11/19/16 Ace in the Hole, 1951 #100 BBC
Ace in the Hole was not what I thought it would be; actually, I had no preconceptions whatsoever as I had never heard of the movie before. And after watching it, that really surprises me. I really enjoyed this movie produced, directed and co-written by Billy Wilder, and starring Kirk Douglas as an overly ambitious and self-centered reporter, Chuck Tatum. Tatum has bounced around newspapers because of his drinking, womanizing and other inappropriate behavior. He winds up in New Mexico and joins a local paper there, the Albuquerque Sun-Bulletin, seemingly reformed, until he is sent off to cover a rattlesnake hunt, but instead stumbles across a man who is buried in a collapsed cave. Well, that's a story. An even better story would be if the man, Leo Minosa, stayed down there for a few more days so Tatum can build up a bigger story and negotiate a huge paycheck from the larger national papers. He gets support from Leo's unhappy and dissatisfied wife, Lorraine (Jan Sterling), who is tired of the dusty, poor life she leads. Before long, the town is bursting with gawkers and has a carnival atmosphere as everyone wants to see what happens to Leo. Tatum keeps Leo to himself, not letting other reporters near him. Tatum seems possessed by the glare of the spotlight on him and has visions of relaunching his career with no regard for Leo or his parents. Wilder shines a cynical light on the media, and this is before the advent of cable television, satellite tv, the internet and the 24 hour news cycle. It seems rather prescient with the news circus we have all around us. Douglas is fantastic as Tatum. Wilder is known for movies like The Lost Weekend, Sunset Boulevard, Double Indemnity and Stalag 17 (among many others), perhaps what's why Ace in the Hole is so overlooked. If you are looking for a movie off the beaten track, I strongly recommend Ace in the Hole.
11/24/16 Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, not yet nominated, 2016
I think a lot of people are going to be unhappy with my take on Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, but I did not love it, I'm not even sure I liked it. I know that I looked at my phone (for the time) at least four times, which is not something I normally do. I just didn't really care that much. Eddie Redmayne (who is one of my favorite actors these days) is Newt Scamander an English wizard traveling in New York City with a magical case with fantastic beasts he has collected from around the world. As far as I'm concerned, the beasts are the stars of the movie, since it seemed to me that over half of the movie focused on them, with little or no dialog to interrupt their gliding and flying.Newt meets Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a wizard who works for MACUSA (Magical Congress of the United States), who has been demoted to wand licenses or some such. Newt also meets a muggle or no-maj (which does not trip off the tongue) named Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), and the adventures start when the two accidentally swap their suitcases and three of the creatures get loose in New York City. Jacob takes the fancy of Tina's sister, Queenie (Alison Sudol). Colin Farrell is Percival Graves, Director of Magical Security. And then there's this whole thing with Mary Lou Barebone (Samantha Morton), the leader of the New Salem Philanthropic Society, who takes in kids and forces them to hand out anti-magic leaflets, she is not above physical punishment, especially towards Credence (Ezra Barebone). This train of thought just annoyed me, it seemed like an afterthought, but it was used to pull everything together at the end. Oh, wait, and then there is the character of Gellert Grindelwald, a dark wizard, whom we just hear of through chatter at MACUSA and newspaper headlines, until the very end. I have to say that even though J.K. Rowling wrote the script (oh, sorry, I didn't mention that this is a prelude to the Harry Potter series), it didn't seem to hang together very well; it seemed awkward and forced to me. Visually, the movie is spectacular, the beasts are creative and unique; the sets are fabulous. There could definitely be nominations for production/set design, visual effects, and some of the other technical awards. Anyway, if you are a true blue Harry Potter fan, you will probably love this; and I guess a lot of people will love it. Sadly, I did not.
11/25/16 The Shining #62 BBC
Oh my god. I'm so glad that's over. I really dislike/hate horror movies. I have told you this. But The Shining by Stanley Kubrick (book by Stephen King) was on the BBC list (damn it), so I had to watch. I intentionally watched it during the day because I am honestly afraid of having nightmares, so I will follow this up with Mrs. Doubtfire. Jack Nicholson stars as Jack Torrance, a wannabe writer and a bit of an arsehole; Shelly Duvall is his wife, Wendy, and Danny Lloyd plays their son Danny. In order to focus on his writing, Jack moves the family to an isolated hotel in Colorado to act as caretakers in the offseason. Danny has a telepathic ability which is more creepy than fun; in fact, most things are creepy in this movie. The hotel has a history of violence, which is brought to Jack's attention early on, as well as to Danny's by his new friend Dick Halloran (Scatman Crothers), who is the chef at the hotel and shares Danny's gift. There is a lot of analysis ofn this movie, as there is with all of Kubrick's movies; there are also comparisons to the book by King, which I have not read. I am in no position to analyze, compare or contrast, as it was all I could do to just get through it. The last 30-40 minutes were pretty intense, ok, really scary to me. So, this is all I've got. I made it.
The Lion King, Thelma and Louise, The Conversation and Hail, Caesar!
11/11/16 The Lion King, Best Original Score, Best Original Song, 1994 #86 BBC
I would hope that twenty-two years after the film was released (plus the theatrical musical) nobody really needs a synopsis of The Lion King. But, I could be presuming. So, the short version is that Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Matthew Broderick are the voices) is the son of Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones), the king of the pride. Mufasa has a jealous and power-hungry brother, Scar (Jeremy Irons) who does not have much time for his young nephew, or anyone else for that matter. A stampede of epic proportions sets the scene for Mufasa's death, seemingly because of Simba, but really because of Scar (I hope I didn't ruin it for the five of you who have not seen the movie). Simba runs off and meets two of the craziest characters a person, or a lion, could ever meet: Timon, a meerkat (Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa, a warthog (Ernie Sabella). Timon and Pumbaa become Simba's family and they make their way through the jungle together. The due also teach Simba about "Hakuna Matata" - no worries. Meanwhile, back in the pride, Scar is wreaking havoc and misery throughout the jungle, no hakuna matata there. The cast of characters is rounded out by Sarabi (Madge Sinclair), Simba's mother; Nala, Simba's friend and later wife; Zazu (Rowan Atkinson), a hornbill, who is Mufasa's right hand bird; Rafiki (Robert Guillaume), a wise mandrill, who is a shaman and provides blessings to the animals; and the three hyenas voiced by Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin and Jim Cummings. It seems to be a Disney trope to have one (or both) of the parents die early in the story; it seems to fast-track any character and story development. So, I'm sure grown-ups were not all that surprised when it happened, although they may not have been thrilled to have their kids watch it. It has characters that have become almost iconic, like Scar, Timon and Pumbaa (honestly, to me, Simba is kind of meh). And of course it has great songs by Tim Rice and Elton John, including "Can You Feel The Love Tonight, which won the Oscar for Best Original Song; "Circle of Life" and the previously mentioned "Hakuna Matata". I have no doubt that little kids all over the world are still being introduced to The Lion King as I write.
11/12/16 Thelma and Louise, Best Original Screenplay, 1991, #81 BBC
Thelma and Louise is one of a very limited number of female buddy movies, right now, I'm having a tough time coming up with another one. This probably explains its place of reverence in feminist cinematic history. Thelma and Louise (Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, respectively) are supposed to just be going out for a long weekend, which then turns into the weekend from hell. Thelma is married to Darryl, who, while he isn't as enlightened as we would like, isn't a total jerk; Louise is in a relatively satisfactory relationship with Jimmy, who later goes out on a limb to help Louise and Thelma. At their first stop, Thelma meets Harlan, a fun-loving guy who doesn't take 'no' for an answer, and begins to sexually assault Thelma until Louise steps in, and lets him know what 'no' means. Unfortunately, that sets Detective Hal Slocumb (Harvey Keitel) on their trail. They have other adventures (or misadventures), including a sexy, but costly, encounter with J.D. (a very young Brad Pitt) a con-man trying to hitch a ride to anywhere, really. There is a bank robbery; the F.B.I. gets involved; a state trooper in the wrong place at the wrong time; and a very rude truck driver. Louise is clearly the more mature and worldly of the two women, with Thelma being painfully naive, and occasionally just plain dense (that may be harsh, but she ticked me off a couple of times); but as the movie goes on, Thelma comes into her own, and shows a lot of strength, and at times when Louise needs the support. Slocumb tries to build a rapport with the women, ostensibly to bring them in safe, but neither women believe they will be treated with any kind of understanding by the predominately male authorities. The first time I saw Thelma and Louise, it didn't resonate with me, but this time around, it did. It was serious when it needed to be, but it also had good banter between Davis and Sarandon who seemed like they really were friends. Roles like Thelma and Louise do not come around very often for women (perhaps a little more these days, but not enough), and I think that's why it is so popular with women, even today, at least as a cultural reference. I'm glad I watched it again.
11/14/16 Hail, Caesar!, 2016, not yet nominated
I don't know where to begin. Hail, Caesar! is a Coen Brothers film, which for me means I might like it, love it, or have mixed feelings. At this particular moment, I have mixed feelings. As with many Coen Brothers movies, there are several different plot lines, and sometimes they work and sometimes they just seem to be left hanging out there. Hail, Caesar! is set during the 1950s, the period of the big set epic pictures like Spartacus, Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, The Robe, etc., and movie star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is working on just such an epic called Hail, Caesar! when he is kidnapped by a group of Communist supporters, including many screenwriters from Hollywood. Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is a 'fixer' for Capitol Studios and he is responsible for finding Baird, but also for taking care of any other scandals that might affect the studio including aquatic star DeeAnn Moran's (Scarlett Johanssen) unplanned pregnancy; coaching Hobie Doyle, (Alden Ehrenreich) a young Western star in his first real dramatic acting role; and placating the dueling twin gossip columnists, Thora and Thessaly Thacker (played by Tilda Swinton). All of these story lines happen concurrently, and periodically, they cross over. As this is going on, Mannix is being wooed by Lockheed Corporation for a high level job, less stress, better hours and better pay. Oh yeah, there's also a story line with Channing Tatum and a German submarine. I was surprised by Tatum's tap dancing skills, seriously. That was a surprisingly great dance routine, worthy of a Gene Kelly movie. So, put all of these subplots in a movie, add the Baird Whitlock plot, and that's the movie. Was this of any value? Probably not. For that, I am sorry. How about, I sort of liked it? Does that help? You can't win them all, but if this is nominated for Best Original Screenplay, or Best Cinematography, then it's already taken care of.
11/15/16 The Conversation, 1974, #33 BBC, National Film Registry
The Conversation, written, directed and produced by Francis Ford Coppola, is a tense, psychological thriller with a lot nuance, driven primarily by the main character, Harry Caul, played by one of my favorites, Gene Hackman. Caul is a surveillance expert, and the movie follows him on one particular job that involves a young couple (Frederic Forrest and Cindy Williams), an older man (Robert Duvall) and a lot of fragmentary conversation. Caul spends the movie trying to piece together not only the conversation of the couple, but also tries to attach some kind of context to the situation. It's kind of like sitting on the train and picking up bits of conversations and trying to figure out what is really being discussed. I know I make up scenarios that may or may not be near the truth, or reality. Caul is a private, serious loner, and very paranoid. It must be hard to eavesdrop on people, perhaps hear things that are intimate, personal, and perhaps dangerous or illegal. This particular case seems to take its toll on Harry as we watch his paranoia increase as he thinks he is figuring out what the conversation is about. It is a little hard to believe that The Conversation was done by the same man who did Apocalypse Now (Coppola), but when I think that in The Conversation we watch the slow unraveling of Harry Caul and the same for Captain Benjamin Willard and Colonel Walter Kurtz, it doesn't seem so far fetched. I don't know why The Conversation is not talked about more as a great movie. If you are looking for a mystery/film noir movie with a stellar performance by Gene Hackman, I totally recommend The Conversation.
I would hope that twenty-two years after the film was released (plus the theatrical musical) nobody really needs a synopsis of The Lion King. But, I could be presuming. So, the short version is that Simba (Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Matthew Broderick are the voices) is the son of Mufasa (voiced by James Earl Jones), the king of the pride. Mufasa has a jealous and power-hungry brother, Scar (Jeremy Irons) who does not have much time for his young nephew, or anyone else for that matter. A stampede of epic proportions sets the scene for Mufasa's death, seemingly because of Simba, but really because of Scar (I hope I didn't ruin it for the five of you who have not seen the movie). Simba runs off and meets two of the craziest characters a person, or a lion, could ever meet: Timon, a meerkat (Nathan Lane) and Pumbaa, a warthog (Ernie Sabella). Timon and Pumbaa become Simba's family and they make their way through the jungle together. The due also teach Simba about "Hakuna Matata" - no worries. Meanwhile, back in the pride, Scar is wreaking havoc and misery throughout the jungle, no hakuna matata there. The cast of characters is rounded out by Sarabi (Madge Sinclair), Simba's mother; Nala, Simba's friend and later wife; Zazu (Rowan Atkinson), a hornbill, who is Mufasa's right hand bird; Rafiki (Robert Guillaume), a wise mandrill, who is a shaman and provides blessings to the animals; and the three hyenas voiced by Whoopi Goldberg, Cheech Marin and Jim Cummings. It seems to be a Disney trope to have one (or both) of the parents die early in the story; it seems to fast-track any character and story development. So, I'm sure grown-ups were not all that surprised when it happened, although they may not have been thrilled to have their kids watch it. It has characters that have become almost iconic, like Scar, Timon and Pumbaa (honestly, to me, Simba is kind of meh). And of course it has great songs by Tim Rice and Elton John, including "Can You Feel The Love Tonight, which won the Oscar for Best Original Song; "Circle of Life" and the previously mentioned "Hakuna Matata". I have no doubt that little kids all over the world are still being introduced to The Lion King as I write.
11/12/16 Thelma and Louise, Best Original Screenplay, 1991, #81 BBC
Thelma and Louise is one of a very limited number of female buddy movies, right now, I'm having a tough time coming up with another one. This probably explains its place of reverence in feminist cinematic history. Thelma and Louise (Geena Davis and Susan Sarandon, respectively) are supposed to just be going out for a long weekend, which then turns into the weekend from hell. Thelma is married to Darryl, who, while he isn't as enlightened as we would like, isn't a total jerk; Louise is in a relatively satisfactory relationship with Jimmy, who later goes out on a limb to help Louise and Thelma. At their first stop, Thelma meets Harlan, a fun-loving guy who doesn't take 'no' for an answer, and begins to sexually assault Thelma until Louise steps in, and lets him know what 'no' means. Unfortunately, that sets Detective Hal Slocumb (Harvey Keitel) on their trail. They have other adventures (or misadventures), including a sexy, but costly, encounter with J.D. (a very young Brad Pitt) a con-man trying to hitch a ride to anywhere, really. There is a bank robbery; the F.B.I. gets involved; a state trooper in the wrong place at the wrong time; and a very rude truck driver. Louise is clearly the more mature and worldly of the two women, with Thelma being painfully naive, and occasionally just plain dense (that may be harsh, but she ticked me off a couple of times); but as the movie goes on, Thelma comes into her own, and shows a lot of strength, and at times when Louise needs the support. Slocumb tries to build a rapport with the women, ostensibly to bring them in safe, but neither women believe they will be treated with any kind of understanding by the predominately male authorities. The first time I saw Thelma and Louise, it didn't resonate with me, but this time around, it did. It was serious when it needed to be, but it also had good banter between Davis and Sarandon who seemed like they really were friends. Roles like Thelma and Louise do not come around very often for women (perhaps a little more these days, but not enough), and I think that's why it is so popular with women, even today, at least as a cultural reference. I'm glad I watched it again.
11/14/16 Hail, Caesar!, 2016, not yet nominated
I don't know where to begin. Hail, Caesar! is a Coen Brothers film, which for me means I might like it, love it, or have mixed feelings. At this particular moment, I have mixed feelings. As with many Coen Brothers movies, there are several different plot lines, and sometimes they work and sometimes they just seem to be left hanging out there. Hail, Caesar! is set during the 1950s, the period of the big set epic pictures like Spartacus, Ben Hur, Quo Vadis, The Robe, etc., and movie star Baird Whitlock (George Clooney) is working on just such an epic called Hail, Caesar! when he is kidnapped by a group of Communist supporters, including many screenwriters from Hollywood. Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin) is a 'fixer' for Capitol Studios and he is responsible for finding Baird, but also for taking care of any other scandals that might affect the studio including aquatic star DeeAnn Moran's (Scarlett Johanssen) unplanned pregnancy; coaching Hobie Doyle, (Alden Ehrenreich) a young Western star in his first real dramatic acting role; and placating the dueling twin gossip columnists, Thora and Thessaly Thacker (played by Tilda Swinton). All of these story lines happen concurrently, and periodically, they cross over. As this is going on, Mannix is being wooed by Lockheed Corporation for a high level job, less stress, better hours and better pay. Oh yeah, there's also a story line with Channing Tatum and a German submarine. I was surprised by Tatum's tap dancing skills, seriously. That was a surprisingly great dance routine, worthy of a Gene Kelly movie. So, put all of these subplots in a movie, add the Baird Whitlock plot, and that's the movie. Was this of any value? Probably not. For that, I am sorry. How about, I sort of liked it? Does that help? You can't win them all, but if this is nominated for Best Original Screenplay, or Best Cinematography, then it's already taken care of.
11/15/16 The Conversation, 1974, #33 BBC, National Film Registry
The Conversation, written, directed and produced by Francis Ford Coppola, is a tense, psychological thriller with a lot nuance, driven primarily by the main character, Harry Caul, played by one of my favorites, Gene Hackman. Caul is a surveillance expert, and the movie follows him on one particular job that involves a young couple (Frederic Forrest and Cindy Williams), an older man (Robert Duvall) and a lot of fragmentary conversation. Caul spends the movie trying to piece together not only the conversation of the couple, but also tries to attach some kind of context to the situation. It's kind of like sitting on the train and picking up bits of conversations and trying to figure out what is really being discussed. I know I make up scenarios that may or may not be near the truth, or reality. Caul is a private, serious loner, and very paranoid. It must be hard to eavesdrop on people, perhaps hear things that are intimate, personal, and perhaps dangerous or illegal. This particular case seems to take its toll on Harry as we watch his paranoia increase as he thinks he is figuring out what the conversation is about. It is a little hard to believe that The Conversation was done by the same man who did Apocalypse Now (Coppola), but when I think that in The Conversation we watch the slow unraveling of Harry Caul and the same for Captain Benjamin Willard and Colonel Walter Kurtz, it doesn't seem so far fetched. I don't know why The Conversation is not talked about more as a great movie. If you are looking for a mystery/film noir movie with a stellar performance by Gene Hackman, I totally recommend The Conversation.
Dar Williams at The Cedar - I am the Others
The Babysitter's Here (not me singing)
Dar has had some great opening acts over the years like Angel Snow, Haley Bonar, Mouths of Babes, and tonight she had a local Twin Cities author read one of her short stories. Lesley Nneka Arimah, originally from Nigeria, came onstage and read from her 2017 collection What It Means When a Man Falls Out of the Sky. It was a pretty heavy story (Arimah mentioned that her stories tend to be mostly about death and mortality) about the complex relationship a young woman had with her parents, especially her dead mother. I think the audience liked it, but it was not what we were expecting (from comments I heard). I'm not big into spoken word, either sing to me or let me read, but I appreciated the story's twist and look forward to reading the book.
I had never been to the Cedar Cultural Center before; I hate driving in Minneapolis, those turns seem to come out of the blue; one wrong turn and I could be back on the freeway. I'm glad I took a test drive on Sunday and had some idea where I was going. The Cedar is a non-profit venue for all ages that hosts all kinds of musical/dance events, from folk events to global to electronic music. It is very much a part of the community. There probably isn't a bad seat in the house, I was just 5 rows back on the left side and had a fabulous view of the stage. The sound (for Dar's show, at least) was really good, and I would go back for another show.
We did have a funny post-election moment as we were waiting for the doors to open. A car drove by, and young black man yelled out of the window "F*&* Donald Trump! F*&^ Donald Trump!" and kept going. We were all kind of shocked, only because Dar's audience leans heavily liberal/progressive, so, as one of the people in line said, we weren't going to disagree. It was kind of funny.
Review of Dr. Strange, A Braveheart: the Lizzie Velasquez Story and Truth
11/11/16 A Brave Heart: The Lizzie Velasquez Story, 2015
Full disclosure - I supported this project on Kickstarter back in 2014. Lizzie Velasquez is a young woman who was very cruelly identified on Youtube as 'The World's Ugliest Woman' in a posting that went viral and was filled with abominable comments. Most people would have been devastated and hid themselves away. If you watch this documentary you will quickly learn that Lizzie is not like most people. When Lizzie was born, she was very, very tiny, and the doctors and her parents noticed very early on that she was not gaining weight the way she should, but they couldn't figure out why. For over 25 years, Lizzie was undiagnosed, but during the movie, she and her family do receive a diagnosis, one that removes the feelings of guilt her mother has carried for all of these years. Lizzie and her family developed ways to deal with teasing at school; and Lizzie made friends on her own merits (trying out and making the cheer squad much against her mother's fears of rejection). Lizzie fought back against the online bully by creating her own Youtube channel, which then led to a TEDtalk, which then led to speaking engagements around the country. There are so many things that I loved about this documentary: first of all, Lizzie herself, she is an indomitable spirit, who can laugh at herself, has a loving and strong relationship with her family (her parents are gems); the anti-bullying message is not a peripheral issue, it is prominent and honest and painful; and I think it is a great educational opportunity for kids and parents on dealing with people who are different from them in some ways, but not different in others. When Lizzie gives her talks, she stresses to the audiences that the power to change, to be beautiful, to be strong, is within them, which is a message I like to hear; Lizzie's messages of kindness are even more important now. I encourage you to watch this with your kids; if you're a teacher, maybe you could watch it with your students, I think it is really imperative to see this film (with or without kids).
11/12/16 Truth, 2015
I was very interested in seeing Truth starring Robert Redford as Dan Rather and Cate Blanchett as Mary Mapes, a television news producer. Rather, Mapes and their research team were the focus of the news after issues with their story on President George W. Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard. The story became about the documents used in the story, as opposed to what President Bush did or didn't do. It was a behind the scenes look at how a news organization does research, checking sources, verifying the documents (I did not know that they had document researches), the politics behind the news. The movie follows the story of the the Killian documents (these are the documents that showed the favorable treatment that superior officers were allegedly asked to show George W. Bush), the research done, politics within CBS news/60 Minutes, to the implosion of the news team. I watched All the President's Men (also starring Redford) not too long ago, and I still had Oscar-winner Spotlight in the back of my head, so I felt something was missing here. It wasn't in the performances, but maybe the story. It was a huge deal when it happened back in 2004, but that was twelve years ago, and the anger I might have felt politically at John Kerry losing the presidential race to Bush was gone. And when I compare the current presidential situation with the one from 2004, 2004 seems to pale. Normally I say truth is better than fiction, but "Newsroom" is a fast-paced, current (relatively), biting television series that you can now get on DVD (and probably online).
11/13/16 Dr. Strange, 2016 not yet nominated
I just saw Dr. Strange today, in 3D, and the quick review is: I loved it. I almost never do 3D because I'm cheap and most times, I don't think it's necessary. I enjoyed the effects tremendously, and I feel like the movie will be nominated for visual effects and production awards. Benedict Cumberbatch is spot on as Dr. Stephen Strange, a world-renowned, egotistical surgeon, who seems to only take cases that can increase his fame. He's and ass, personally and professionally, and when he has an accident (that he caused - don't look at your phone when driving!) that irreparably damages his hands, he alternates between self-pity and anger with the one person who wants to help him, Dr. Christine Palmer (Rachel McAdams) before heading to Nepal in a desperate attempt to heal. He meets mystics/sorcerers Mordo (Chiwetel Ejiofor) and the Ancient One (Tilda Swinton) and learns humility and to control his hubris, oh and how to do astral projection. The Ancient One and other mystics need help fighting Kaecilius (Mads Mikkelsen), a sorcerer who has gone to the dark side. The world of the magical arts works in parallel with the world of super heroes, like the Avengers, but they are different, so a lot of people may not be familiar with Dr. Strange; and the movie isn't the big explosion-driven fair that you might be used to, but that doesn't mean there isn't action. There is plenty of action, but balanced with sorcery, and you may be in a different place in the multiverse. Did I lose you? Yeah, I lost me too, I try not to think too much and just enjoy. Cumberbatch is great, and I loved Swinton as the Ancient One (there was some controversy because an Asian actor was not used, and I appreciate that, but she nailed it, I think), and I liked the idea of a woman being the Ancient One; along those lines, I would have liked to have seen perhaps Michelle Yeoh or Zhang Ziyi as the Ancient One. Mikkelsen may be more familiar to American audiences as a bad guy ("Hannibal", Le Chiffre in Casino Royale) and he doesn't disappoint (although, he can do far more, and is superb in The Hunt), he is a strong sorcerer and seemingly unbeatable. The effects are mind-blowing, and I felt transported as buildings tipped and rotated and blended into themselves, like an Escher drawing on steroids. I love that Marvel/Disney are making movies about characters that we may not know as well as Captain America, Iron Man and The Hulk, like the Guardians of the Galaxy, Ant-Man, Dead Pool and Dr. Strange. If you're skeptical, just go. You can thank me later.
Back to the Future, Close Encounters of the boring kind, Apocalypse Now
10/30/16 Back to the Future, Best Sound Effects Editing, 1985 #56 BBC, National Film Registry
I don't have any deep, insightful comments for Back to the Future. If there is some philosophical meaning, I've missed it. I can say that over 20 years later, it's still a fun movie. I can even say I understand why it's on the National Film Registry, but not so sure why it's on the BBC list (that list has to be the most perplexing of the four). Anyway, in case you have lived under a rock or are under thirty and you are not familiar with Back to the Future, a brief synopsis follows. Michael J. Fox is Marty McFly, a sort of hip high schooler who is friends with Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd), a 'mad scientist' with a dream of building a time machine. Marty's parents, George and Lorraine (Crispin Glover and Lea Thompson) are less than average, schlumpy and defeated, especially in the eyes of Biff (Thomas F. Wilson), a high school classmate and George's boss. Doc Brown builds his time machine, in the form of a DeLorean and powers it with plutonium stolen from a group of Libyans. Doc Brown gets shot at by the Libyans as he his ready to test the DeLorean, and McFly jumps in trying to escape. Marty goes back to 1955, when his parents were in high school. Marty tries to fit in as the new kid and being a peer to his parents. All kinds of time shifting things can and do happen. Fox is perfect as McFly, with a wise-cracking and and engaging manner. Lloyd, who is also known to fans of the television show Taxi as Reverend Jim, is addled and compelling, the science teacher we all wish we had. The movie is fun and has fun with the time travel aspect, including Marty McFly influencing Chuck Berry and his duck walk. It also raises the question of what happens if you change one little thing in history - what else gets changed? The movie is fun and family friendly, and has tons of great trivia questions (like, do you know what a DeLorean is?). It won't go down as one of my favorite movies ever, but I also don't resent watching it again (see below).
11/4/16 Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Best Cinematography, 1977 #75 BBC, National Film Registry
Oh my god. I didn't really get into this movie when I saw it the first time almost 40 years ago; I thought there was a chance that now that I'm older and wiser and appreciate things that I didn't before (early bed times, vegetables, Westerns), maybe I would like it now. Nope, no, uh-uh. I kind of liked the last 10 minutes, but honestly, I just didn't care. I just could not suspend my sense of disbelief for any length of time. In my opinion, not one of Steven Spielberg's best films, even though it's #75 on the BBC's 100 Best American Films, and it's on the National Film Registry as being of historical significance. Perhaps I'll give you that it was groundbreaking; I'm sure my dad would say that, in fact, I think he owned it, but he also made me watch Star Trek re-runs my entire childhood.
11/5/16 Apocalypse Now, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography 1979, #30 AFI, #90 BBC, National Film Registry
There are a couple of versions of Apocalypse Now, but I only watched the original cut, which is the one that was nominated for the Oscars and is on all three of the other lists. Apocalypse Now is set during the Vietnam War, but is based on Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness, which is set in the Congo (I have not read the book, so I cannot do any kind of compare or contrast). The movie is seen through the point of view of Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen), and follows his journey to find Colonel Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and kill him; Kurtz has created his own ideology, and in turn, amassed loyal and fanatical followers, some from the army, but some also from the indigenous Montagnards in Cambodia. He has become a threat to army and they want him eliminated. The time that Willard actually spends with Kurtz is far less than the time spent on the journey up river with members of the PBR Street Gang, led by the Chief, Chef, Mr. Clean (a very young Laurence Fishburne) and Lance Johnson. They're not all that thrilled with having to escort Willard and they have their own conflicts, with him, each other and others in the military. The group meets up with an Air Cavalry regiment, led by Lt. Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who admires Lance Johnson because of his reputation as a surfer (Kilgore/Duvall also utters the famous phrase 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning'); Dennis Hopper as an American photojournalist who seems to be under the spell of Kurtz. I was surprised that Sheen wasn't nominated for Best Actor for his role; it's through his eyes we experience the story, and the senselessness of the war and the death that surrounds the him and his comrades in arms, the twisted irony that is his mission: trying to kill a decorated U.S.Special Forces colonel in neutral country, a man who would otherwise be a hero. The movie is filled with complexities, a lot of dialogue, symbolism, multiple viewings reveal different things; it's also a movie that comes with its own legend and movie about the movie Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. None of this is surprising when you consider that Francis Ford Coppola directed, produced, co-wrote the screenplay and the score. I was shocked and a little upset that a movie this intense, well-acted (Hopper annoyed me and have the time I couldn't understand what he was saying, but aside from that), thought-provoking, only won two of the eight Oscars for which it was nominated. And, not to disparage Kramer v. Kramer, but really? Kramer v. Kramer won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (again, Sheen not even nominated), Best Adapted Screenplay. That's kind of like would you like a really good frozen pizza or a delicious pizza from (Twin Cities' own) Pizza Luce. Um, Pizza Luce please. Which one do people still talk about 35 years later? It's an investment in time and attention, but one that I think is totally worth it. It has far more of a place in cinematic and social history than many of the other films of that year.
I don't have any deep, insightful comments for Back to the Future. If there is some philosophical meaning, I've missed it. I can say that over 20 years later, it's still a fun movie. I can even say I understand why it's on the National Film Registry, but not so sure why it's on the BBC list (that list has to be the most perplexing of the four). Anyway, in case you have lived under a rock or are under thirty and you are not familiar with Back to the Future, a brief synopsis follows. Michael J. Fox is Marty McFly, a sort of hip high schooler who is friends with Doc Brown (Christopher Lloyd), a 'mad scientist' with a dream of building a time machine. Marty's parents, George and Lorraine (Crispin Glover and Lea Thompson) are less than average, schlumpy and defeated, especially in the eyes of Biff (Thomas F. Wilson), a high school classmate and George's boss. Doc Brown builds his time machine, in the form of a DeLorean and powers it with plutonium stolen from a group of Libyans. Doc Brown gets shot at by the Libyans as he his ready to test the DeLorean, and McFly jumps in trying to escape. Marty goes back to 1955, when his parents were in high school. Marty tries to fit in as the new kid and being a peer to his parents. All kinds of time shifting things can and do happen. Fox is perfect as McFly, with a wise-cracking and and engaging manner. Lloyd, who is also known to fans of the television show Taxi as Reverend Jim, is addled and compelling, the science teacher we all wish we had. The movie is fun and has fun with the time travel aspect, including Marty McFly influencing Chuck Berry and his duck walk. It also raises the question of what happens if you change one little thing in history - what else gets changed? The movie is fun and family friendly, and has tons of great trivia questions (like, do you know what a DeLorean is?). It won't go down as one of my favorite movies ever, but I also don't resent watching it again (see below).
11/4/16 Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Best Cinematography, 1977 #75 BBC, National Film Registry
Oh my god. I didn't really get into this movie when I saw it the first time almost 40 years ago; I thought there was a chance that now that I'm older and wiser and appreciate things that I didn't before (early bed times, vegetables, Westerns), maybe I would like it now. Nope, no, uh-uh. I kind of liked the last 10 minutes, but honestly, I just didn't care. I just could not suspend my sense of disbelief for any length of time. In my opinion, not one of Steven Spielberg's best films, even though it's #75 on the BBC's 100 Best American Films, and it's on the National Film Registry as being of historical significance. Perhaps I'll give you that it was groundbreaking; I'm sure my dad would say that, in fact, I think he owned it, but he also made me watch Star Trek re-runs my entire childhood.
11/5/16 Apocalypse Now, Best Sound Mixing, Best Cinematography 1979, #30 AFI, #90 BBC, National Film Registry
There are a couple of versions of Apocalypse Now, but I only watched the original cut, which is the one that was nominated for the Oscars and is on all three of the other lists. Apocalypse Now is set during the Vietnam War, but is based on Joseph Conrad's novel Heart of Darkness, which is set in the Congo (I have not read the book, so I cannot do any kind of compare or contrast). The movie is seen through the point of view of Captain Benjamin Willard (Martin Sheen), and follows his journey to find Colonel Walter Kurtz (Marlon Brando) and kill him; Kurtz has created his own ideology, and in turn, amassed loyal and fanatical followers, some from the army, but some also from the indigenous Montagnards in Cambodia. He has become a threat to army and they want him eliminated. The time that Willard actually spends with Kurtz is far less than the time spent on the journey up river with members of the PBR Street Gang, led by the Chief, Chef, Mr. Clean (a very young Laurence Fishburne) and Lance Johnson. They're not all that thrilled with having to escort Willard and they have their own conflicts, with him, each other and others in the military. The group meets up with an Air Cavalry regiment, led by Lt. Colonel Kilgore (Robert Duvall), who admires Lance Johnson because of his reputation as a surfer (Kilgore/Duvall also utters the famous phrase 'I love the smell of napalm in the morning'); Dennis Hopper as an American photojournalist who seems to be under the spell of Kurtz. I was surprised that Sheen wasn't nominated for Best Actor for his role; it's through his eyes we experience the story, and the senselessness of the war and the death that surrounds the him and his comrades in arms, the twisted irony that is his mission: trying to kill a decorated U.S.Special Forces colonel in neutral country, a man who would otherwise be a hero. The movie is filled with complexities, a lot of dialogue, symbolism, multiple viewings reveal different things; it's also a movie that comes with its own legend and movie about the movie Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse. None of this is surprising when you consider that Francis Ford Coppola directed, produced, co-wrote the screenplay and the score. I was shocked and a little upset that a movie this intense, well-acted (Hopper annoyed me and have the time I couldn't understand what he was saying, but aside from that), thought-provoking, only won two of the eight Oscars for which it was nominated. And, not to disparage Kramer v. Kramer, but really? Kramer v. Kramer won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (again, Sheen not even nominated), Best Adapted Screenplay. That's kind of like would you like a really good frozen pizza or a delicious pizza from (Twin Cities' own) Pizza Luce. Um, Pizza Luce please. Which one do people still talk about 35 years later? It's an investment in time and attention, but one that I think is totally worth it. It has far more of a place in cinematic and social history than many of the other films of that year.
The original Seven Samurai and The Magnificent Seven 1960 and 2016
Ugh, I have had the worst writer's block as far as reviewing the following three movies. All I can say is that it's good this isn't my day job or I would have been fired. (Sigh). If you think this is a pre-excuse excuse, you are correct. Anyhoo, here we go.
10/8/16 Seven Samurai, 1954
10/9/16 The Magnificent Seven, 1960, Nation Film Registry
9/27/16 The Magnificent Seven, 2016, not yet nominated
On my recent trip home (not so recent now), I saw The Magnificent Seven, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke and others, with my brother. This led to the discussion that there were two earlier movies based on a similar premise (well, one WAS the original, and then the other the first remake).
The premise for all three films is that a town or village in Japan, Mexico or the Old West is under siege from a gang, and the townspeople set out to find the men who will fight for them. It's not like you go to Target and go down the row that has mercenaries or guns for hire. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have made three movies about it. The original movie in this collection is Seven Samurai, directed by Akira Kurosawa, was really the first movie to employ the concept of assembling a collection of (usually men) from different backgrounds and circumstances to fight a common cause. Seven Samurau is set in the 16th century and is about a small village fighting to keep their crop, and they try to hire seven ronin for this purpose. Kurosawa spends a lot of time following the process of finding the right men, giving us a look into their potential motives for joining this possible deadly endeavor, the conflicts they experience before the real fight even starts. It gives us a depth that is lacking in the subsequent films, especially the newest one. Seven Samurai is not as reliant on fancy gun tricks or special effects as the other films, again, especially the latest. The seven samurai had less than 40 men to fight, whereas it seemed that there were hundreds in the 2016 film. Seven Samurai is over three hours old, and it may take a while to get into the rhythm of the subtitles and the pacing, but it is such an influential film, that it is well worth the effort.
The Magnificent Seven (1960), directed by John Sturges and starring Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, Charles Bronson, James Coburn and Horst Buchholz and Brad Dexter are the seven of the title. There is some resemblance to the inspirational characters of Seven Samurai, but finding the cast of characters isn't quite as detailed. Yul Brynner as Chris Adams is the leader of motley crew. Eli Wallach is most unlikable as the leader of the bandits, Calvera. I would have liked to learn more about the characters, because I really liked them, this one of my favorite casts. I have seen this movie three or four times. Charles Bronson was in another of my favorite 'motley crew' movies, The Dirty Dozen. I don't have a whole lot of insight to add (see above disclaimer), except that I like this movie and if you're looking for a good western, dip into this for a couple of hours. I should also mention that the score, by Elmer Bernstein, should be familiar to you because it is used frequently (including in the 2016 film). It's a great collection of actors with some good action with an underlying them of redemption (this is true for all three films).
The Magnificent Seven (2016) directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) is an action explosion, pun intended, featuring a lot ammunition and explosives. In this version, a small mining town out West is being tormented by a sadistic industrialist, Bartholomew Bogue (sounds like a Marvel bad guy) played with great gusto by Peter Sarsgaard. A young widow sets out to find someone to help fight Bogue's impending destruction of the town and finds Sam Chisholm, a warrant officer (Denzel Washington), who is pretty handy with a gun. He reluctantly agrees, and begins collecting his team of six, including sharpshooters, warriors, and knife-throwing expert. The men in the 2016 version represent a diverse assembly - including a Korean, Billy Rocks (Lee Byung-hun); Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), a Mexican outlaw; Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier), a Comanche Indian; Jack Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio), a mountain man who has fought Indians; Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), a veteran of the Confederate army. Chris Pratt rounds out the group as Joshua Faraday, a gambler. As Chisholm and crew try to prepare the town, they involve the townspeople, trying to help them shoot and also prepare some great surprises. There is a lot I liked about the movie: I did like the action, there are some great scenes as Bogue's men come in for the attack; I liked the different characters, although not as much as I did in the 1960 version. There is something quirky about D'Onofrio's character, he has a weird voice/speech pattern and you're not sure if he is mentally challenged, has had a brain injury or if he is from some part of the country where they speak like that, or perhaps he has been so isolated that he hasn't spoken very much. It's jolting at first, but he grows on you. The knife-wielding Billy Rocks is an artist with the assortment of weapons he has, he's also funny and the care-taker to Robicheaux who has a dependence on cannabis.Red Harvest doesn't have many lines, he gives the impression that he doesn't speak English, but he lets his actions speak for him. He has been cast-out from his tribe, and I may have missed it, but I don't think it's clear why. I had some issue with the endless number of men that Bogue seemed to have available to him, it was like the endless soup and salad at Olive Garden. Then he rolls out a Gatling gun, which is a huge game changer, and yet, the outcome is not what was expected. I read a review (which I try not to do) and it wasn't very favorable, citing the lack of character depth as one issue. I get that, especially after seeing how Kurosawa handled introducing the men to us, and I would have liked to have more understanding on Chisholm's motivation (if I had to pick), and we get little hints, but not much more until the end of the movie. But I guess the reason I still give this a thumb's up is it was entertaining. Pure and simple. I'm pretty sure Denzel Washington has not been in a bad movie; Chris Pratt is his wise-cracking self (my brother thought this was suppose to be a comedy); D'Onofrio is special as always; I could actually tolerate Ethan Hawke; and it was nice to see some new actors (to many of us) hanging out with the veterans, and very ably. I would suggest making a weekend of it and watching all three and make the comparison yourself.
10/8/16 Seven Samurai, 1954
10/9/16 The Magnificent Seven, 1960, Nation Film Registry
9/27/16 The Magnificent Seven, 2016, not yet nominated
On my recent trip home (not so recent now), I saw The Magnificent Seven, directed by Antoine Fuqua and starring Denzel Washington, Chris Pratt, Ethan Hawke and others, with my brother. This led to the discussion that there were two earlier movies based on a similar premise (well, one WAS the original, and then the other the first remake).
The premise for all three films is that a town or village in Japan, Mexico or the Old West is under siege from a gang, and the townspeople set out to find the men who will fight for them. It's not like you go to Target and go down the row that has mercenaries or guns for hire. If it was that easy, they wouldn't have made three movies about it. The original movie in this collection is Seven Samurai, directed by Akira Kurosawa, was really the first movie to employ the concept of assembling a collection of (usually men) from different backgrounds and circumstances to fight a common cause. Seven Samurau is set in the 16th century and is about a small village fighting to keep their crop, and they try to hire seven ronin for this purpose. Kurosawa spends a lot of time following the process of finding the right men, giving us a look into their potential motives for joining this possible deadly endeavor, the conflicts they experience before the real fight even starts. It gives us a depth that is lacking in the subsequent films, especially the newest one. Seven Samurai is not as reliant on fancy gun tricks or special effects as the other films, again, especially the latest. The seven samurai had less than 40 men to fight, whereas it seemed that there were hundreds in the 2016 film. Seven Samurai is over three hours old, and it may take a while to get into the rhythm of the subtitles and the pacing, but it is such an influential film, that it is well worth the effort.
The Magnificent Seven (1960), directed by John Sturges and starring Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Robert Vaughn, Charles Bronson, James Coburn and Horst Buchholz and Brad Dexter are the seven of the title. There is some resemblance to the inspirational characters of Seven Samurai, but finding the cast of characters isn't quite as detailed. Yul Brynner as Chris Adams is the leader of motley crew. Eli Wallach is most unlikable as the leader of the bandits, Calvera. I would have liked to learn more about the characters, because I really liked them, this one of my favorite casts. I have seen this movie three or four times. Charles Bronson was in another of my favorite 'motley crew' movies, The Dirty Dozen. I don't have a whole lot of insight to add (see above disclaimer), except that I like this movie and if you're looking for a good western, dip into this for a couple of hours. I should also mention that the score, by Elmer Bernstein, should be familiar to you because it is used frequently (including in the 2016 film). It's a great collection of actors with some good action with an underlying them of redemption (this is true for all three films).
The Magnificent Seven (2016) directed by Antoine Fuqua (Training Day) is an action explosion, pun intended, featuring a lot ammunition and explosives. In this version, a small mining town out West is being tormented by a sadistic industrialist, Bartholomew Bogue (sounds like a Marvel bad guy) played with great gusto by Peter Sarsgaard. A young widow sets out to find someone to help fight Bogue's impending destruction of the town and finds Sam Chisholm, a warrant officer (Denzel Washington), who is pretty handy with a gun. He reluctantly agrees, and begins collecting his team of six, including sharpshooters, warriors, and knife-throwing expert. The men in the 2016 version represent a diverse assembly - including a Korean, Billy Rocks (Lee Byung-hun); Vasquez (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), a Mexican outlaw; Red Harvest (Martin Sensmeier), a Comanche Indian; Jack Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio), a mountain man who has fought Indians; Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke), a veteran of the Confederate army. Chris Pratt rounds out the group as Joshua Faraday, a gambler. As Chisholm and crew try to prepare the town, they involve the townspeople, trying to help them shoot and also prepare some great surprises. There is a lot I liked about the movie: I did like the action, there are some great scenes as Bogue's men come in for the attack; I liked the different characters, although not as much as I did in the 1960 version. There is something quirky about D'Onofrio's character, he has a weird voice/speech pattern and you're not sure if he is mentally challenged, has had a brain injury or if he is from some part of the country where they speak like that, or perhaps he has been so isolated that he hasn't spoken very much. It's jolting at first, but he grows on you. The knife-wielding Billy Rocks is an artist with the assortment of weapons he has, he's also funny and the care-taker to Robicheaux who has a dependence on cannabis.Red Harvest doesn't have many lines, he gives the impression that he doesn't speak English, but he lets his actions speak for him. He has been cast-out from his tribe, and I may have missed it, but I don't think it's clear why. I had some issue with the endless number of men that Bogue seemed to have available to him, it was like the endless soup and salad at Olive Garden. Then he rolls out a Gatling gun, which is a huge game changer, and yet, the outcome is not what was expected. I read a review (which I try not to do) and it wasn't very favorable, citing the lack of character depth as one issue. I get that, especially after seeing how Kurosawa handled introducing the men to us, and I would have liked to have more understanding on Chisholm's motivation (if I had to pick), and we get little hints, but not much more until the end of the movie. But I guess the reason I still give this a thumb's up is it was entertaining. Pure and simple. I'm pretty sure Denzel Washington has not been in a bad movie; Chris Pratt is his wise-cracking self (my brother thought this was suppose to be a comedy); D'Onofrio is special as always; I could actually tolerate Ethan Hawke; and it was nice to see some new actors (to many of us) hanging out with the veterans, and very ably. I would suggest making a weekend of it and watching all three and make the comparison yourself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Whiling away the time while staying at home
There is no denying that these are very strange and tumultuous we're living in. Obviously I haven't been blogging too much lately, i...
-
Sometimes the selection of movies does not lend itself to rave reviews or in depth analysis. I'm afraid this is one of those times. My a...
-
There is no denying that these are very strange and tumultuous we're living in. Obviously I haven't been blogging too much lately, i... -
10/5/2013 Oliver! Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adaptation Score, Best Art Direction, Best Sound, Special Academy Award for Choreography...