7/3/2014 Out of the Furnace, 2013, not nominated
When I first saw the previews for Out of the Furnace, I thought, man, I want to see that movie, it's got Christian Bale, Woody Harrelson, Forest Whitaker and others. Then, time came and went, and it was Oscar time and I never got to it. Thanks to my local library, it didn't cost me a dime, and I'm kind of glad. It wasn't terrible, but it wasn't great either. The movie is set in a small town near Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and is about two brothers. The older brother, Russ (Christian Bale) works in a steel mill, often pulling double shifts, and he has a serious relationship with Lena (Zoe Saldana) and a protective relationship with his younger brother, Rodney (Casey Affleck). Rodney is in the Army and has already done at least one tour in Iraq or Afghanistan, but when he is back home, he gambles, and owes his bookie, John Petty, (Willem Dafoe) a lot of money. Russ works hard, but occasionally plays hard as well, and gets into a car accident while intoxicated and spends some time in prison; meanwhile he loses his girlfriend, his father dies and Rodney is deployed again. Rodney starts bare knuckle fighting to make some money and payoff his bookie; when Rodney wants to up the stakes, he asks to fight for Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), who takes no prisoners and is a real mean SOB. That's about the first half of the movie and the second half is Russ finding out what happened to Rodney and holding DeGroat to account. I like revenge movies, I think they can be cathartic and suspenseful and redemptive. I didn't think Out of the Furnace was any of those things. It just felt like it was missing something: passion, a conscience, something. I think Sam Shepard (as Russ's uncle) or Forest Whitaker as the Police Chief could have been that, but it seemed flat. I read somewhere (maybe Netflix) that this was a thriller. It wasn't, not by my definition anyway. I knew what the outcome was going to be, there was no other option. Anyway, it's okay, and if you can get it for free, it's even better. I think there was a good opportunity wasted here.
7/4/14 The Last Command, 1927/1928 Best Actor, national film registry
The Last Command is a film directed by Josef von Sternberg and stars Emil Jannings as Grand Duke Sergius Alexander and a relatively young William Powell as movie producer Leo Andreyev. In the first year of the Academy Awards the Best Actor and Actress awards were given for performances over multiple roles, and Jannings won for this film and The Way of All Flesh. The movie begins in the late 1920s but quickly flashes back to 1917/1918, towards the end of World War I but in the early days leading up to the Russian Revolution. Grand Duke Sergius is a cousin of the Czar and a military man who gets a little impatient with some of the Czar's silliness and perceived interference in running the war. The Grand Duke also has to contend with revolutionary actors who are an annoyance as well. One of these actors is Leo Andreyev who is sent off to prison (we think) and separated from his romantic interest, Natalie Dabrova. Natalie goes off with the Grand Duke, and while she starts off as quite revolutionary and full of the party line, she slowly becomes enamored of the Grand Duke, and he with her. There is a point where the power shifts from the army to the peasants and enlisted men, and the Grand Duke is in danger. Ultimately, Sergius escapes from Russia and lands in Hollywood and tries to get work as an extra and that is where Andreyev sees his photo and in a gesture that seems cruel at first, Andreyev hires Sergius to be a general in his film. Sergius has clearly aged and is no longer the brutish general, but a fragile old man. The end of the film has the element of redemption that I think I was looking for in Out of the Furnace, and while I didn't cry, I definitely felt a little sadness. While the acting occasionally seems over the top (something typical in the silent movies I've seen), many of Jannings' scenes are beautifully understated and wonderful. William Powell seems to capture the stereotype of the early movie producers and directors (Powell was in The Thin Man series). The movie provides an interesting perspective on the Russian Revolution (which in reality was only 10 years prior to this film being made) and it alternately makes a case against the Czarist regime, but does not seem to fully endorse the mob mentality of the revolutionaries. It's also amazing to consider that there really was not that much dialog (at least shown on the intertitles) and yet, you can still understand what's going on, which always makes me wonder about movies that have endless dialog and you have no idea what's happening.
7/5/14 Three Coins in the Fountain, Best Original Song, Best Cinematography, 1954
 |
| The Fountain of the title, 2006 |
You've heard the song, right? Well, watch this movie and then you have the whole context of the song. I actually didn't like the song that much, which might be blasphemy to some, but there you go. I did like the movie, though, and that's what we're here for. I was reminded of Roman Holiday which featured Rome through some beautiful shots; Three Coins in the Fountain does very much the same thing. The story focuses on three American women working in Rome as secretaries (I'm not being politically incorrect, that's how they were referred); they meet or know men that they eventually fall in love, and the movie follows them through adventures and misadventures and misunderstandings. The main cast may not ring a lot of bells with younger movie goers, but cinema fans will recognize Clifton Webb (Laura), Dorothy McGuire (Gentleman's Agreement, Old Yeller and others) and Louis Jourdan (Gigi). There aren't any complicated plot lines or big mysteries unraveled, but there are some funny moments as the men and women do the age old dance of courting and wooing and then not being interested or feigning disinterest. If you are planning to go to Italy, have gone to Italy or dream of going to Italy, pull a double feature with Roman Holiday and you can have a great family evening with beautiful views of the Trevi Fountain, the Colosseum, Spanish Steps and more. This was an unexpected find for me, I really just wanted to cross something off the list, and bonus for me, I liked it.
7/6/14 Maleficent, not yet nominated 2014
Okay, I'll admit it, when I first heard about this movie, I couldn't roll my eyes enough. Dumb, nobody is going to want to see this, etc. And then, I just kept hearing the positive buzz, and I'll say it, I'm an Angelina Jolie fan (I watch the Lara Croft movies every time they're on). So, fine, I went to see it. And, I'll be damned. I loved it. Honestly loved it. Why? Okay: Angelina Jolie totally owns Maleficent and all her flaws and positive traits and has a mischievous air about her; the cinematography is gorgeous; the sets are beautifully done, some are probably CGI, but others look 'real'; the story is a totally new twist on something that is familiar to almost everyone (Sleeping Beauty). Is that enough or do you want more? There are some really funny bits and some scary bits as well (if you let your kid see Harry Potter, then they'll be fine here, in my opinion). As I mentioned, it's a variation on the Sleeping Beauty story, Elle Fanning is the older Aurora (Sleeping Beauty); Imelda Staunton is one of the pixies; Sharlto Copley is King Stephen (I had to look him up, he was Howling Mad Murdock in The A-Team movie) and a lot of the cast is pretty anonymous (I don't mean that in a bad way, but some of the names and faces did not seem familiar to me at all), but they were really good, especially Sam Riley as Diaval, the closest thing Maleficent has as a friend or ally. I don't want to give too much away since it's still in the theaters, but basically Maleficent is a powerful fairy who protects the Moors against the humans across the valley. Her power is in her wings, and through trickery, she loses them, and then becomes rather grumpy and mean, and vindictive. But, unlike Out of the Furnace, there is a path that she takes and the hope for redemption. It definitely challenges the viewer to look at how we form perceptions, prejudices and how we can change them. If you haven't seen it, I would recommend seeing it on the big screen. As I alluded to, it's not for real little kids, there are some pretty scary moments, but there was a little boy who was maybe 7, and he seemed totally fine (there were only 5 of us in the theater - bonus!); the scary is balanced by funny or 'sweet' moments, so you're not in a dark place too long.
7/6/14 Life Itself, 2014
Talk about timing, I just finished Roger Ebert's autobiography, Life Itself on Saturday and then saw the documentary based on it on Sunday. I'm glad I read the book first because he goes into so much more detail about his early life, his influences and then later he talks about some of the actors and directors he got to know and his relationship with Gene Siskel. He packed a lot of information into 400 pages (I also read Charlie Chaplin's autobiography which topped 700 pages, and I thought Ebert's was much better written and more honest). Anyway, if you do not know, Roger Ebert was a film critic for over 40 years and was the first film critic to win a Pulitzer Prize. He passed away in 2013 after a courageous battle with cancer where he lost his lower jaw, could not eat, drink or speak. Up until the end, he did not really let these things stop him, he started blogging and communicating electronically. Ebert came up at probably the best time, the beginning of Martin Scorcese's career, to give you a reference, and saw thousands of movies. As he tells his story, he reflects honestly on his quirky habits (or annoying if you ask Siskel), his ego, his flaws - he is very open about his drinking problem, his politics, his love of London (my favorite city), his illness and his affection for his friends, some of whom he had since college. The book can be looked at as so many different things: it's a memoir for sure, but it also gives the reader insight into the newspaper industry (which I suppose in the 21st century may be more historical to some readers); a look into the Norman Rockwell-like setting of Urbana, Illinois; a travelogue to hidden London; a peek into the 'stars' of the 1960s and 1970s, some of whom may seem unknown today, like Lee Marvin; and lastly, a love letter to his wife Chaz. Most of you know I'm not much of a romantic, but it's hard not to be moved by their love story, and his love of her family. Steve James directed the documentary based on the book, and what the documentary adds to the book is actual interviews with Ebert's friends, co-workers, his wife, and Ebert himself who replies via his electronic voice. Siskel and Ebert were big supporters of James's early documentary Hoop Dreams, which is powerful viewing if you haven't seen it. We get to see Ebert in rehab, which can be very hard to watch sometimes, but Roger was intent on not hiding his illness, and he seems in mostly good spirits, giving his familiar thumbs up. This movie is not a downer, though, there are some hilarious outtakes from "At the Movies"/"Siskel & Ebert" that will have you laughing out loud; and some of the stories that Siskel's wife and the producers tell about their rivalry/friendship are pretty funny. I remember watching the different incarnations of Siskel & Ebert, and thinking sometimes I totally disagreed with one or both of them, but enjoyed their banter. I don't know if I ever watched or skipped a movie based on their comments, but it was good to have thumbs up or thumbs down. If you're a movie lover, I can't recommend the book or the movie enough; you won't regret it. It may not be nominated for an Oscar, but I think the Academy ought to give Roger Ebert an honorary Oscar for his dedication to the film industry.
