| « | February 2009 | » | ||||
 |
||||||
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
Very Simple, very disturbing, very exciting...and after seeing DELIVERANCE, I am never going out into the Wilderness or visiting the Deep South ever again. I also will forever detest the sound of a banjo. But in all seriousness, this was a grotesquely entertaining film.
The 1950s were full of corny Sci-Fi features. THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL is one that has a bit more brain behind it...and more than its 2008 remake does. There isn't much action, and most of the film has Klaatu just talking to humans and trying to get a grasp on who they are and how they act. Sometimes the relentless dialogue gets tedious, but this film, directed by the great Robert Wise, is entertaining enough to not be pigeonholed into that B-Movie status.
****
Amazing cinematography, brilliant acting, PERFECT screenplay...but the Best Movie Ever Made?? I don't quite agree with that, but I can completely understand why it is usually chosen as such. The legend about Orson Welles, only in his mid-20s, having carte-blanche from his studio, came up with this Masterpiece.It is interesting that a movie without sex or violence, about a media mogul and his life, can hold such interest. The flashback nature of the screenplay is its brilliance, and I'd be pressed to find a better photographed film, EVER. I get it. I finally get the hooplah over CITIZEN KANE.
**
Some movies are timeless classics, but others are classics for their time. The previously seen THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD is a timeless classic, obviously dated, but no less entertaining and not that different than a movie of its kind made today. NIGHT OF THE LIVING DEAD is a classic for basically setting the foundation for a whole genre of horror movies, the Zombie movie. However, even though it may have been shocking and frightening in its time, the movie is too silly and too tame to really withstand the test of time. As a movie-lover whose appetite for Zombie films has previously been sated by 28 DAYS LATER and Zack Snyder's DAWN OF THE DEAD remake, Romero's original opus just doesn't do much for me.
***
I now understand why Woody Allen is always talking about how he is inspired by Ingmar Bergman. THE SEVENTH SEAL is the first film I have seen of Bergman's, and it certainly has a kind of Woody Allen feel to it (of which I am VERY well versed). In Allen films, people sit around talking about life, death, and god...and comically absurd things happen to them. In THE SEVENTH SEAL, people sit around talking about Life, Death, and God...and dramatically intense things happen to them. Watching Max Von Sydow (did this guy ever NOT look 70 years old?) play Chess with Death is a pretty iconic image, and the setting of a plague torn Sweden post-crusades is quite a environment for people to start believing that the Apocalypse is nigh. Well done, if a bit uneven and rambling at times.
When I think of THE WIZARD OF OZ, I remember how incredibly YELLOW the Yellow Brick Road was. Now, when I think of THE ADVENTURES OF ROBIN HOOD, I will think of how GREEN his tights were. This film is just fantastic, full of ridiculous swashbuckling and with a saturated technicolor palette that just exudes fantasy and fun. Now I know where MEN IN TIGHTS gets its inspiration...it is from Errol Flynn's performance as Robin Hood. I just ate this movie up, with some great stunt work, production design that looks like a very ornate Rennaissance festival, and some well placed humor throughout. I mentioned THE WIZARD OF OZ before, well I believe this film is in the same league. Great Fun!!!
***
It is hard to find a more Iconic character in the history of cinema than that of Bela Lugosi's Count Dracula. For the first time, I have seen the original 1931 version of Bram Stoker's novel and I have to say...the man is INCREDIBLY suited for the role. When Renfield first showed up to Castle Dracula at the start of the film, I was astonished by the production design in this film, especially for something made in the mid 30s. But as the story moved into London, it started to drag and become less and less magical. Lugosi never wavers in his performance, but Dracula lurking around a London bedroom is not quite as mesmerizing as Dracula lurking around his own castle. Renfield does constantly steal the show with his lunacy.
Watching THE BIRTH OF A NATION was quite an experience. Never before have I been so impressed by what a film accomplished TECHNICALLY for the history of cinema whule simultaneously being shocked by how abhorrent the subject matter is. This movie is so blatantly racist, I couldn't believe my eyes. The KKK are basically portrayed as the saviours of the United States and giving the blacks any sort of freedom of power was the worst thing this country ever did. Even though it was disgusting in this respect, it was oddly entertaining to see how bigoted DW Griffith would go with the whole thing. It is truly a film relic that changed the way movies are made. People learned to use the technical merits of the film and stay the HELL away from the political message.
If there was ever a movie to scare someone out of EVER doing drugs, REQUIEM FOR A DREAM is it. This movie is truly like watching a nightmare, as we follow different addicts spiral down toward oblivion because of their addictions. Ellen Burstyn is truly a marvel as the elderly lady who starts on diet pills and gets worse, and worse, and WORSE. I also enjoyed how Marlon Wayans wasn't a complete psychotic idiot like he usually is in comedies. Darren Aronofsky is one weird, but talented filmmaker.
** 1/2
Simply incredible in its size and scope for a 1920s Sci-Fi film, but ultimately too random, overacted, and disjointed to be a REALLY good film. Most people rank this as one of the best Science Fiction films ever. Even though I agree it was trend-setting, the whole film is not much more than a labor dispute. The fact that a lot of the film was lost and the missing pieces are replaced by screens EXPLAINING what is going on really hurts the whole thing. Regardless...probably the most entertaining silent film I have seen so far, even if just for how over the top the acting is.
Not quite my favorite of Allen's films, and I certainly don't understand the ridiculous amount of attention the Oscars gave it. I can buy both Michael Caine and Dianne Weist getting Supporting Actor/Actress wins...but Best Pic, Best Director, Best ART DIRECTION noms? Not quite. I generally enjoy Allen's films in which he stars, but he seems imported from another film in this one. Regardless...it is a lot of fun and entertaining. But it's no ANNIE HALL.
**
NOSFERATU is the first cinematic "Dracula" adaptation, and most subsequent adaptations rely heavily on its influence. The silent film technique is pretty much perfect for the genre, but I have to say...the scenes where Count Orlock (Max Shreck) is not on screen are tediously boring. If it weren't for Shreck's nightmarishly perfect portrayal of the vampire, this film would simply be work to sit through. I know there is that whole..."Well, you have to realize that it was made in 1922" stuff. Well, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI was made even earlier and is still scary and entertaining. Count Orlock is Iconic, the movie is generally a bore.
I was surprised by how intense this film was with the flogging and other mistreatments of the crew of the Bounty. Charles Laughton is now one of my favorite cinematic villains. He is so despicable it is fun to hate him. I am also starting to understand why Clark Gable was such a star. He is always smirking and almost grandstanding for the camera, as if his performances are outside of the movie he is starring in (this goes for GONE WITH THE WIND as well), but he is so good at it that all is forgiven. For a movie made in 1935, the production design is superb, and the scenes in Tahiti are a lot of fun. Just a great film worth of that 1935 Best Picture Oscar.
So that is almost it for the movies that I have seen since I started this endeavor. I still have HANNAH & HER SISTERS, MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY, and DANCES WITH WOLVES before I start using Blockbuster and Cable to catch up with all of the other films. Here is the list of movies #1-121...the movies in the book that I had seen and thoroughly remembered when I first started this whole thing:
This is the biggest movie I have ever seen, and I am sorry that I have never seen it on the big screen. When a movie seems to dwarf GONE WITH THE WIND, BEN HUR, and LORD OF THE RINGS...it MUST be big. Watching the desert canvas that David Lean was painting on throughout LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, I couldn't help but think that even then, the lens wasn't big enough to capture the vastness of the Arabian desert. Never before have I seen the desert as such a harsh, unforgiving terrain. I also have to mention Peter O'Toole, who plays Lawrence as a hubristic, effeminate oddball, and it is totally believable that he was able to unite the Arab tribes against the Turks. WOW!!! Simply WOW!!!!!
I avoided this film for the longest time. How could I get excited about a 4 hour epic, starring Charleton "Soylent Green" Heston, that couldn't possibly live up to all of its accolades? Well...I was wrong. BEN HUR is an astonishing film. That chariot race is one of the best action sequences in the history of cinema...exciting and dangerous to a level I never though imaginable from a film made in the 1950s. Also, Heston can actually ACT!!! I was so surprised. The plot of BEN HUR is not that different from GLADIATOR, but also has all of the Christ encounters, that never felt forced or cheesy. When/if they ever make a Charleton Heston biopic...Patrick Wilson BETTER play him, because as I sat through BEN HUR, the entire time, I thought it was Wilson on screen. It's a perfect match.
I finally understand what Peter Jackson was trying to do with his KING KONG update in 2005 and why the 1933 version inspired him so much. This film is a marvel monster movie for being made so long ago. Also, the length is what makes it so successful. Jackson's opus was FAR too long, but now I realize how good Jack Black was as Carl Denham. Even though the stop-action animation was obviously not real, I was excited a bit more than during the 2005 version...which I was more impressed with by marveling at its realism. Just a great time to be had with this classic!!
Yet another "classic" horror film that I was a bit disappointed in. It certainly isn't a bad film, hence the ***, but the terror that is involved in this film has really nothing to do with the demonic themes. The real scares come from the fact that everyone Rosemary trusts is plotting against her and she has nowhere to turn. This is definitely the best I have seen Mia Farrow, as she really portray's Rosemary's helplessness perfectly. I really do wish that there was a bit more Satanism in the film however. I don't know....maybe the fear of abandonment and mistrust was the whole point. If it was...it did that well.
Stanley Kubrick is an artistic master. I don't know what happened at the conclusion of this film, but it is mesmerizing to watch and understanding it is only secondary. I guess it is kind of like the essence of MULHOLLAND DR. I was also thoroughly impressed by the special effects and camera trickery, that is more realistic than modern day sci-fi epics. Those scenes with the guy jogging around the space station? Incredible. And good old HAL...who would have thought an inanimate red bulb would become one of the most iconic film characters of all time. This film also further immortalized "Also Sprach Zarathustra" and "The Blue Danube". What an experience!!!
Is it wrong to rank a movie based solely on one scene? That's how I feel about THE DEER HUNTER. The opening act at the wedding is too long and inconsequential. The final act is a bit boring and rambling. However, that famous "Russian Roullette" scene is so incredibly powerful that it singlehandedly legitimized the Best Picture Oscar for me. It was also nice to see Christopher Walken doing something other than making fun of himself and his caricature.
