the thriller aspect that I remember right away whenever I talk about The Hurt Locker. It’s how it portrayed the “war is a drug” point of view that’s been talked about in past movies, but never actually shown to the fullest extent. I think this is because in previous war movies, home in the United States has always been established as normal and the war was shown as something out of the ordinary. While in The Hurt Locker, war is the normal everyday life for the characters, and as seen in the last minutes of the movie, back home in the States is what feels out of place. I will never forget that momentary confusion when the story shifts without warning from Iraq to the United States, how the tone switches from dangerous to mundane, and we as an audience are thrown into something completely different from everything prior. I admire The Hurt Locker for the masterful suspense it displays, but I respect the film for the emotional weight all that suspense adds to the ending.
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Day 2: Chaplin, Kubrick, and Tarantino
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
DAY 2, MOVIE 1:
City Lights (1931), directed by Charles Chaplin. This has been one of my favorite movies ever since I saw it about five years ago. It is simply a great story told through unforgettable scenes with the aid of a wonderful music score. Chaplin did a brave thing by keeping his film silent at the dawn of the talkie era. But I do believe City Lights was a success, and proved that great storytelling can beat new technology. The amount of great scenes in this movie is vast, everything works. It amazes me how even early on in the film medium’s lifetime directors were able to perfectly blend comedy and drama into one story. The two scenes that have resonated with me throughout the years are, of course, the boxing scene, which is a work of comedic genius. From when Chaplin begins by hiding behind the referee to when the bell rope gets caught around his neck, I think it’s safe to say it’s impossible not to love that scene. The other scene I love is the ending, which is something I think should always be brought up whenever someone talks about City Lights. It is a perfect ending, pulling off a rare feat that I think was most recently accomplished by Christopher Nolan’s Inception. The story itself is wrapped up, but at the same time the ending lets each audience member have their own interpretation of what happens after the screen goes to black.
DAY 2, MOVIE 2:
Full Metal Jacket (1987), directed by Stanley Kubrick. By one of my all-time favorite directors, Full Metal Jacket is a movie that I have seen countless times. I’ve watched it numerous times since I was first introduced to it in the 8th grade. I never get tired of it. I think this is one of Kubrick’s more underrated movies. Although the first half has been referenced and spoofed by other movies and TV shows hundreds of times, I feel the second half goes unappreciated. While everyone is quick to quote the first 45 minutes of the film, in which the Marines are going through basic training, they forget that the second half has just as much (if not more) to offer. It’s the second half that gave us the scene with the Vietnamese prostitute, set to the song “These Boots Are Made For Walkin.’” It’s the second half that gave us the short discussion of the duality of man (my personal favorite part of the film), sparked by a helmet sporting both the phrase “born to kill” and a peace symbol. The character Animal Mother is introduced in a back-and-forth conversation with Private Joker, a scene that deserves to be referenced as much as the basic training scenes. There’s also the tense showdown with an unseen sniper that takes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the film. And finally, there is closing scene in which the Marines chant the Mickey Mouse Club March. I actually enjoy all of these scenes much more than the basic training part of the film. While I do appreciate the first half for its depiction of the toughness experienced in basic training, and how it separates Full Metal Jacket from other Vietnam films, I feel everything after that is where Kubrick said what he wanted to say with this movie. Basic training shows how these men became killers; the second half shows what they do when they’re released into war. Like I said, the immense variety of sequences from second half have gone completely unappreciated over the years.
DAY 2, MOVIE 3:
Pulp Fiction (1994), directed by Quentin Tarantino. Another movie that I’ve seen countless times over the years, Pulp Fiction is one of those films that have probably had every single scene, line, and shot talked about to death at this point. I don’t know if there’s anything left to say about Pulp Fiction that hasn’t already been said by someone else. This is one of the greatest films ever made, and it did change the way movies (especially independent films) are made forever. The only thing I can talk about is whichever scene jumps out at me whenever I watch it. This time it was Christopher Walken’s performance. Not necessarily the dialogue he recited, but the way he delivered it. Although he was only onscreen for a couple of minutes, he really gave this role his all. He really sounds like someone who went into battle during the Vietnam War, and is still haunted by the things he saw. When he pauses during his story to look at that gold watch for just a few seconds, you can see in his eyes the horrors his character had gone through. I absolutely love those little character moments that seem like nothing big, but add great depth.
DAY 2, MOVIE 1:
City Lights (1931), directed by Charles Chaplin. This has been one of my favorite movies ever since I saw it about five years ago. It is simply a great story told through unforgettable scenes with the aid of a wonderful music score. Chaplin did a brave thing by keeping his film silent at the dawn of the talkie era. But I do believe City Lights was a success, and proved that great storytelling can beat new technology. The amount of great scenes in this movie is vast, everything works. It amazes me how even early on in the film medium’s lifetime directors were able to perfectly blend comedy and drama into one story. The two scenes that have resonated with me throughout the years are, of course, the boxing scene, which is a work of comedic genius. From when Chaplin begins by hiding behind the referee to when the bell rope gets caught around his neck, I think it’s safe to say it’s impossible not to love that scene. The other scene I love is the ending, which is something I think should always be brought up whenever someone talks about City Lights. It is a perfect ending, pulling off a rare feat that I think was most recently accomplished by Christopher Nolan’s Inception. The story itself is wrapped up, but at the same time the ending lets each audience member have their own interpretation of what happens after the screen goes to black.
DAY 2, MOVIE 2:
Full Metal Jacket (1987), directed by Stanley Kubrick. By one of my all-time favorite directors, Full Metal Jacket is a movie that I have seen countless times. I’ve watched it numerous times since I was first introduced to it in the 8th grade. I never get tired of it. I think this is one of Kubrick’s more underrated movies. Although the first half has been referenced and spoofed by other movies and TV shows hundreds of times, I feel the second half goes unappreciated. While everyone is quick to quote the first 45 minutes of the film, in which the Marines are going through basic training, they forget that the second half has just as much (if not more) to offer. It’s the second half that gave us the scene with the Vietnamese prostitute, set to the song “These Boots Are Made For Walkin.’” It’s the second half that gave us the short discussion of the duality of man (my personal favorite part of the film), sparked by a helmet sporting both the phrase “born to kill” and a peace symbol. The character Animal Mother is introduced in a back-and-forth conversation with Private Joker, a scene that deserves to be referenced as much as the basic training scenes. There’s also the tense showdown with an unseen sniper that takes up the last 20 or 30 minutes of the film. And finally, there is closing scene in which the Marines chant the Mickey Mouse Club March. I actually enjoy all of these scenes much more than the basic training part of the film. While I do appreciate the first half for its depiction of the toughness experienced in basic training, and how it separates Full Metal Jacket from other Vietnam films, I feel everything after that is where Kubrick said what he wanted to say with this movie. Basic training shows how these men became killers; the second half shows what they do when they’re released into war. Like I said, the immense variety of sequences from second half have gone completely unappreciated over the years.
DAY 2, MOVIE 3:
Pulp Fiction (1994), directed by Quentin Tarantino. Another movie that I’ve seen countless times over the years, Pulp Fiction is one of those films that have probably had every single scene, line, and shot talked about to death at this point. I don’t know if there’s anything left to say about Pulp Fiction that hasn’t already been said by someone else. This is one of the greatest films ever made, and it did change the way movies (especially independent films) are made forever. The only thing I can talk about is whichever scene jumps out at me whenever I watch it. This time it was Christopher Walken’s performance. Not necessarily the dialogue he recited, but the way he delivered it. Although he was only onscreen for a couple of minutes, he really gave this role his all. He really sounds like someone who went into battle during the Vietnam War, and is still haunted by the things he saw. When he pauses during his story to look at that gold watch for just a few seconds, you can see in his eyes the horrors his character had gone through. I absolutely love those little character moments that seem like nothing big, but add great depth.
Monday, April 18, 2011
My First Day
Monday, April 18, 2011
Hello, and welcome to “The Neverending Journey: One Man’s Life Through Film.” My name is Brandon, and I’m glad you’ve decided to join me in my constant appreciation of film. Every day I try to watch at least three movies, whether I’ve seen them before or not, and I’ve always wanted to share my thoughts of each movie I see with the world. With this blog I will be keeping track of every movie I watch from now on. With each movie I watch I will also report my opinion of it, as well as some thoughts that passed through my mind while watching. I don’t want to go into what the movie is about, you can go anywhere on the internet to find a plot synopsis of the movies I talk about. But this blog is the only place where you can find my opinions of these films, so that is what I would rather focus on. I try not to be heavy on spoilers, but that all depends on the movie I’m talking about, and which aspects of it I am covering. I don’t know what else to say here; as I am sure you will witness my personal tastes in film slowly be revealed to you throughout the course of this blog. So why don’t I get started with what I watched on my first day of The Neverending Journey!
DAY 1, MOVIE 1:
Badlands (1973), directed by Terrence Malick. This is my second time watching this movie. It’s interesting to see how Malick’s first movie is so much different from his later work (specifically Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, I still haven’t seen The New World). His other movies have such a peaceful and soothing tone to them, while Badlands is very harsh and brutal. This could be from the fact that the cinematography of Badlands is completely different from Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. While those two films have look like beautiful works of art that just pop off the screen, Badlands looks gritty and dirty, just like the two lead characters. This is definitely a movie where Malick focused more on the characters than the technique he used to tell the story. Badlands is very different from the rest of his work, but that’s why I like it. My favorite scene would have to be the climatic chase at the end in which Martin Sheen’s character seemingly gives up only because he felt like it. But my favorite thing from the whole movie is definitely the music. The score is oddly calming, something you would never hear in a movie like this these days. The only other movie I think of that has a score like Badlands is Tony Scott’s True Romance. It’s such a unique score, that I am actually glad that not very many movies use the same style of music as Badlands.
DAY 1, MOVIE 2:
Delicatessen (1991), directed by Marc Caro & Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Lately I’ve had a craving to watch French films, so I thought I’d give this one a try. This was my first time watching Delicatessen; I knew almost nothing about it before today. All I knew prior to watching it is that it was co-directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who also directed Alien: Resurrection and Amélie. So knowing this, naturally the first thing I looked at for Delicatessen was its visual style. The greens and yellows stay true to the style of Amélie, but the tone was much more surreal. The movie reminded me of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, another movie set in a sort of post-apocalyptic world. But when it was over, I thought Delicatessen was only an above average movie. It sure was interesting and entertaining, but none of the characters really grabbed my attention, or resonated with me. When Delicatessen ended, all that stayed with me was the first five minutes. The wordless opening scene in which a man tries to escape a building by disguising himself as garbage was extremely captivating. The images used, coupled with the sounds of knives traveling through air vents created a suspenseful scene with characters I didn’t even know yet. The opening credits where the names of the filmmakers appeared on pieces of garbage was equally fascinating. Although I liked the movie, it is a shame that the rest of it couldn’t live up to those opening minutes.
DAY 1, MOVIE 3:
The Remains of the Day (1993), directed by James Ivory. This is another movie that I’m watching for the first time, and also my second movie by James Ivory. The first of his I saw was Howards End, which I thought looked absolutely beautiful, but the story rarely engaged me. The Remains of the Day did even less for me. In this movie Anthony Hopkins plays an overly loyal butler, and the movie as a whole is as emotionless as Hopkins’ character. You can definitely find finer performances by Anthony Hopkins elsewhere. The film lacks passion, and feels like the director was only churning this out to capitalize on the awards success of Howards End, resulting in a very slow moving and uninvolving experience. Even the set design and cinematography were nowhere near as stunning as the technical aspects of Howards End. I thought The Remains of the Day was dull Oscar bait, and nothing more. I don’t think I’ll be revisiting this film any time soon, and I doubt I’ll even remember any of it in the morning.
So I think that about wraps it up for my first day. Film is my passion all my life, and becoming a director has been a dream of mine ever since I was about twelve years old. I believe the best way to learn how to make a great film is to immerse yourself in the greatest films ever made. I am always trying to find new and different movies to watch. I don’t care about the genre, I only care if the movie is good. And creativity is definitely a plus in my book. I am open to any suggestions, so feel free to recommend some movies you would like me to check out.
Hello, and welcome to “The Neverending Journey: One Man’s Life Through Film.” My name is Brandon, and I’m glad you’ve decided to join me in my constant appreciation of film. Every day I try to watch at least three movies, whether I’ve seen them before or not, and I’ve always wanted to share my thoughts of each movie I see with the world. With this blog I will be keeping track of every movie I watch from now on. With each movie I watch I will also report my opinion of it, as well as some thoughts that passed through my mind while watching. I don’t want to go into what the movie is about, you can go anywhere on the internet to find a plot synopsis of the movies I talk about. But this blog is the only place where you can find my opinions of these films, so that is what I would rather focus on. I try not to be heavy on spoilers, but that all depends on the movie I’m talking about, and which aspects of it I am covering. I don’t know what else to say here; as I am sure you will witness my personal tastes in film slowly be revealed to you throughout the course of this blog. So why don’t I get started with what I watched on my first day of The Neverending Journey!
DAY 1, MOVIE 1:
Badlands (1973), directed by Terrence Malick. This is my second time watching this movie. It’s interesting to see how Malick’s first movie is so much different from his later work (specifically Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line, I still haven’t seen The New World). His other movies have such a peaceful and soothing tone to them, while Badlands is very harsh and brutal. This could be from the fact that the cinematography of Badlands is completely different from Days of Heaven and The Thin Red Line. While those two films have look like beautiful works of art that just pop off the screen, Badlands looks gritty and dirty, just like the two lead characters. This is definitely a movie where Malick focused more on the characters than the technique he used to tell the story. Badlands is very different from the rest of his work, but that’s why I like it. My favorite scene would have to be the climatic chase at the end in which Martin Sheen’s character seemingly gives up only because he felt like it. But my favorite thing from the whole movie is definitely the music. The score is oddly calming, something you would never hear in a movie like this these days. The only other movie I think of that has a score like Badlands is Tony Scott’s True Romance. It’s such a unique score, that I am actually glad that not very many movies use the same style of music as Badlands.
DAY 1, MOVIE 2:
Delicatessen (1991), directed by Marc Caro & Jean-Pierre Jeunet. Lately I’ve had a craving to watch French films, so I thought I’d give this one a try. This was my first time watching Delicatessen; I knew almost nothing about it before today. All I knew prior to watching it is that it was co-directed by Jean-Pierre Jeunet, who also directed Alien: Resurrection and Amélie. So knowing this, naturally the first thing I looked at for Delicatessen was its visual style. The greens and yellows stay true to the style of Amélie, but the tone was much more surreal. The movie reminded me of Terry Gilliam’s Brazil, another movie set in a sort of post-apocalyptic world. But when it was over, I thought Delicatessen was only an above average movie. It sure was interesting and entertaining, but none of the characters really grabbed my attention, or resonated with me. When Delicatessen ended, all that stayed with me was the first five minutes. The wordless opening scene in which a man tries to escape a building by disguising himself as garbage was extremely captivating. The images used, coupled with the sounds of knives traveling through air vents created a suspenseful scene with characters I didn’t even know yet. The opening credits where the names of the filmmakers appeared on pieces of garbage was equally fascinating. Although I liked the movie, it is a shame that the rest of it couldn’t live up to those opening minutes.
DAY 1, MOVIE 3:
The Remains of the Day (1993), directed by James Ivory. This is another movie that I’m watching for the first time, and also my second movie by James Ivory. The first of his I saw was Howards End, which I thought looked absolutely beautiful, but the story rarely engaged me. The Remains of the Day did even less for me. In this movie Anthony Hopkins plays an overly loyal butler, and the movie as a whole is as emotionless as Hopkins’ character. You can definitely find finer performances by Anthony Hopkins elsewhere. The film lacks passion, and feels like the director was only churning this out to capitalize on the awards success of Howards End, resulting in a very slow moving and uninvolving experience. Even the set design and cinematography were nowhere near as stunning as the technical aspects of Howards End. I thought The Remains of the Day was dull Oscar bait, and nothing more. I don’t think I’ll be revisiting this film any time soon, and I doubt I’ll even remember any of it in the morning.
So I think that about wraps it up for my first day. Film is my passion all my life, and becoming a director has been a dream of mine ever since I was about twelve years old. I believe the best way to learn how to make a great film is to immerse yourself in the greatest films ever made. I am always trying to find new and different movies to watch. I don’t care about the genre, I only care if the movie is good. And creativity is definitely a plus in my book. I am open to any suggestions, so feel free to recommend some movies you would like me to check out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
