Monday, April 12, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Filler Movie Reviews
So I'm unemployed. Unemployed people have lots of time on their hands. And lots of time and a Netflix account means I watch a lot of movies. We're slowly making our way through the AFI list, but that only accounts for a few of the movies Nitsy sees, partly because there is only so much Betsy can take of silent and "classic" films, and she actually has a job, meaning less time.
I figured I have a degree in Cinema and opinions, I could spend a little time reviewing some of the movies we've and only I've been seeing. Some old, some new.
Bandslam!!! We originally saw this at the dollar theatre in Provo with Karl and Allie and loved it. In the summer of blockbusters this was majorly overlooked. Betsy put this at the top of the queue, despite already seeing it, and we ended up watching it again tonight. It's interesting, because it is almost a dumb Disney movie, (It's produced by Walden Media, a Disney entity), but it's not. It's better. There's story and character and really good music. So many times the story gets so close to being cliche, but then it pulls back and does its own thing. In fact, I would say at any point it was veering toward Disney Channel, the director turned it back toward indie film. With that route, it runs parallel to a Disney movie, never quite being it, but always in your mind you're expecting the movie to merge with it at some point. What keeps it so far away, I think, is the authenticity of the music. There is a real soundtrack, not watered down kid friendly music. The bands playing the concert are real indie bands, and they visit a real venue. (CBGB) Although, they had to make a mock stage for it, since it isn't there anymore. I'd like to think that this movie stands alone as great on its own merit, and not just a pleasant surprise.
A side note, I don't know who picked the photos for the movie poster, but the guy in the middle looks super weird. He's a little weird in the movie, but that's not a selling point. At least choose a picture where he doesn't look like he secretly has his hands down his pants behind these two girls.
The Omega Man - Charlton Heston, yeah! This was the second of 3 movies based on the book "I am Legend." The most recent starred Will Smith. The first one stars Vincent Price(and it's on the queue). This movie was so bad. But first I'll compare it to the Smith version. The Omega Man was made in the seventies and you can feel it, from the 8 Track Heston pushes into his stereo to the funky threads the black fro mama wears, this was a seventies movie. The most recent one wasn't so overtly hip to the time period it was made in, 2007. Cinematically it fits in. It's like an epic. But it's a thriller. It has Will Smith! Will Smith in an epic thriller! That could describe all of his films. It could even describe every Summer movie if you replace the actor's name. The Omega Man was not epic, nor was it a thriller. It started out that way, when it shows wide shots of Heston walking empty streets and driving crazily on the streets of LA. I didn't think the new one was that good, until I saw The Omega Man. I am Legend is almost genius filmmaking when compared.
Enough about Will Smith and his last man on Earth antics, back to Charlton Heston and his almost the last man on Earth antics, or lack thereof. In fact, there are indeed no Charlton Heston antics, except that he bangs a funky fro-wearing black mama. He's a smoothie, he takes her back to his last man on Earth bachelor pad and shows her what the last man on Earth feels like. And that's it, Heston has no awesome larger than life dialogue like, "Let my people go!" or "It's people. Soylent Green is people!" Nothing. He doesn't ever really tell the...I don't know what to call them, they aren't zombies, or vampires, they can kind of come out in light sometimes, but they wear sunglasses and robes....anyway, he kind of tells their leader off, saying they're barbarians, but he doesn't do it in the awesome Heston way. I think this was the kind of movie Charlton Heston wanted to get behind, imagine the scene where they pitched it to him, which was a perfect Heston vehicle.
"Charlton Heston....as the last man on Earth."
"I love it, when do we start?" he would have said.
"But Mr. Heston, don't you want to read the script?"
"No, I don't need to. But can we film it in LA? I'm sick of shooting on location."
"Sure thing, Mr Heston, we'll change the setting to LA."
Actually the book takes place in LA(so I'm told from Wikipedia), and most movies take place in either LA or NY anyway.
The ending is the same in this one as the new one. He gets the serum and passes it on then dies. But it's curious in this one. He doesn't actually sacrifice himself to save the others, but yet the last shot is of him sprayed out in a savior pose. While the new one, he does sacrifice himself, but there isn't that sacrificial pose. Heston really liked these dark sci-fi movies. He's always playing the broken sacrificial hero that either dies or the world kind of does. Will Smith could learn a thing or two from him about that.
I'll let you know how Vincent Price holds up in his version.
The Hangover - We waited two months for this! It was a "Long Wait," sitting atop our queue. I guess everyone in Orange County wanted to see this. I like to go into movies with a blank slate. I don't want low or high expectations to alter my thought process, I want to see only what's on the screen and not other's opinions or how long a wait must mean. And so with this....it was kinda funny. And these days kinda funny is a good thing in my book. It was better than "it was alright, I guess," but not quite as good as "it was pretty good." I think they took a simple movie with a simple plot and made it as good as they could. Zach what's his name is really funny. He plays a super weirdo, and that beard is awesome. I love Ed Helms, and he even sang a song. I was so happy that he did. Oh and the lady that plays his wife. She is hilarious. I don't really have a solid review for this, though. I think it road a fine line where it could have been just a stupid movie, and yet even though it was kind of a stupid movie, it was good. And the only reason it was good was because it was funny. So bravo, you did your thing. Your genre was comedy and you made a comedy. This wasn't high art, or any kind of art, except the basic meaning of what art is, so good job. A side note, one of the things I loath in this world is when people put sunglasses on babies, and despite them doing that with the movie poster, I still wasn't affected going into the viewing of this. Maybe it's because it isn't parents doing it to be cute, it's Zach what's his name doing it. It's funny if a weirdo puts sunglasses on a baby.
BTW, Betsy hated it.
Doubt!!!!! - I loved it. Betsy was upset that I saw it because she wanted to see it, too, but oh well, what am I supposed to do while she's at work?
I'll say it again, I loved it. For two big reasons; the acting and because it's set up like a stage play, maybe because it's based on a play. I didn't know too much about the premise of the film, except that it took place at a Catholic school and the main characters were Priests and Nuns. There was a lot of drama in the previews and trailers but they never said anything substantial, it was all just dramatic talking. It revolves around a suspected act of molestation, though, that term and the details are never spoken or laid out, they're just aluded to. I think barely getting into it made this film better. It took place in the 1960's decades before the church wide problem became a worldwide problem that seemed like an epidemic. It's like this was telling the first case, or the beginnings of it. So like with any beginning, you don't know what to call it or even how to completely identify it. This film had great layers, though, and because of that I may go back and watch it again(with Betsy). All three main characters are dealing with inner turmoil that barely seeps up, until the end when for just a minute Meryl Streep lets it out. A lot of that turmoil comes from these religious themes that sift through every scene. Questions arise and questions bring up doubts. But what are these doubts of? Even Streep's reveals her turmoil she doesn't go into detail, you're still left wondering what it actually is she's doubting.
I think because of that, you could walk away thinking this was an anti-religion film. I don't know what the writer's or director's motives were, but I don't think it is. Religion is a whole topic by itself, but I will say, doubt does play a role in faith, even in strong faith. Even when faith turns to knowing doubt is still around. This film is really just showing the roots of doubt. It's in turmoil and conflict and as good as it is sometimes, in questioning faith. Faith is meant to be tried, it's like a muscle. Doubt comes along when you're trudging up that mountain and for a second you like down and see how high up you are. It's how you react to doubt that matters. So, if this was an anti-religion movie, so be it, it made me a little wiser.
Kramer vs. Kramer - The best picture winner of 1979! Beating out the legendary Apocalypse Now. I love Netflix's watch instant and it's because they put on there these kinds of films. I would have been a while for me to get around to this otherwise. Probably when Betsy and I are watching all the Best Picture winners. It's interesting to think about movies that win Best Picture versus movies that AFI and other lists put as their top films. This year(1979) is a perfect example of this predicament. Apocalypse Now is pretty high on the AFI list. Kramer vs Kramer is not on the list. Why? Well, I think there are a few reasons. First, the AFI list is based partially on the notion that many of the classic films were landmark films, groundbreaking or influential. (i.e. The Jazz Singer(first talkie) The Birth of a Nation(influential war epic) Snow White (the first animated feature)) Second, many of the AFI films transcend their time period to be "cinematically epic." Citizen Kane is a cinematic epic. It's everything that "How Green Was My Valley" isn't. (How Green was My Valley was the Best Picture in 1941.)
Back to 1979. We live in a world where Kramer vs Kramer can indeed be the best picture for 1979, and still rank lower on the grand scheme of things than Apocalypse Now. I don't think there is anything wrong with this scenario. It's happened so much that it's almost just how it works. It's as if films are like so many other great art forms, they just aren't understood in their own time. Kramer vs Kramer had superb acting. That's it's main strong suit. It also was a great story for the time. It was "timely." The divorce rate was growing every year in this country and the problem of child rights was a big issue. But acting and timeliness don't always play a big part in a film being cinematically epic. Even if film is timely, like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," it still has to say something on an epic level. Rascism! Epic rascism!
Visitation rights. Decent child acting. Another great Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman performance.
Good things, but they don't deserve an exclamation point after them. Apocalypse Now just screams for an exclamation point.
Apocalypse Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
List of the films on the AFI Top 100 that did not win Best Picture. (Besides films made before the Academy, or during a year when another AFI film won)
Citizen Kane, The Jazz Singer, City Lights, The Grapes of Wrath, King Kong, The Third Man, Fantasia, The Philadelphia Story, The Maltese Falcon, Bringing Up Baby, Yankee Doodle Dandy(it pains me to put this here), Double Indemnity, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, Rebel Without a Cause, The Searchers, Vertigo, High Noon, Giant, 1967 - In the Heat of the Night won but isn't on the original AFI list, here are the other films that year higher on the AFI list; The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie & Clyde, Singin' in the Rain, 2001: A Space Odyssey, American Graffiti, Raging Bull, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Tootsie, ET(it pains me to put this on here, too, but more on that when we get further up the AFI list), Fargo
And from the revised list:
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The General, Sunrise, Sullivan's Travels, Swing Time, Sophie's Choice, Do The Right Thing, Blade Runner, Toy Story
The Princess and the Frog - Why isn't this called the Frog Princess? Because Disney didn't want to seem rascist. That's right, Disney unveiled their first African-American princess. That's right, a BAP. Have black women ever been associated with frogs? I can't recall, but since companies these days like to be as PC as possible, they didn't want to take any chances. But the thing about this movie, and a lot of Disney cartoons is that they tread that line between stereotype and fact. Anytime a Disney cartoon has a setting or a time period it is going to be stereotypical. Beauty and the Beast was in France, so of course there are lots of French-isms. Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were in Medieval Europe, but there weren't any peasants or diseases in those movies, just princes in shining armor, dragons and witches....exactly what the middle ages was really like.
This movie takes place in New Orleans, so of course everything is jazz this and gumbo that. The white folk are super polite and friendly and the black folk are super polite and friendly. And then there's voodoo magic. Gotta love Disney, there is always magic around, good and bad, and it is real. No wonder the Southern Baptists boycotted Disney. Every film has some kind of hokus pokus!
They really tried hard on this film. Really hard. They wanted it to be like all the Disney classics, and they actually did a pretty good job. I think the one thing that separates a good Disney film from a bad one is anachronisms. That's when something is chronologically out of place. I would also say culturally out of place. When there are anachronisms the film is bad...i.e. How the Emperor Got His Groove Back. Compared to a good film with no anachronisms...i.e. Bambi. Everything in Bambi fits into the world they created. The animals don't mention things outside of their forest world, they don't know about future cultural references and there is nothing out of place in the world around them. The Emperor's Groove on the other hand is nothing but cultural misplacings. Nothing in the movie fits with ancient Chilean culture. They make references to our day, the characters speak with nuisances not of their culture. "But the Emperor's Groove Thing was funny," you might say. And I would say, "No. No it wasn't." When Disney or any other cartoon maker uses anachronism it is cheating. They are bending the rules for a cheap laugh. Another case in point....Shark Tale. A DreamWorks film. Filled with anachronisms. They created a whole underwater world that errily seems like our world. For instance on the sidewalk of this underwater city there are fire hydrants. Why are there fire hydrants on the sidewalk underwater, let alone sidewalks when fish don't walk, they swim? To make us giggle. "Ha, ha, fire hydrants, what were they thinking?" Cheating! There is no logic in there being fire hydrants or even sidewalks. If, in fact, fish built an underwater city wouldn't it benefit them to build it to their own specifications? Films that can't even build on basic logic don't have the capacity to build a story worth watching. Compare it to another underwater film.....Finding Nemo. There are a few close calls here, but nothing of the magnitude like Shark Tale or another atrocity of animation "Cars." In Finding Nemo there is a whole underwater culture that almost mirrors our culture, but makes it their own. There is a school, but not some schoolhouse that looks like ours. They have families, and surfer turtles, but the turtles are still turtles and they ride currents like they're waves. It fits! So from the basic logic of the world, which they stick to, comes a great story and thus a great movie. They built on the logic and kept true to it. Finding Nemo doesn't need to bend the rules to make a joke, they write good jokes and build them into the story. Like when the bomb explodes underwater and on the surface it appears like a fart. Hilarious! The one exception to the rule is Aladdin. The genie spouts off dozens upon dozens of anachronisms, but we let it pass because he's the genie and he's probably been to the future. And his anachronisms don't effect the world in any way or any other characters.
Now back to The Princess and the Frog. It was alright, I guess.
Up - I've been ranting so much I hardly feel the energy to dive into this movie. But I'm pretty passionate about it, so I'll muster the energy and go for it. The movie was stupid. And whoever was involved in the making of it are thieves and scoundrels. They stole our tears and forced the world to believe this was good. I even kind of cried a little. And I didn't even like it! These bastards, how could they do that? I'll tell you how, by making us(and the critics of America) believe that sentimentality makes a movie good. Can I remind everyone what happened in the first half hour of this film. It's a re-hash of this old man's life with his wife. And it's so sad. So, so, so sad. And then he gets this wild idea to fly away to some made up magical land that he gets to in one night. And how does he get there? Tying a thousand balloons to his house!
Let's dissect the film and see if it's still up to snuff. Let's take away the first weepy half hour and look at the plot all by itself. An elderly man flies his house to a magical land and once there finds a mythical bird that is hunted by dogs who can talk. Then his childhood hero, who controls the dogs chases after him. Basically, the whole movie is the old man and his kid friend running here and there and everywhere avoiding danger. Does that sound like a good movie? The Indiana Jones sequels had better plots and are completely overlooked. In fact, this movie kind of fits into the Indiana Jones story arc. The first half hour Indiana is at home or some random location. He stumbles upon something, then for the rest of the movie he's running around. So the plot itself of "Up" is not complex or even that interesting, try and argue that point at all. Just try. So that leaves us with the other part of the movie to stand on. The sentimentality.
Now, I'm not a complete robot, I can cry at movies. I love "It's a Wonderful Life." The last time I saw it this last Christmas I was bawling like a girl. "Rocky," another good example, I didn't cry, but I was so choked up at the end when all he wants is Adrianne. I even had to hold back tears for "Miracle" the Olympic hockey movie, and I only saw the last half hour. And what is the same with these movies? The sentimentality is built into the movie. I'll repeat the important word in that sentence....into. The American's don't win the gold medal at the beginning! They win it at the end AFTER all the hard work. You want to cry at the END of Rocky because he got his shot and now he's in the spotlight and everybody is all around him, but all he ever wanted was Adrianne, and they love each other. You get that from watching the whole movie!
Up screwed with us. Pixar reached into our little hearts and forced us to cry. That's right, but putting the sentimentality up front, they tricked us into thinking the whole movie was good, when in fact the plot was absent, their imagination took a break and the movie was utter crap.
I will never watch this movie again. I don't like being forced to feel a certain way. Yeah, I am a little bit of a robot. I didn't cry during Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire. Does that make me a monster like Monique? No, it just means I don't cry easily. So when a film makes me teary eyed from the opening credits I open my eyes a little bit and really see what's being presented before me. My eyes were open during "Up." I saw what was going on. Everyone else is just crying sheep and Pixar pulled the wool over your eyes.
Whew! I got through that one. My blood is boiling now. I could almost go ahead and do a review of Cars, the other Pixar film I'll never watch again. But I'll save that for later.
I figured I have a degree in Cinema and opinions, I could spend a little time reviewing some of the movies we've and only I've been seeing. Some old, some new.
Bandslam!!! We originally saw this at the dollar theatre in Provo with Karl and Allie and loved it. In the summer of blockbusters this was majorly overlooked. Betsy put this at the top of the queue, despite already seeing it, and we ended up watching it again tonight. It's interesting, because it is almost a dumb Disney movie, (It's produced by Walden Media, a Disney entity), but it's not. It's better. There's story and character and really good music. So many times the story gets so close to being cliche, but then it pulls back and does its own thing. In fact, I would say at any point it was veering toward Disney Channel, the director turned it back toward indie film. With that route, it runs parallel to a Disney movie, never quite being it, but always in your mind you're expecting the movie to merge with it at some point. What keeps it so far away, I think, is the authenticity of the music. There is a real soundtrack, not watered down kid friendly music. The bands playing the concert are real indie bands, and they visit a real venue. (CBGB) Although, they had to make a mock stage for it, since it isn't there anymore. I'd like to think that this movie stands alone as great on its own merit, and not just a pleasant surprise.A side note, I don't know who picked the photos for the movie poster, but the guy in the middle looks super weird. He's a little weird in the movie, but that's not a selling point. At least choose a picture where he doesn't look like he secretly has his hands down his pants behind these two girls.
The Omega Man - Charlton Heston, yeah! This was the second of 3 movies based on the book "I am Legend." The most recent starred Will Smith. The first one stars Vincent Price(and it's on the queue). This movie was so bad. But first I'll compare it to the Smith version. The Omega Man was made in the seventies and you can feel it, from the 8 Track Heston pushes into his stereo to the funky threads the black fro mama wears, this was a seventies movie. The most recent one wasn't so overtly hip to the time period it was made in, 2007. Cinematically it fits in. It's like an epic. But it's a thriller. It has Will Smith! Will Smith in an epic thriller! That could describe all of his films. It could even describe every Summer movie if you replace the actor's name. The Omega Man was not epic, nor was it a thriller. It started out that way, when it shows wide shots of Heston walking empty streets and driving crazily on the streets of LA. I didn't think the new one was that good, until I saw The Omega Man. I am Legend is almost genius filmmaking when compared.Enough about Will Smith and his last man on Earth antics, back to Charlton Heston and his almost the last man on Earth antics, or lack thereof. In fact, there are indeed no Charlton Heston antics, except that he bangs a funky fro-wearing black mama. He's a smoothie, he takes her back to his last man on Earth bachelor pad and shows her what the last man on Earth feels like. And that's it, Heston has no awesome larger than life dialogue like, "Let my people go!" or "It's people. Soylent Green is people!" Nothing. He doesn't ever really tell the...I don't know what to call them, they aren't zombies, or vampires, they can kind of come out in light sometimes, but they wear sunglasses and robes....anyway, he kind of tells their leader off, saying they're barbarians, but he doesn't do it in the awesome Heston way. I think this was the kind of movie Charlton Heston wanted to get behind, imagine the scene where they pitched it to him, which was a perfect Heston vehicle.
"Charlton Heston....as the last man on Earth."
"I love it, when do we start?" he would have said.
"But Mr. Heston, don't you want to read the script?"
"No, I don't need to. But can we film it in LA? I'm sick of shooting on location."
"Sure thing, Mr Heston, we'll change the setting to LA."
Actually the book takes place in LA(so I'm told from Wikipedia), and most movies take place in either LA or NY anyway.
The ending is the same in this one as the new one. He gets the serum and passes it on then dies. But it's curious in this one. He doesn't actually sacrifice himself to save the others, but yet the last shot is of him sprayed out in a savior pose. While the new one, he does sacrifice himself, but there isn't that sacrificial pose. Heston really liked these dark sci-fi movies. He's always playing the broken sacrificial hero that either dies or the world kind of does. Will Smith could learn a thing or two from him about that.
I'll let you know how Vincent Price holds up in his version.
The Hangover - We waited two months for this! It was a "Long Wait," sitting atop our queue. I guess everyone in Orange County wanted to see this. I like to go into movies with a blank slate. I don't want low or high expectations to alter my thought process, I want to see only what's on the screen and not other's opinions or how long a wait must mean. And so with this....it was kinda funny. And these days kinda funny is a good thing in my book. It was better than "it was alright, I guess," but not quite as good as "it was pretty good." I think they took a simple movie with a simple plot and made it as good as they could. Zach what's his name is really funny. He plays a super weirdo, and that beard is awesome. I love Ed Helms, and he even sang a song. I was so happy that he did. Oh and the lady that plays his wife. She is hilarious. I don't really have a solid review for this, though. I think it road a fine line where it could have been just a stupid movie, and yet even though it was kind of a stupid movie, it was good. And the only reason it was good was because it was funny. So bravo, you did your thing. Your genre was comedy and you made a comedy. This wasn't high art, or any kind of art, except the basic meaning of what art is, so good job. A side note, one of the things I loath in this world is when people put sunglasses on babies, and despite them doing that with the movie poster, I still wasn't affected going into the viewing of this. Maybe it's because it isn't parents doing it to be cute, it's Zach what's his name doing it. It's funny if a weirdo puts sunglasses on a baby.BTW, Betsy hated it.
Doubt!!!!! - I loved it. Betsy was upset that I saw it because she wanted to see it, too, but oh well, what am I supposed to do while she's at work?I'll say it again, I loved it. For two big reasons; the acting and because it's set up like a stage play, maybe because it's based on a play. I didn't know too much about the premise of the film, except that it took place at a Catholic school and the main characters were Priests and Nuns. There was a lot of drama in the previews and trailers but they never said anything substantial, it was all just dramatic talking. It revolves around a suspected act of molestation, though, that term and the details are never spoken or laid out, they're just aluded to. I think barely getting into it made this film better. It took place in the 1960's decades before the church wide problem became a worldwide problem that seemed like an epidemic. It's like this was telling the first case, or the beginnings of it. So like with any beginning, you don't know what to call it or even how to completely identify it. This film had great layers, though, and because of that I may go back and watch it again(with Betsy). All three main characters are dealing with inner turmoil that barely seeps up, until the end when for just a minute Meryl Streep lets it out. A lot of that turmoil comes from these religious themes that sift through every scene. Questions arise and questions bring up doubts. But what are these doubts of? Even Streep's reveals her turmoil she doesn't go into detail, you're still left wondering what it actually is she's doubting.
I think because of that, you could walk away thinking this was an anti-religion film. I don't know what the writer's or director's motives were, but I don't think it is. Religion is a whole topic by itself, but I will say, doubt does play a role in faith, even in strong faith. Even when faith turns to knowing doubt is still around. This film is really just showing the roots of doubt. It's in turmoil and conflict and as good as it is sometimes, in questioning faith. Faith is meant to be tried, it's like a muscle. Doubt comes along when you're trudging up that mountain and for a second you like down and see how high up you are. It's how you react to doubt that matters. So, if this was an anti-religion movie, so be it, it made me a little wiser.
Kramer vs. Kramer - The best picture winner of 1979! Beating out the legendary Apocalypse Now. I love Netflix's watch instant and it's because they put on there these kinds of films. I would have been a while for me to get around to this otherwise. Probably when Betsy and I are watching all the Best Picture winners. It's interesting to think about movies that win Best Picture versus movies that AFI and other lists put as their top films. This year(1979) is a perfect example of this predicament. Apocalypse Now is pretty high on the AFI list. Kramer vs Kramer is not on the list. Why? Well, I think there are a few reasons. First, the AFI list is based partially on the notion that many of the classic films were landmark films, groundbreaking or influential. (i.e. The Jazz Singer(first talkie) The Birth of a Nation(influential war epic) Snow White (the first animated feature)) Second, many of the AFI films transcend their time period to be "cinematically epic." Citizen Kane is a cinematic epic. It's everything that "How Green Was My Valley" isn't. (How Green was My Valley was the Best Picture in 1941.)Back to 1979. We live in a world where Kramer vs Kramer can indeed be the best picture for 1979, and still rank lower on the grand scheme of things than Apocalypse Now. I don't think there is anything wrong with this scenario. It's happened so much that it's almost just how it works. It's as if films are like so many other great art forms, they just aren't understood in their own time. Kramer vs Kramer had superb acting. That's it's main strong suit. It also was a great story for the time. It was "timely." The divorce rate was growing every year in this country and the problem of child rights was a big issue. But acting and timeliness don't always play a big part in a film being cinematically epic. Even if film is timely, like "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner," it still has to say something on an epic level. Rascism! Epic rascism!
Visitation rights. Decent child acting. Another great Meryl Streep and Dustin Hoffman performance.
Good things, but they don't deserve an exclamation point after them. Apocalypse Now just screams for an exclamation point.
Apocalypse Now!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
List of the films on the AFI Top 100 that did not win Best Picture. (Besides films made before the Academy, or during a year when another AFI film won)
Citizen Kane, The Jazz Singer, City Lights, The Grapes of Wrath, King Kong, The Third Man, Fantasia, The Philadelphia Story, The Maltese Falcon, Bringing Up Baby, Yankee Doodle Dandy(it pains me to put this here), Double Indemnity, The Treasure of Sierra Madre, Rebel Without a Cause, The Searchers, Vertigo, High Noon, Giant, 1967 - In the Heat of the Night won but isn't on the original AFI list, here are the other films that year higher on the AFI list; The Graduate, Guess Who's Coming to Dinner, Bonnie & Clyde, Singin' in the Rain, 2001: A Space Odyssey, American Graffiti, Raging Bull, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Tootsie, ET(it pains me to put this on here, too, but more on that when we get further up the AFI list), Fargo
And from the revised list:
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?, The General, Sunrise, Sullivan's Travels, Swing Time, Sophie's Choice, Do The Right Thing, Blade Runner, Toy Story
The Princess and the Frog - Why isn't this called the Frog Princess? Because Disney didn't want to seem rascist. That's right, Disney unveiled their first African-American princess. That's right, a BAP. Have black women ever been associated with frogs? I can't recall, but since companies these days like to be as PC as possible, they didn't want to take any chances. But the thing about this movie, and a lot of Disney cartoons is that they tread that line between stereotype and fact. Anytime a Disney cartoon has a setting or a time period it is going to be stereotypical. Beauty and the Beast was in France, so of course there are lots of French-isms. Sleeping Beauty and Cinderella were in Medieval Europe, but there weren't any peasants or diseases in those movies, just princes in shining armor, dragons and witches....exactly what the middle ages was really like.This movie takes place in New Orleans, so of course everything is jazz this and gumbo that. The white folk are super polite and friendly and the black folk are super polite and friendly. And then there's voodoo magic. Gotta love Disney, there is always magic around, good and bad, and it is real. No wonder the Southern Baptists boycotted Disney. Every film has some kind of hokus pokus!
They really tried hard on this film. Really hard. They wanted it to be like all the Disney classics, and they actually did a pretty good job. I think the one thing that separates a good Disney film from a bad one is anachronisms. That's when something is chronologically out of place. I would also say culturally out of place. When there are anachronisms the film is bad...i.e. How the Emperor Got His Groove Back. Compared to a good film with no anachronisms...i.e. Bambi. Everything in Bambi fits into the world they created. The animals don't mention things outside of their forest world, they don't know about future cultural references and there is nothing out of place in the world around them. The Emperor's Groove on the other hand is nothing but cultural misplacings. Nothing in the movie fits with ancient Chilean culture. They make references to our day, the characters speak with nuisances not of their culture. "But the Emperor's Groove Thing was funny," you might say. And I would say, "No. No it wasn't." When Disney or any other cartoon maker uses anachronism it is cheating. They are bending the rules for a cheap laugh. Another case in point....Shark Tale. A DreamWorks film. Filled with anachronisms. They created a whole underwater world that errily seems like our world. For instance on the sidewalk of this underwater city there are fire hydrants. Why are there fire hydrants on the sidewalk underwater, let alone sidewalks when fish don't walk, they swim? To make us giggle. "Ha, ha, fire hydrants, what were they thinking?" Cheating! There is no logic in there being fire hydrants or even sidewalks. If, in fact, fish built an underwater city wouldn't it benefit them to build it to their own specifications? Films that can't even build on basic logic don't have the capacity to build a story worth watching. Compare it to another underwater film.....Finding Nemo. There are a few close calls here, but nothing of the magnitude like Shark Tale or another atrocity of animation "Cars." In Finding Nemo there is a whole underwater culture that almost mirrors our culture, but makes it their own. There is a school, but not some schoolhouse that looks like ours. They have families, and surfer turtles, but the turtles are still turtles and they ride currents like they're waves. It fits! So from the basic logic of the world, which they stick to, comes a great story and thus a great movie. They built on the logic and kept true to it. Finding Nemo doesn't need to bend the rules to make a joke, they write good jokes and build them into the story. Like when the bomb explodes underwater and on the surface it appears like a fart. Hilarious! The one exception to the rule is Aladdin. The genie spouts off dozens upon dozens of anachronisms, but we let it pass because he's the genie and he's probably been to the future. And his anachronisms don't effect the world in any way or any other characters.
Now back to The Princess and the Frog. It was alright, I guess.
Up - I've been ranting so much I hardly feel the energy to dive into this movie. But I'm pretty passionate about it, so I'll muster the energy and go for it. The movie was stupid. And whoever was involved in the making of it are thieves and scoundrels. They stole our tears and forced the world to believe this was good. I even kind of cried a little. And I didn't even like it! These bastards, how could they do that? I'll tell you how, by making us(and the critics of America) believe that sentimentality makes a movie good. Can I remind everyone what happened in the first half hour of this film. It's a re-hash of this old man's life with his wife. And it's so sad. So, so, so sad. And then he gets this wild idea to fly away to some made up magical land that he gets to in one night. And how does he get there? Tying a thousand balloons to his house!Let's dissect the film and see if it's still up to snuff. Let's take away the first weepy half hour and look at the plot all by itself. An elderly man flies his house to a magical land and once there finds a mythical bird that is hunted by dogs who can talk. Then his childhood hero, who controls the dogs chases after him. Basically, the whole movie is the old man and his kid friend running here and there and everywhere avoiding danger. Does that sound like a good movie? The Indiana Jones sequels had better plots and are completely overlooked. In fact, this movie kind of fits into the Indiana Jones story arc. The first half hour Indiana is at home or some random location. He stumbles upon something, then for the rest of the movie he's running around. So the plot itself of "Up" is not complex or even that interesting, try and argue that point at all. Just try. So that leaves us with the other part of the movie to stand on. The sentimentality.
Now, I'm not a complete robot, I can cry at movies. I love "It's a Wonderful Life." The last time I saw it this last Christmas I was bawling like a girl. "Rocky," another good example, I didn't cry, but I was so choked up at the end when all he wants is Adrianne. I even had to hold back tears for "Miracle" the Olympic hockey movie, and I only saw the last half hour. And what is the same with these movies? The sentimentality is built into the movie. I'll repeat the important word in that sentence....into. The American's don't win the gold medal at the beginning! They win it at the end AFTER all the hard work. You want to cry at the END of Rocky because he got his shot and now he's in the spotlight and everybody is all around him, but all he ever wanted was Adrianne, and they love each other. You get that from watching the whole movie!
Up screwed with us. Pixar reached into our little hearts and forced us to cry. That's right, but putting the sentimentality up front, they tricked us into thinking the whole movie was good, when in fact the plot was absent, their imagination took a break and the movie was utter crap.
I will never watch this movie again. I don't like being forced to feel a certain way. Yeah, I am a little bit of a robot. I didn't cry during Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire. Does that make me a monster like Monique? No, it just means I don't cry easily. So when a film makes me teary eyed from the opening credits I open my eyes a little bit and really see what's being presented before me. My eyes were open during "Up." I saw what was going on. Everyone else is just crying sheep and Pixar pulled the wool over your eyes.
Whew! I got through that one. My blood is boiling now. I could almost go ahead and do a review of Cars, the other Pixar film I'll never watch again. But I'll save that for later.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
AFI Top 100 (2nd 10)
This was an exciting set of movies to watch. They spanned a lot of ground from silent, to the first talkie to one of the newest films on the list. Again, there were films Betsy didn't like that I did, and some that I think are majorly overrated.
90. The Jazz Singer - This makes the list because it was the first major film made with sound. If it wasn't for that, I'm sure it would still be a classic silent film, but nothing too extraordinary. It's a pretty bland story about a Jewish singer that wants to play Jazz, rather than use his talents at the local synagogue, like his mammy and pappy want. Al Jolson is a great entertainer and fun to watch, but his relationship with his mom is slightly creepy at times. All in all, it's a little forgettable, but it makes the Looney Toon cartoons more memorable knowing what they are referencing.
89. Patton - Drumroll please. This is a badass movie about a total badass. He slapped a soldier! Yeah! And he beat Rommel by reading his book. This movie is so well made. In my opinion, one of the best bio pics ever made. It doesn't just follow his WWII career, it shows his impact and the politics surrounding him. Coppola's script is so smart. The production is great, and of course George C. Scott is playing the role of his life. Betsy was super bored. I think we had to break this up into two viewings, and through most of the second half she was doing something else and I had to keep bringing her attention back.
"Like crap through a goose!"
88. - Easy Rider - It was this movie that gave Betsy her rating system. "It was good, but I'd rather watch The Little Mermaid," was what she said afterward. And now she rates a movie by whether she'd watch that or The Little Mermaid. I had never seen this one before and was excited to finally peep it. It's a pretty revolutionary film, and one of the best independent films ever made. At times it's a little sketchy and bouncy, but I think that's because it was made by hippies. Despite that fact, I loved it, even though maybe I would rather see The Little Mermaid, but only because the Seagull in that is so hilarious. Easy Rider didn't have any seagulls, just a bunch of judgmental Southerners. I love the metaphors in the film and the protaganists inner search for America. I think the film itself was a symbol for the late 60's and America redefining itself. Change is inevitable and Americans can be slow to accept it. This film epitomizes that tragedy. Plus, Jack Nicholson is in it. He steals every scene he is in.
87. Frankenstein - This was another classic I hadn't seen, and like Easy Rider, was way more familiar with the cultural references than with the film itself. Unlike oft made fun of movies like The Godfather, Frankenstein did not live up to the legend. It was so slow and uninteresting, except for the two most classic scenes; the lab creation scene where Dr. Frankenstein screams "It's alive" and the scene where the Monster kills the girl. The lab scene was actually very impressive. I was surprised by the quality of the production and that they did this in the early thirties. The rest of the film is made as some kind of bland drama, with Dr Frankenstein and his family and fiance. Plus, it was super weird that Frankenstein's friend was so chummy with his fiance.
What was interesting, though, was that the DVD came with the sequel Bride of Frankenstein, which I watched immediately following this. That film is so much better than the original. So much so that I think they should have put that film on the list, rather than this one.
86. Mutiny on the Bounty - This one I had seen before, but only the first 15 minutes when I turned it off because it was so boring. Thankfully, this time around I managed to wade through that first boring 15 minutes to get to the rest of this fantastic film. Betsy and I agreed, this was a great film. We even did some research on Wikipedia to find out what happened in real life. Apparently, the mutinous crew did land on Pitcairn Island and founded a colony. Unfortunately, that colony turned into what is today an incestuous slum. The best part of the movie is Captain Bligh. He is so funny. I'm sure the crew didn't think so, but since I wasn't on the boat I can laugh. I think this is on the list for two reasons. It was really a remarkable production. At the time, this was landmark because they shot a lot of it on water and had a lot of location shooting. The second reason is that this was such a remarkable movie, even without the production value. The script is tight and the acting is great. This is a film that truly deserves a place on this list, not just because of a breakthrough in filmmaking, but because they made a stellar film that was few and far between in those days.
85. Duck Soup - And speaking of few and far between, now we have this film. I think every time I see this I laugh less and less, kind of like Napolean Dynamite. Betsy didn't laugh that much, and I don't really blame her. The Marx Bros deserve a place in film history, like the other great comedians, but any single project has so many faults that it's hard to exemplify it. That's the problem with Duck Soup. You can see what they're doing, and it's really unique, but it also gets tiresome. Especially Groucho, his scenes are so dumb. They build up the scene just so he can say something clever. Comedy should be the other way around; building up the scene for an actual point, and you build the jokes off of that. Groucho stops the scene time and time again to say something off topic, then follow it up with a line that's supposed to be a joke. The lasting comedy in the film is the other brothers physical humor, i.e. the lemonade stand scenes, or the door scene, and of course the mirror scene(that does have Groucho). The mirror scene makes it all worth it. This movie is often cited as being imitated by later comedians, but it's only the physical comedy scenes that are, rather than Groucho's insistent non sequiturs.
84. Fargo - How fitting that this film should be next. This is the film that I laughed the most and hardest the first time ever seeing it. Now when I see it, I smile the whole time. The funniest version, though, is the version they make for TV, when they make up new words to fill in the F bombs. "No fruisin' way, Jerry." Betsy didn't like this movie so much, mainly because I built it up so much and she didn't like that I was saying lines before they occured. Annoying, I know, so I stopped mid-way in. This film doesn't seem like it should be a comedy, but it is, maybe the best black comedy ever made. Comedy is serious, and in this movie everyone takes themselves a little too seriously, which is why it's so funny. Dr Strangelove is another example of this. It's the exact opposite of Duck Soup, where nothing is serious. I could probably write an essay on this film and it's use of comedy, but this will suffice. For those of you who loved this film, see A Serious Man, the Coen's newest film. I smiled the whole time and loved it. "Just a minute."
83. Platoon - Oh Platoon, Platoon, what could have been. Oliver Stone, you could have made the best war film of all time, except you forgot one rule of screenwriting; Narration is a last resort, and for the love of all that's holy, never, ever, ever say in narration what you are seeing or have seen on the screen. The film, actually would have been exceptional, even with narration if Charlie Sheen had not ruined the film with the narration at the end. For those who haven't seen, or can't remember, I'll recap the film and what Charlie says at the end in narration. The whole film follows a dysfunctional infantry platoon in Vietnam. The sergeants fight each other, the officers don't always know what they're doing, and the grunts squabble and cower and sometimes kill and rape innocent villagers. For two hours we watch this platoon fight with itself, while trying to fight the North Vietnamese. For two hours, that was what was shown. A first grader could gather that from watching it. I'll repeat, for two hours that's what we watched, and without narration, we'd probably think to ourselves, "Gosh, those guys fought more with themselves than with the enemy, what a great metaphor for Vietnam. Oliver Stone, good work." But no, as the movie ends, Charlie, the King of Obvious, Sheen tells us through narration, "Duh.....it was like we fought more with ourselves than the enemy."
You think, Charlie Sheen? Are we idiots? Didn't we just watch that for two hours, very clearly and blatantly? Yeah, we did. We did, Charlie Sheen. Thanks so much for TELLING us what to think, even though Olive Stone's heavy handed direction basically already did. Let me ask all the aspiring writers and filmmakers out there what they think. Is it better to show, or to tell? I'll go ahead and answer, since I graduated elementary school and that qualifies me as a human being to answer. Yes, it is better to show than to tell. Maybe Oliver Stone, you should have gone to film school(maybe he did, how should I know, but I'm being sarcastic anyway.) instead of fantasizing in your head how you were going to show(actaully tell) how it really was "over there."
So, in closing, great film. Willem Dafoe is awesome, and Tom Berenger, who would have thought. Charlie Sheen? Not so much. Oliver Stone? Ehh.
82. Giant - After reviewing Platoon, I almost don't feel like talking about this film in any good light, so I'll skip the good things I could say, and stick to the bad. Whose idea was it to make this a film? It's so long. Too long. It's a giant film. This was a mini-series. It should be on TV Guide's list for best mini-series of all time behind Roots. But no, they decided to turn this epic novel into a giant film. And the giant puns don't end there, it's about Texas, this biggest state. And the characters are giant, Rock Hudson, Liz Taylor and James Dean. Again, Liz Taylor is being Liz Taylor and Rock Hudson I guess is being Rock Hudson(the screen version, not the Laguna Beach loving gay man), and then James Dean is....well, I don't know what to think. James Dean isn't the best actor ever. He's not bad, but...He just didn't fit in this movie. I think because he's a "legend" no one ever says that, but it's true. This movie spans like 30 years of his life, and he plays a young guy, then an little bit older, then a older middle aged guy, and the whole time you're just wondering how this futsy shy guy got to be a GIANT millionaire! All in all, it was okay, but in my opinion should not be on this list.
81. Modern Times - I was really excited to see this. I'm not a huge Chaplin fan, but I do think he's the greatest comedian of all time. I was so excited to finally see this because I had seen all the great bits before; Charlie going through the gears and the roller skating scene, but never the whole thing. Chaplin was the best comedian because he could do it all, from physical comedy to social satire, and all of that is in here. This could be the best of his physical comedy because he uses his surroundings so well. And part of his satire involves just that, that in these modern times people are so controlled by forces outside of their power. For example, on the assembly line, he's stuck on the line for better or worse screwing on those bolts. If he falls behind he's got to make up for it, even if that means knocking out the other workers.
A few of his films are higher on the list, and having already seen those and this, I like this one better, and I also think it is a better film and funnier. Incidentally, this was the last major film made as a silent movie, despite a few "sounds" in the film, but there is never any direct talking by a character.
90. The Jazz Singer - This makes the list because it was the first major film made with sound. If it wasn't for that, I'm sure it would still be a classic silent film, but nothing too extraordinary. It's a pretty bland story about a Jewish singer that wants to play Jazz, rather than use his talents at the local synagogue, like his mammy and pappy want. Al Jolson is a great entertainer and fun to watch, but his relationship with his mom is slightly creepy at times. All in all, it's a little forgettable, but it makes the Looney Toon cartoons more memorable knowing what they are referencing.
89. Patton - Drumroll please. This is a badass movie about a total badass. He slapped a soldier! Yeah! And he beat Rommel by reading his book. This movie is so well made. In my opinion, one of the best bio pics ever made. It doesn't just follow his WWII career, it shows his impact and the politics surrounding him. Coppola's script is so smart. The production is great, and of course George C. Scott is playing the role of his life. Betsy was super bored. I think we had to break this up into two viewings, and through most of the second half she was doing something else and I had to keep bringing her attention back."Like crap through a goose!"
88. - Easy Rider - It was this movie that gave Betsy her rating system. "It was good, but I'd rather watch The Little Mermaid," was what she said afterward. And now she rates a movie by whether she'd watch that or The Little Mermaid. I had never seen this one before and was excited to finally peep it. It's a pretty revolutionary film, and one of the best independent films ever made. At times it's a little sketchy and bouncy, but I think that's because it was made by hippies. Despite that fact, I loved it, even though maybe I would rather see The Little Mermaid, but only because the Seagull in that is so hilarious. Easy Rider didn't have any seagulls, just a bunch of judgmental Southerners. I love the metaphors in the film and the protaganists inner search for America. I think the film itself was a symbol for the late 60's and America redefining itself. Change is inevitable and Americans can be slow to accept it. This film epitomizes that tragedy. Plus, Jack Nicholson is in it. He steals every scene he is in.
87. Frankenstein - This was another classic I hadn't seen, and like Easy Rider, was way more familiar with the cultural references than with the film itself. Unlike oft made fun of movies like The Godfather, Frankenstein did not live up to the legend. It was so slow and uninteresting, except for the two most classic scenes; the lab creation scene where Dr. Frankenstein screams "It's alive" and the scene where the Monster kills the girl. The lab scene was actually very impressive. I was surprised by the quality of the production and that they did this in the early thirties. The rest of the film is made as some kind of bland drama, with Dr Frankenstein and his family and fiance. Plus, it was super weird that Frankenstein's friend was so chummy with his fiance.What was interesting, though, was that the DVD came with the sequel Bride of Frankenstein, which I watched immediately following this. That film is so much better than the original. So much so that I think they should have put that film on the list, rather than this one.
86. Mutiny on the Bounty - This one I had seen before, but only the first 15 minutes when I turned it off because it was so boring. Thankfully, this time around I managed to wade through that first boring 15 minutes to get to the rest of this fantastic film. Betsy and I agreed, this was a great film. We even did some research on Wikipedia to find out what happened in real life. Apparently, the mutinous crew did land on Pitcairn Island and founded a colony. Unfortunately, that colony turned into what is today an incestuous slum. The best part of the movie is Captain Bligh. He is so funny. I'm sure the crew didn't think so, but since I wasn't on the boat I can laugh. I think this is on the list for two reasons. It was really a remarkable production. At the time, this was landmark because they shot a lot of it on water and had a lot of location shooting. The second reason is that this was such a remarkable movie, even without the production value. The script is tight and the acting is great. This is a film that truly deserves a place on this list, not just because of a breakthrough in filmmaking, but because they made a stellar film that was few and far between in those days.
85. Duck Soup - And speaking of few and far between, now we have this film. I think every time I see this I laugh less and less, kind of like Napolean Dynamite. Betsy didn't laugh that much, and I don't really blame her. The Marx Bros deserve a place in film history, like the other great comedians, but any single project has so many faults that it's hard to exemplify it. That's the problem with Duck Soup. You can see what they're doing, and it's really unique, but it also gets tiresome. Especially Groucho, his scenes are so dumb. They build up the scene just so he can say something clever. Comedy should be the other way around; building up the scene for an actual point, and you build the jokes off of that. Groucho stops the scene time and time again to say something off topic, then follow it up with a line that's supposed to be a joke. The lasting comedy in the film is the other brothers physical humor, i.e. the lemonade stand scenes, or the door scene, and of course the mirror scene(that does have Groucho). The mirror scene makes it all worth it. This movie is often cited as being imitated by later comedians, but it's only the physical comedy scenes that are, rather than Groucho's insistent non sequiturs.
84. Fargo - How fitting that this film should be next. This is the film that I laughed the most and hardest the first time ever seeing it. Now when I see it, I smile the whole time. The funniest version, though, is the version they make for TV, when they make up new words to fill in the F bombs. "No fruisin' way, Jerry." Betsy didn't like this movie so much, mainly because I built it up so much and she didn't like that I was saying lines before they occured. Annoying, I know, so I stopped mid-way in. This film doesn't seem like it should be a comedy, but it is, maybe the best black comedy ever made. Comedy is serious, and in this movie everyone takes themselves a little too seriously, which is why it's so funny. Dr Strangelove is another example of this. It's the exact opposite of Duck Soup, where nothing is serious. I could probably write an essay on this film and it's use of comedy, but this will suffice. For those of you who loved this film, see A Serious Man, the Coen's newest film. I smiled the whole time and loved it. "Just a minute."
83. Platoon - Oh Platoon, Platoon, what could have been. Oliver Stone, you could have made the best war film of all time, except you forgot one rule of screenwriting; Narration is a last resort, and for the love of all that's holy, never, ever, ever say in narration what you are seeing or have seen on the screen. The film, actually would have been exceptional, even with narration if Charlie Sheen had not ruined the film with the narration at the end. For those who haven't seen, or can't remember, I'll recap the film and what Charlie says at the end in narration. The whole film follows a dysfunctional infantry platoon in Vietnam. The sergeants fight each other, the officers don't always know what they're doing, and the grunts squabble and cower and sometimes kill and rape innocent villagers. For two hours we watch this platoon fight with itself, while trying to fight the North Vietnamese. For two hours, that was what was shown. A first grader could gather that from watching it. I'll repeat, for two hours that's what we watched, and without narration, we'd probably think to ourselves, "Gosh, those guys fought more with themselves than with the enemy, what a great metaphor for Vietnam. Oliver Stone, good work." But no, as the movie ends, Charlie, the King of Obvious, Sheen tells us through narration, "Duh.....it was like we fought more with ourselves than the enemy."You think, Charlie Sheen? Are we idiots? Didn't we just watch that for two hours, very clearly and blatantly? Yeah, we did. We did, Charlie Sheen. Thanks so much for TELLING us what to think, even though Olive Stone's heavy handed direction basically already did. Let me ask all the aspiring writers and filmmakers out there what they think. Is it better to show, or to tell? I'll go ahead and answer, since I graduated elementary school and that qualifies me as a human being to answer. Yes, it is better to show than to tell. Maybe Oliver Stone, you should have gone to film school(maybe he did, how should I know, but I'm being sarcastic anyway.) instead of fantasizing in your head how you were going to show(actaully tell) how it really was "over there."
So, in closing, great film. Willem Dafoe is awesome, and Tom Berenger, who would have thought. Charlie Sheen? Not so much. Oliver Stone? Ehh.
82. Giant - After reviewing Platoon, I almost don't feel like talking about this film in any good light, so I'll skip the good things I could say, and stick to the bad. Whose idea was it to make this a film? It's so long. Too long. It's a giant film. This was a mini-series. It should be on TV Guide's list for best mini-series of all time behind Roots. But no, they decided to turn this epic novel into a giant film. And the giant puns don't end there, it's about Texas, this biggest state. And the characters are giant, Rock Hudson, Liz Taylor and James Dean. Again, Liz Taylor is being Liz Taylor and Rock Hudson I guess is being Rock Hudson(the screen version, not the Laguna Beach loving gay man), and then James Dean is....well, I don't know what to think. James Dean isn't the best actor ever. He's not bad, but...He just didn't fit in this movie. I think because he's a "legend" no one ever says that, but it's true. This movie spans like 30 years of his life, and he plays a young guy, then an little bit older, then a older middle aged guy, and the whole time you're just wondering how this futsy shy guy got to be a GIANT millionaire! All in all, it was okay, but in my opinion should not be on this list.
81. Modern Times - I was really excited to see this. I'm not a huge Chaplin fan, but I do think he's the greatest comedian of all time. I was so excited to finally see this because I had seen all the great bits before; Charlie going through the gears and the roller skating scene, but never the whole thing. Chaplin was the best comedian because he could do it all, from physical comedy to social satire, and all of that is in here. This could be the best of his physical comedy because he uses his surroundings so well. And part of his satire involves just that, that in these modern times people are so controlled by forces outside of their power. For example, on the assembly line, he's stuck on the line for better or worse screwing on those bolts. If he falls behind he's got to make up for it, even if that means knocking out the other workers.A few of his films are higher on the list, and having already seen those and this, I like this one better, and I also think it is a better film and funnier. Incidentally, this was the last major film made as a silent movie, despite a few "sounds" in the film, but there is never any direct talking by a character.
Friday, January 29, 2010
AFI Top 100 (The first 10)
Betsy and I decided a while back to go through and watch AFI's Top 100 Films. To be more cultural and stuff with our Netflix, rather than just watching old TV shows and silly comedies. I had seen most of the movies on the list, but there's still a few I haven't seen. AFI came out with a new list a few years ago, a 10th Anniversary edition, where they re-voted and most of the movies shifted up or down and a few were added or deleted. I like the older list(from 1998) a lot more, so we're starting with that one. Once we're done, we can go back and catch the newer additions. For now, I'm going to review the first 10, then review the rest as we go along later, in increments.
100. Yankee Doodle Dandy - I never really liked this film. James Cagney comes off as a douche the whole time, from when he was a kid, then even when he was an adult. He's usually a douche in movies, but it's okay because he's usually playing a gangster. And since it's a bio-pic there isn't much in the area of character growth or story development. There's just a bunch of tap dancing and singing. People love it, though, and it made the list. (Barely at #100)
99.
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - I do love this movie. It's so simple, it's written and acted like a stage play. And what it spoke about at the time was tremendous. Today it would be so heavy-handed and cliche, but back then it was landmark. And even today it stands up as a legacy against racism. I also love Spencer Tracy. He's funny without being a clown. He steals scenes with his looks and his wit. One of my favorite films is Father of the Bride, and he is so hilarious in it. Steve Martin took a lesson from him in the remake. Even the horrible sequel, Father's Little Dividend, which I picked up at a gas station somewhere in the $2 bin, is still awesome because Tracy is in it. I look forward to seeing all of his films.
98. Unforgiven - I've never been a real fan of the western genre. Westerns have always been slightly boring. So with Unforgiven, I don't like it because it's a western, but then I do like it because it blows the top off of every other action western film. At least the ending does. Most of the movie moseys along like any other slow western.
It is meaningful and it does say a lot, and has interesting characters and scenes. But still. I don't care for it much. I know you need a better explanation if you're going to do a review, but that's where I'm at.
97. Bringing Up Baby - What a screwball comedy! And that's not a compliment. This film makes no sense whatsoever. If it were made today it would be filed in the ranks of "Dude, where's my car."
Both of the leads are horribly annoying, the plot maneuvers who knows where, and the comedy falls all over itself. Cary Grant is playing this huge dork. And it's so weird, because it's Cary Grant, he's supposed to be a dashing hunk, but he's running around like his no-no areas are in a vice. And they are, because Katherine Hepburn(already her second film on this list), has them and she won't let go. And it's all supposed to be so funny. In the end, you've have some laughs, played along with it's silliness and are just happy it's all over.
96. The Searchers - Remember when I was saying how I didn't like westerns? Well, for this movie I make an exception. I loved it. Maybe it's because of John Wayne. He plays a bad ass in everything, and taught the likes of Harrison Ford how to do it. He is master of his domain and he won't take the likes of no Indian or Mexican or drunkard. This was one I hadn't seen before, but only heard about, and it lived up to the reputation. It's just such a grand movie of the genre, I think it could be John Ford's best. The cinematography is great, the story is interesting, if not a lil bit unrealistic, as well as the scenery, where in west Texas is Monument Valley? Most of all, I wasn't bored while watching it. I don't remember if Betsy was. Maybe.
95. Pulp Fiction - Quite a jump between movies on the list, we go from John Wayne to this. But there is a link; The Searchers is a perfect genre film, that so many others take from and Pulp Fiction, and Tarantino in general, are more about the art of film than film itself, if that makes any sense. He makes films with dynamic shots and unique editing, all while paying homage to the filmmaking art and process. This film is a masterpiece of that art. Every shot is perfect and planned. The dialogue is so crisp and the story, (all the intertwining stories), move so quick, it's hard to keep up. I can't say that I love Tarantino. I enjoy his films, I like what he's doing, but I think he spends too much time paying tribute to the films he grew up on and not enough on making real art. What does a painting of a museum look like? Who cares, it's much more interesting seeing an impressionist painting of a field.
94. Goodfellas - One of my personal favorites, though, not my favorite gangster film, which is my favorite genre. Gangster films are about two things in story telling that is key; action and redemption. Stories without some form of action are dull and inconsequential. You need action. Story is action. And the greatest stories usually have to do with either redemption or tragedy. Gangster films are always either one of those. At their best they are metaphors for life, at their worst they are only means to show guns, girls and guys getting whacked. Goodfellas falls somewhere in between. I don't think it's the best gangster film, and I don't even think it's Scorsese's best gangster film. (I think Casino is better, but that's a different review.) This film is really about failed redemption, and even about failing at failed redemption since Henry Hill fell out of witness protection and is living on the streets now. So I guess it's a real tragedy then. But then if so, the tragedy goes all the way back to his childhood when he was drawn in by the rich lifestyle of the gangsters. And then, it shows the tragedy of American life, that this went on for so long. All of this is shown under the layers of the film, which make it great. Martin is so good with the tenseness of it; Who's going to get whacked, and what's going to happen to Hill? I can't forget Joe Pesci. The whole scene with him asking why Henry thinks he's funny is so perfect. That's the tenseness, right there. What is this firecracker going to do, that was the life, and Marty is so good at drawing it out.
93. The Apartment - And then there's this piece of crap. This movie is so stupid, I hate it. I hate it so much. What gets me is that so many people love it, when it should have been Billy Wilder's bomb. This is like 1960's "Avatar," because everyone loved it, and it was a landmark film, yadda yadda. It was supposed to be landmark because it was a hybrid between comedy and drama. Except what we have for comedy is one of the most overrated comedians of all time; Jack Lemmon. Jack Lemmon only played one good character his whole life, the old man in Grumpy Old Men. In this he plays the likes of Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby; a total dork. And we have to follow him around for 2 hours! Ugh. And then Shirley Maclaine somehow ends up with him. And you know why, because Fred MacMurray, the douche of the world, screwed her over so much she attempted suicide and Jack Lemmon is so kind and helps her. So I guess if it's between the douche of the world and the dork of the world, she chooses death. Which is what I choose instead of watching this movie again.
92. A Place in the Sun - It's hard for me to remember this because it's so forgettable. At least the lead is, he plays an average guy who somehow gets caught up into high society. It's the women who are actually easier to remember. Elizabeth Taylor is being Elizabeth Taylor, and then we have her opposite Shelley Winters, a freakin' crazy head that the lead guy got pregnant. It's all dramatic from that point, and the poor stiff gets tried for murder even though he was only thinking about murdering Winters, but didn't. That's all there is to say. I don't know why this made AFI's list, I don't know how anyone remembered it was even made.
91. My Fair Lady - I remember what Betsy thought of this one. She hated it. And I have to side with her. It's sooooo long. It clocks in at 171 minutes. I did the math, that's 3 hours and 11 minutes. And most of it is singing. And some dancing. And only a little bit of story. I saw the play version, Pygmalion, and that was at least 2 hours and there were no songs in it at all, so you can imagine how much story is supposed to be there. But this film guts all that out and fills it with useless songs. Audrey Hepburn is adorable and so is Rex Harrison, he's like Indiana Jones, except he doesn't carry a whip or have Asian sidekicks.
I would like it, though, if it was way shorter, because I like the story, which has been remade into so many other versions ("She's All That", ring a bell?).
And then the ending. Betsy was super pissed. 3 plus hours and they don't even kiss? But that's what George Bernard Shaw wanted, he didn't want it to be a love story. So you got to give it to Hollywood for sticking to the writer's ideas.
P.S. - A few additions about how Betsy felt. She likes The Apartment, and didn't hate My Fair Lady, she just didn't like it.
P.P.S. - Betsy did the math and My Fair Lady is actually 2 hours and 51 minutes.
100. Yankee Doodle Dandy - I never really liked this film. James Cagney comes off as a douche the whole time, from when he was a kid, then even when he was an adult. He's usually a douche in movies, but it's okay because he's usually playing a gangster. And since it's a bio-pic there isn't much in the area of character growth or story development. There's just a bunch of tap dancing and singing. People love it, though, and it made the list. (Barely at #100)99.
Guess Who's Coming To Dinner - I do love this movie. It's so simple, it's written and acted like a stage play. And what it spoke about at the time was tremendous. Today it would be so heavy-handed and cliche, but back then it was landmark. And even today it stands up as a legacy against racism. I also love Spencer Tracy. He's funny without being a clown. He steals scenes with his looks and his wit. One of my favorite films is Father of the Bride, and he is so hilarious in it. Steve Martin took a lesson from him in the remake. Even the horrible sequel, Father's Little Dividend, which I picked up at a gas station somewhere in the $2 bin, is still awesome because Tracy is in it. I look forward to seeing all of his films.
98. Unforgiven - I've never been a real fan of the western genre. Westerns have always been slightly boring. So with Unforgiven, I don't like it because it's a western, but then I do like it because it blows the top off of every other action western film. At least the ending does. Most of the movie moseys along like any other slow western.It is meaningful and it does say a lot, and has interesting characters and scenes. But still. I don't care for it much. I know you need a better explanation if you're going to do a review, but that's where I'm at.
97. Bringing Up Baby - What a screwball comedy! And that's not a compliment. This film makes no sense whatsoever. If it were made today it would be filed in the ranks of "Dude, where's my car."Both of the leads are horribly annoying, the plot maneuvers who knows where, and the comedy falls all over itself. Cary Grant is playing this huge dork. And it's so weird, because it's Cary Grant, he's supposed to be a dashing hunk, but he's running around like his no-no areas are in a vice. And they are, because Katherine Hepburn(already her second film on this list), has them and she won't let go. And it's all supposed to be so funny. In the end, you've have some laughs, played along with it's silliness and are just happy it's all over.
96. The Searchers - Remember when I was saying how I didn't like westerns? Well, for this movie I make an exception. I loved it. Maybe it's because of John Wayne. He plays a bad ass in everything, and taught the likes of Harrison Ford how to do it. He is master of his domain and he won't take the likes of no Indian or Mexican or drunkard. This was one I hadn't seen before, but only heard about, and it lived up to the reputation. It's just such a grand movie of the genre, I think it could be John Ford's best. The cinematography is great, the story is interesting, if not a lil bit unrealistic, as well as the scenery, where in west Texas is Monument Valley? Most of all, I wasn't bored while watching it. I don't remember if Betsy was. Maybe.
95. Pulp Fiction - Quite a jump between movies on the list, we go from John Wayne to this. But there is a link; The Searchers is a perfect genre film, that so many others take from and Pulp Fiction, and Tarantino in general, are more about the art of film than film itself, if that makes any sense. He makes films with dynamic shots and unique editing, all while paying homage to the filmmaking art and process. This film is a masterpiece of that art. Every shot is perfect and planned. The dialogue is so crisp and the story, (all the intertwining stories), move so quick, it's hard to keep up. I can't say that I love Tarantino. I enjoy his films, I like what he's doing, but I think he spends too much time paying tribute to the films he grew up on and not enough on making real art. What does a painting of a museum look like? Who cares, it's much more interesting seeing an impressionist painting of a field.
94. Goodfellas - One of my personal favorites, though, not my favorite gangster film, which is my favorite genre. Gangster films are about two things in story telling that is key; action and redemption. Stories without some form of action are dull and inconsequential. You need action. Story is action. And the greatest stories usually have to do with either redemption or tragedy. Gangster films are always either one of those. At their best they are metaphors for life, at their worst they are only means to show guns, girls and guys getting whacked. Goodfellas falls somewhere in between. I don't think it's the best gangster film, and I don't even think it's Scorsese's best gangster film. (I think Casino is better, but that's a different review.) This film is really about failed redemption, and even about failing at failed redemption since Henry Hill fell out of witness protection and is living on the streets now. So I guess it's a real tragedy then. But then if so, the tragedy goes all the way back to his childhood when he was drawn in by the rich lifestyle of the gangsters. And then, it shows the tragedy of American life, that this went on for so long. All of this is shown under the layers of the film, which make it great. Martin is so good with the tenseness of it; Who's going to get whacked, and what's going to happen to Hill? I can't forget Joe Pesci. The whole scene with him asking why Henry thinks he's funny is so perfect. That's the tenseness, right there. What is this firecracker going to do, that was the life, and Marty is so good at drawing it out.
93. The Apartment - And then there's this piece of crap. This movie is so stupid, I hate it. I hate it so much. What gets me is that so many people love it, when it should have been Billy Wilder's bomb. This is like 1960's "Avatar," because everyone loved it, and it was a landmark film, yadda yadda. It was supposed to be landmark because it was a hybrid between comedy and drama. Except what we have for comedy is one of the most overrated comedians of all time; Jack Lemmon. Jack Lemmon only played one good character his whole life, the old man in Grumpy Old Men. In this he plays the likes of Cary Grant in Bringing Up Baby; a total dork. And we have to follow him around for 2 hours! Ugh. And then Shirley Maclaine somehow ends up with him. And you know why, because Fred MacMurray, the douche of the world, screwed her over so much she attempted suicide and Jack Lemmon is so kind and helps her. So I guess if it's between the douche of the world and the dork of the world, she chooses death. Which is what I choose instead of watching this movie again.
92. A Place in the Sun - It's hard for me to remember this because it's so forgettable. At least the lead is, he plays an average guy who somehow gets caught up into high society. It's the women who are actually easier to remember. Elizabeth Taylor is being Elizabeth Taylor, and then we have her opposite Shelley Winters, a freakin' crazy head that the lead guy got pregnant. It's all dramatic from that point, and the poor stiff gets tried for murder even though he was only thinking about murdering Winters, but didn't. That's all there is to say. I don't know why this made AFI's list, I don't know how anyone remembered it was even made.
91. My Fair Lady - I remember what Betsy thought of this one. She hated it. And I have to side with her. It's sooooo long. It clocks in at 171 minutes. I did the math, that's 3 hours and 11 minutes. And most of it is singing. And some dancing. And only a little bit of story. I saw the play version, Pygmalion, and that was at least 2 hours and there were no songs in it at all, so you can imagine how much story is supposed to be there. But this film guts all that out and fills it with useless songs. Audrey Hepburn is adorable and so is Rex Harrison, he's like Indiana Jones, except he doesn't carry a whip or have Asian sidekicks.I would like it, though, if it was way shorter, because I like the story, which has been remade into so many other versions ("She's All That", ring a bell?).
And then the ending. Betsy was super pissed. 3 plus hours and they don't even kiss? But that's what George Bernard Shaw wanted, he didn't want it to be a love story. So you got to give it to Hollywood for sticking to the writer's ideas.
P.S. - A few additions about how Betsy felt. She likes The Apartment, and didn't hate My Fair Lady, she just didn't like it.
P.P.S. - Betsy did the math and My Fair Lady is actually 2 hours and 51 minutes.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Food Tasting Extravaganza
I had an assignment for my Food Preparation in the Home class about comparison shopping. I had to select three items to compare the national brand to the store/generic brand. I chose to taste Macaroni & Cheese, frozen orange juice and wheat crackers. Nick really wanted it to be a blind taste test, so I prepared the food while he did something else like watch Clone Wars. Below is the experiment/our dinner.
Can you tell which one is Kraft and which is the Safeway brand?
I was delighted with exhibit B. It was creamier and Nick posited that it was in fact "The Cheesiest" He was right. Exhibit B was Kraft. And it dominated Safeway's Mac & Cheese. HARD. Now, cost wise, the Safeway brand was $.75 for the box, or $.103/oz, while Kraft was $1.09 for the box, $.150/oz. Two words for Kraft: Worth. It.
Kraft = Winner!
Safeway = Suck it.
Next up was the wheat crackers. We tested Wheat Thins and Safeway's Thin Wheat crackers. The Wheat Thins were kind of pricey at $3.59 for the box ($.399/oz) while the store brand crackers cost much less at $1.99 ($.221/oz).
We also noted the nutritional information. They were close, but not identical.
Here's the Nickster tasting a Thin Wheat. Which he actually preferred, though he believed that it was the Wheat Thin.
Thin Wheat = Winner!
Wheat Thins = What the Heck, Wheat Thins?!
Safeway OJ = thanks for playing.
Can you tell which one is Kraft and which is the Safeway brand?
I was delighted with exhibit B. It was creamier and Nick posited that it was in fact "The Cheesiest" He was right. Exhibit B was Kraft. And it dominated Safeway's Mac & Cheese. HARD. Now, cost wise, the Safeway brand was $.75 for the box, or $.103/oz, while Kraft was $1.09 for the box, $.150/oz. Two words for Kraft: Worth. It.
Kraft = Winner!
Safeway = Suck it.
Next up was the wheat crackers. We tested Wheat Thins and Safeway's Thin Wheat crackers. The Wheat Thins were kind of pricey at $3.59 for the box ($.399/oz) while the store brand crackers cost much less at $1.99 ($.221/oz).
We also noted the nutritional information. They were close, but not identical.
Here's the Nickster tasting a Thin Wheat. Which he actually preferred, though he believed that it was the Wheat Thin.
Thin Wheat = Winner!
Wheat Thins = What the Heck, Wheat Thins?!
Next we tested the frozen OJ. I didn't get a photo of the juice drinking, but here are the cost stats. We drank Minute Maid for the national brand. It cost $2.50 ($.208/oz). The Safeway brand cost just $2.00 ($.167/oz). Now, the juice was a little difficult to make as we only own one pitcher. I had to make the first juice, pour the test glasses, then pour the rest into a big bowl while I mixed up the other batch. Our test looked like a mad scientist's lab for a while there. Anyway, the store brand OJ tasted like an orange peel, while the Minute Maid was yum-tastic.
Minute Maid = Winner!
Safeway OJ = thanks for playing.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
A Christmas Miracle!
Over the weekend we attended our Ward Christmas party. And let me just say, the Newport Second Ward knows how to party. The spread was amazing, and there were a ton of desserts; including this awesome raspberry jello thing. Amazing! But that wasn't the Christmas miracle.
Scheduled at the end of the party was a traditional White Elephant gift exchange. Those who are unfamiliar, this is how the legend and game goes. It gets it's name from an old Indian story about a prince(or King) who received a huge gift. It was a live white elephant. To look at the thing was extraordinary, but it wasn't suitable for battle or anything else. It was amazing, but basically useless. Now we use the term to mean just that, an amazing gift that has no value, and perhaps takes up a lot of space. For the game, everyone brings a wrapped gift they either paid a little for or found around their house (or a re-gift, as was both of our gifts). Then each person gets to open one random gift. Someone else who doesn't have a gift yet can either open a new gift or steal one that's been opened. A gift can be stolen 3 times.
My eyes burst wide open with excitement when I saw among the wrapped gifts a magnificent unwrapped painting of a white elephant.
Isn't it amazing?!
So our plan started to formulate. I wanted that painting. Numbers were handed out to select order, and we got really high numbers, but luckily the numbers were selected randomly.
About five people in, someone snagged the painting and she bolted back to her seat with it. I was having second thoughts. I didn't want to steal it from a lady who looked so happy getting it. But Betsy said if her number came up she would do it for me. But alas, someone stole it from the first lady. And my mind was open to the thought of taking it. Surely, I could steal from a thief. That wasn't as bad as taking from someone who honestly acquired the painting.
But then people kept getting called and it wasn't Betsy or I and we started to worry. Or I started to worry, Betsy didn't care so much. But then we formulated a new plan. If either of our numbers came up, either of us would steal the painting, then when the next one of us is chosen, we'd steal the painting and it would close it off from being stolen again.
The plan was set, the only catch was that our numbers would have to be called close together. Betsy got called! Without delay she walked over and stole the painting. And it was okay, everyone was all smiles. (Which means they didn't want it that bad, so nuts to them.) She sat down next to me and we waited and hoped that no one else eyed our prize.
And then, as luck would have it, four or five people later my number was called. It was a miracle. A Christmas miracle! I stood up boldly. I reached over my beloved wife and picked up the painting and raised it over my head to show everyone in the large room that I was stealing it from Betsy and that it was over. Then I sat down and admired the painting in front of me.
Since I stole Betsy's gift, she was free to choose something else. We had thought of this as an opportunity to relieve ourselves from some "stuff" so we decided if we would get anything, it would be little. So Betsy walked over and found a tiny little wrapped box. Inside was a fancy pen box entitled Parker Pens. After opening she discovered a note reading "Parker Pens: The Early Years." Inside was a used number 2 pencil and an old Marriot Hotel ballpoint pen. A gag gift. And a decent one at that. Supposedly the guy who gifted it gives gag gifts every year. It was reported that last year he gave a pillow case with his face on it.
We snagged this photo for posterity sake. The gift and the giver.
Merry Christmas!
And God bless us, everyone!
Scheduled at the end of the party was a traditional White Elephant gift exchange. Those who are unfamiliar, this is how the legend and game goes. It gets it's name from an old Indian story about a prince(or King) who received a huge gift. It was a live white elephant. To look at the thing was extraordinary, but it wasn't suitable for battle or anything else. It was amazing, but basically useless. Now we use the term to mean just that, an amazing gift that has no value, and perhaps takes up a lot of space. For the game, everyone brings a wrapped gift they either paid a little for or found around their house (or a re-gift, as was both of our gifts). Then each person gets to open one random gift. Someone else who doesn't have a gift yet can either open a new gift or steal one that's been opened. A gift can be stolen 3 times.
My eyes burst wide open with excitement when I saw among the wrapped gifts a magnificent unwrapped painting of a white elephant.
Isn't it amazing?!
So our plan started to formulate. I wanted that painting. Numbers were handed out to select order, and we got really high numbers, but luckily the numbers were selected randomly.
About five people in, someone snagged the painting and she bolted back to her seat with it. I was having second thoughts. I didn't want to steal it from a lady who looked so happy getting it. But Betsy said if her number came up she would do it for me. But alas, someone stole it from the first lady. And my mind was open to the thought of taking it. Surely, I could steal from a thief. That wasn't as bad as taking from someone who honestly acquired the painting.
But then people kept getting called and it wasn't Betsy or I and we started to worry. Or I started to worry, Betsy didn't care so much. But then we formulated a new plan. If either of our numbers came up, either of us would steal the painting, then when the next one of us is chosen, we'd steal the painting and it would close it off from being stolen again.
The plan was set, the only catch was that our numbers would have to be called close together. Betsy got called! Without delay she walked over and stole the painting. And it was okay, everyone was all smiles. (Which means they didn't want it that bad, so nuts to them.) She sat down next to me and we waited and hoped that no one else eyed our prize.
And then, as luck would have it, four or five people later my number was called. It was a miracle. A Christmas miracle! I stood up boldly. I reached over my beloved wife and picked up the painting and raised it over my head to show everyone in the large room that I was stealing it from Betsy and that it was over. Then I sat down and admired the painting in front of me.
Since I stole Betsy's gift, she was free to choose something else. We had thought of this as an opportunity to relieve ourselves from some "stuff" so we decided if we would get anything, it would be little. So Betsy walked over and found a tiny little wrapped box. Inside was a fancy pen box entitled Parker Pens. After opening she discovered a note reading "Parker Pens: The Early Years." Inside was a used number 2 pencil and an old Marriot Hotel ballpoint pen. A gag gift. And a decent one at that. Supposedly the guy who gifted it gives gag gifts every year. It was reported that last year he gave a pillow case with his face on it.
We snagged this photo for posterity sake. The gift and the giver.
Merry Christmas!
And God bless us, everyone!
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Karl Hite: Brother, Ninja, Actuary
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)