list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around 12 Angry Men on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/12_Angry_Men/36114/default.aspx Title: 12 Angry Men
Year: 1957
Director: Sidney Lumet
Plot: A Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death. The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors vote for conviction, each for reasons of his own. The sole holdout is Juror #8, played by Henry Fonda. As Fonda persuades the weary jurors to re-examine the evidence, we learn the backstory of each man. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a bullying self-made man, has estranged himself from his own son. Juror #7 (Jack Warden) has an ingrained mistrust of foreigners; so, to a lesser extent, does Juror #6 (Edward Binns). Jurors #10 (Ed Begley) and #11 (George Voskovec), so certain of the infallibility of the Law, assume that if the boy was arrested, he must be guilty. Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) is an advocate of dispassionate deductive reasoning. Juror #5 (Jack Klugman), like the defendant a product of "the streets," hopes that his guilty vote will distance himself from his past. Juror #12 (Robert Webber), an advertising man, doesn't understand anything that he can't package and market. And Jurors #1 (Martin Balsam), #2 (John Fiedler) and #9 (Joseph Sweeney), anxious not to make waves, "go with the flow." The excruciatingly hot day drags into an even hotter night; still, Fonda chips away at the guilty verdict, insisting that his fellow jurors bear in mind those words "reasonable doubt." A pet project of Henry Fonda's, Twelve Angry Men was his only foray into film production; the actor's partner in this venture was Reginald Rose, who wrote the 1954 television play on which the film was based. Carried over from the TV version was director Sidney Lumet, here making his feature-film debut. A flop when it first came out (surprisingly, since it cost almost nothing to make), Twelve Angry Men holds up beautifully when seen today. It was remade for television in 1997 by director William Friedkin with Jack Lemmon and George C. Scott. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 113
Number of Lists: 56
Number of blog posts: 12
Number of discussion threads: 21
SpoutRating: 4
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:48:56 GMT12 Angry Men1957Sidney LumetA Puerto Rican youth is on trial for murder, accused of knifing his father to death. The twelve jurors retire to the jury room, having been admonished that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Eleven of the jurors vote for conviction, each for reasons of his own. The sole holdout is Juror #8, played by <a href="/players/P____24097/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Henry Fonda</a>. As Fonda persuades the weary jurors to re-examine the evidence, we learn the backstory of each man. Juror #3 (Lee J. Cobb), a bullying self-made man, has estranged himself from his own son. Juror #7 (<a href="/players/P____74681/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Warden</a>) has an ingrained mistrust of foreigners; so, to a lesser extent, does Juror #6 (<a href="/players/P_____6257/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Edward Binns</a>). Jurors #10 (Ed Begley) and #11 (<a href="/players/P____73952/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>George Voskovec</a>), so certain of the infallibility of the Law, assume that if the boy was arrested, he must be guilty. Juror #4 (E.G. Marshall) is an advocate of dispassionate deductive reasoning. Juror #5 (<a href="/players/P____38728/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Klugman</a>), like the defendant a product of "the streets," hopes that his guilty vote will distance himself from his past. Juror #12 (<a href="/players/P____75183/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Robert Webber</a>), an advertising man, doesn't understand anything that he can't package and market. And Jurors #1 (<a href="/players/P_____3629/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Martin Balsam</a>), #2 (<a href="/players/P____89705/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>John Fiedler</a>) and #9 (<a href="/players/P____69329/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Joseph Sweeney</a>), anxious not to make waves, "go with the flow." The excruciatingly hot day drags into an even hotter night; still, Fonda chips away at the guilty verdict, insisting that his fellow jurors bear in mind those words "reasonable doubt." A pet project of Henry Fonda's, Twelve Angry Men was his only foray into film production; the actor's partner in this venture was <a href="/players/P___108874/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Reginald Rose</a>, who wrote the 1954 television play on which the film was based. Carried over from the TV version was director <a href="/players/P___100370/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sidney Lumet</a>, here making his feature-film debut. A flop when it first came out (surprisingly, since it cost almost nothing to make), Twelve Angry Men holds up beautifully when seen today. It was remade for television in 1997 by director <a href="/players/P____90583/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Friedkin</a> with <a href="/players/P____99306/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jack Lemmon</a> and George C. Scott. ~ Hal Erickson, All Movie Guide113Tag Target (>10)5612214http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/u47061d4eah.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/12_Angry_Men/36114/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Favorite_Horror_Movies/222/43768/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 9/1/2009 5:12:44 PM
Body: [quote user="Dr_Gor"] [quote user="Risselada"]Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. [/quote] George C. Scott has long been one of my favorite actors throughout my life... I will leave his Oscar winning role in "PATTON" out of the equation... George C. Scott has had some of the most memorable roles in some of the BEST movies that I have ever seen... But I must admit that "The Exorcist III" was a huge dissapointment to me with George C. Scott filling in for Lee J. Cobb ... Some other movies of note ... "Rage" "They Might Be Giants" "Changeling" ... I just thought that Lee J. Cobb as Lt. Kinderman basically MADE that movie, "The Exorcist" ... [/quote] I do love both of them as actors. Have you seen Hardcore? One of my favorite Scott films, although a lot of that probably has to do with the fact that his characters is from the same area that I grew up in. Of course I still think his best role was in Dr. Strangelove.
]]>Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:12:44 GMTRisseladaHORROR MOVIES 1019/1/2009 5:12:44 PM[quote user="Dr_Gor"] [quote user="Risselada"]Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. [/quote] George C. Scott has long been one of my favorite actors throughout my life... I will leave his Oscar winning role in "PATTON" out of the equation... George C. Scott has had some of the most memorable roles in some of the BEST movies that I have ever seen... But I must admit that "The Exorcist III" was a huge dissapointment to me with George C. Scott filling in for Lee J. Cobb ... Some other movies of note ... "Rage" "They Might Be Giants" "Changeling" ... I just thought that Lee J. Cobb as Lt. Kinderman basically MADE that movie, "The Exorcist" ... [/quote] I do love both of them as actors. Have you seen Hardcore? One of my favorite Scott films, although a lot of that probably has to do with the fact that his characters is from the same area that I grew up in. Of course I still think his best role was in Dr. Strangelove. http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Favorite_Horror_Movies/222/43687/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Dr_Gor
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 8/23/2009 8:48:56 PM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="divinemsjunebug"] American Psycho was a really good movie, it also sparked a really good debate among my friends and I about the ending, which I will not divulge, but it was very interesting and very cool. I just watched Black Christmas the other day, I just love that movie, I also love the remake (which is very unusual for me) but I love the nostalgia of the first one, it just can't compare. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] You haven't seen American Psycho yet Dr. Gor? For real? It's a wicked twisted movie and definitely gets a good vote from me ;). [/quote] [/quote] June, I once remember you saying one of your favorite movies was The Changeling. Well, I actually just watched it last night!!! Super creepy! Very well directed. I ended up also reading Roger Ebert's review of the movie from back in 1980 when it first came out too http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800402/REVIEWS/4020301/1023 What do you think about what he says about Scott's acting? I love Geroge C. Scott, but do you think he should have acted a little more afraid, or was the stoic thing the right choice? Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. [/quote] George C. Scott has long been one of my favorite actors throughout my life... I will leave his Oscar winning role in "PATTON" out of the equation... George C. Scott has had some of the most memorable roles in some of the BEST movies that I have ever seen... But I must admit that "The Exorcist III" was a huge dissapointment to me with George C. Scott filling in for Lee J. Cobb ... Some other movies of note ... "Rage" "They Might Be Giants" "Changeling" ... I just thought that Lee J. Cobb as Lt. Kinderman basically MADE that movie, "The Exorcist" ...
]]>Mon, 24 Aug 2009 00:48:56 GMTDr_GorHORROR MOVIES 1018/23/2009 8:48:56 PM[quote user="Risselada"] [quote user="divinemsjunebug"] American Psycho was a really good movie, it also sparked a really good debate among my friends and I about the ending, which I will not divulge, but it was very interesting and very cool. I just watched Black Christmas the other day, I just love that movie, I also love the remake (which is very unusual for me) but I love the nostalgia of the first one, it just can't compare. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] You haven't seen American Psycho yet Dr. Gor? For real? It's a wicked twisted movie and definitely gets a good vote from me ;). [/quote] [/quote] June, I once remember you saying one of your favorite movies was The Changeling. Well, I actually just watched it last night!!! Super creepy! Very well directed. I ended up also reading Roger Ebert's review of the movie from back in 1980 when it first came out too http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800402/REVIEWS/4020301/1023 What do you think about what he says about Scott's acting? I love Geroge C. Scott, but do you think he should have acted a little more afraid, or was the stoic thing the right choice? Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. [/quote] George C. Scott has long been one of my favorite actors throughout my life... I will leave his Oscar winning role in "PATTON" out of the equation... George C. Scott has had some of the most memorable roles in some of the BEST movies that I have ever seen... But I must admit that "The Exorcist III" was a huge dissapointment to me with George C. Scott filling in for Lee J. Cobb ... Some other movies of note ... "Rage" "They Might Be Giants" "Changeling" ... I just thought that Lee J. Cobb as Lt. Kinderman basically MADE that movie, "The Exorcist" ... http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Favorite_Horror_Movies/222/43669/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: divinemsjunebug
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 8/21/2009 1:49:57 AM
Body: This may have a lot of spoilers, just a warning in case you haven't seen the movie and want to. I always call The Changeling my Goosebump movie. I love good old creepy ghost stories, those are my favorite. Sometimes I thought George C. Scott got a little boring in the movie, there were moments that the story lulled just a bit, but otherwise I thought he did a great job as a shell of a man that just wanted to live his life and write his music and get away from the world. I can see Ebert's point but the story of the movie was so good and strong that it overshadowed everything else. I don't think I agree with him that you didn't care if his character lived or died. I was hoping he would have a happy ending (not the massage parlor kind) because of the tragedy of losing his family, I even felt bad for him that he was reliving that pain and thinking that it was his daughter that was haunting him, blaming him for what happened (at least that's what I thought he was thinking), especially when he found the ball. My favorite moment is when he threw the ball into the water and came back into the house and a wet ball comes bouncing down the steps. I really got chills when they were listening to the recording, even just seeing the cobweb covered child's wheel chair was creepy. I just can't imagine an emotional man playing that part, what if Richard Burton played it, then it would be way over the top with emotion (I'm trying to think of other actors at that time but my mind is a tired blank right now). I think the character needed to be someone with little emotion, maybe a defeated man, there were times when he looked terrified, especially with the banging sounds. I never thought of the similarities before with Cobb and Scott, very insightful Rizzo, I can see what you mean though. They were definately following each other back and forth, Scott taking over some of his roles when he had other conflicts, etc., could you put Rod Steiger in there too? He was kind of the same type of character actor. I'm going to have to watch it again. I haven't seen it for a while. [quote user="Risselada"] [/quote] June, I once remember you saying one of your favorite movies was The Changeling. Well, I actually just watched it last night!!! Super creepy! Very well directed. I ended up also reading Roger Ebert's review of the movie from back in 1980 when it first came out too http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800402/REVIEWS/4020301/1023 What do you think about what he says about Scott's acting? I love Geroge C. Scott, but do you think he should have acted a little more afraid, or was the stoic thing the right choice? Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. [/quote]
]]>Fri, 21 Aug 2009 05:49:57 GMTdivinemsjunebugHORROR MOVIES 1018/21/2009 1:49:57 AMThis may have a lot of spoilers, just a warning in case you haven't seen the movie and want to. I always call The Changeling my Goosebump movie. I love good old creepy ghost stories, those are my favorite. Sometimes I thought George C. Scott got a little boring in the movie, there were moments that the story lulled just a bit, but otherwise I thought he did a great job as a shell of a man that just wanted to live his life and write his music and get away from the world. I can see Ebert's point but the story of the movie was so good and strong that it overshadowed everything else. I don't think I agree with him that you didn't care if his character lived or died. I was hoping he would have a happy ending (not the massage parlor kind) because of the tragedy of losing his family, I even felt bad for him that he was reliving that pain and thinking that it was his daughter that was haunting him, blaming him for what happened (at least that's what I thought he was thinking), especially when he found the ball. My favorite moment is when he threw the ball into the water and came back into the house and a wet ball comes bouncing down the steps. I really got chills when they were listening to the recording, even just seeing the cobweb covered child's wheel chair was creepy. I just can't imagine an emotional man playing that part, what if Richard Burton played it, then it would be way over the top with emotion (I'm trying to think of other actors at that time but my mind is a tired blank right now). I think the character needed to be someone with little emotion, maybe a defeated man, there were times when he looked terrified, especially with the banging sounds. I never thought of the similarities before with Cobb and Scott, very insightful Rizzo, I can see what you mean though. They were definately following each other back and forth, Scott taking over some of his roles when he had other conflicts, etc., could you put Rod Steiger in there too? He was kind of the same type of character actor. I'm going to have to watch it again. I haven't seen it for a while. [quote user="Risselada"] [/quote] June, I once remember you saying one of your favorite movies was The Changeling. Well, I actually just watched it last night!!! Super creepy! Very well directed. I ended up also reading Roger Ebert's review of the movie from back in 1980 when it first came out too http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800402/REVIEWS/4020301/1023 What do you think about what he says about Scott's acting? I love Geroge C. Scott, but do you think he should have acted a little more afraid, or was the stoic thing the right choice? Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. [/quote] http://www.spout.com/groups/HORROR_MOVIES_101/Re_Favorite_Horror_Movies/222/43636/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: HORROR MOVIES 101
Post Date: 8/19/2009 1:22:35 PM
Body: [quote user="divinemsjunebug"] American Psycho was a really good movie, it also sparked a really good debate among my friends and I about the ending, which I will not divulge, but it was very interesting and very cool. I just watched Black Christmas the other day, I just love that movie, I also love the remake (which is very unusual for me) but I love the nostalgia of the first one, it just can't compare. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] You haven't seen American Psycho yet Dr. Gor? For real? It's a wicked twisted movie and definitely gets a good vote from me ;). [/quote] [/quote] June, I once remember you saying one of your favorite movies was The Changeling. Well, I actually just watched it last night!!! Super creepy! Very well directed. I ended up also reading Roger Ebert's review of the movie from back in 1980 when it first came out too http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800402/REVIEWS/4020301/1023 What do you think about what he says about Scott's acting? I love Geroge C. Scott, but do you think he should have acted a little more afraid, or was the stoic thing the right choice? Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again.
]]>Wed, 19 Aug 2009 17:22:35 GMTRisseladaHORROR MOVIES 1018/19/2009 1:22:35 PM[quote user="divinemsjunebug"] American Psycho was a really good movie, it also sparked a really good debate among my friends and I about the ending, which I will not divulge, but it was very interesting and very cool. I just watched Black Christmas the other day, I just love that movie, I also love the remake (which is very unusual for me) but I love the nostalgia of the first one, it just can't compare. [quote user="Phantasma-gore-ia"] You haven't seen American Psycho yet Dr. Gor? For real? It's a wicked twisted movie and definitely gets a good vote from me ;). [/quote] [/quote] June, I once remember you saying one of your favorite movies was The Changeling. Well, I actually just watched it last night!!! Super creepy! Very well directed. I ended up also reading Roger Ebert's review of the movie from back in 1980 when it first came out too http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19800402/REVIEWS/4020301/1023 What do you think about what he says about Scott's acting? I love Geroge C. Scott, but do you think he should have acted a little more afraid, or was the stoic thing the right choice? Does anyone else here feel like there's a connection between George C. Scott and Lee J. Cobb? First of all on the most superficial level, both of their names have three sylables and their middle initial. But they have both played Juror #3 in versions of 12 Angry Men, and they have both played Lt. Kinderman, Cobb in the Exorcist and Scott in The Excorcist III. Mind you, I have not seen Scott in either of these roles, but something about him just looks like Cobb. And The Changeling has that creepy 70s demonic movie feeling that The Exorcist does. I'm not sure if I mentioned this before, but watching this just made me think of it again. http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_June_29_Summertime/625/42880/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 6/30/2009 6:39:43 PM
Body: [quote user="mercurial"] The Wackness was an interesting coming of age during the summer flick about a lackluster teenage drug dealer coping with the heat in New York after graduating high school.[/quote] I've never heard of this one, but when I think of a movie that conveys extreme New York summer heat the best, I think of Do the Right Thing. You can feel the heat. Now if you want to feel the heat both literally and figuratively of being stuck inside and and just wanting to get out, check out 12 Angry Men.
]]>Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:39:43 GMTRisseladaWeekly Theme6/30/2009 6:39:43 PM[quote user="mercurial"] The Wackness was an interesting coming of age during the summer flick about a lackluster teenage drug dealer coping with the heat in New York after graduating high school.[/quote] I've never heard of this one, but when I think of a movie that conveys extreme New York summer heat the best, I think of Do the Right Thing. You can feel the heat. Now if you want to feel the heat both literally and figuratively of being stuck inside and and just wanting to get out, check out 12 Angry Men. http://www.spout.com/blogs/leeroy711/archive/2009/6/29/42849.aspx Post By: leeroy711
Post To: leeroy711 Blog
Post Date: 6/29/2009 3:33:51 PM
Body: I’m writing this to take a moment and reflect on my past 6 months in film viewing. At the beginning of the year, I set a goal of watching 200 films I haven’t previously seen in 2009. Today, I am relieved to report that with the 6th month of the year ending, I have just finished watching my 100th film. I decided to create a list of the films I’ve seen so I could better keep track of them. Also, because this is an attempt to expand my film knowledge as a whole, I like to be able to sort them by release year, my rating, and the country the originated. This way I can more clearly see any gaping holes in my choices of films. So with all of that in mind, let’s take a look. The oldest film I’ve seen this year was 1947’s Out of the Past. I have to say, I’m kind of disappointed in myself. I think I generally gravitate towards older films but to see that this is the oldest I’ve seen this year is somewhat shocking. I've only seen 2 films from the 40s this year. By Decade:1940s - 2 films 1950s - 10 films 1960s - 12 films 1970s - 12 films 1980s - 7 films 1990s - 1 film 2000s - 56 films So, as you can see, over half of the movies I've watched this year have been released in the within the past 9 years. I would chalk some of that up to availability plus a general attempt to stay current and up to date. I did find it pretty odd that I have only seen one film this year from the 90s. (To Live 1994) I grew up in the 90s, I fell in love with film in the 90s. Maybe that well is simply drying up. So in summary, the rest of my year needs to include more films from the 40s and prior and a few more from the 90s. By Country: Australia - 1 film Belgium - 1 film China - 3 films Czechoslovakia - 1 film France - 4 films Germany - 1 film Italy - 4 films Japan - 11 films Mexico - 2 films Romania - 1 film South Korea - 3 films Spain - 3 film Sweden - 1 film United Kingdom - 3 films United States - 61 films. Okay, so again it seems that the majority of films I've seen are some of the most readily available (domestic). Interestingly also, the 11 Japanese films I've seen this year are from only 3 directors (Miike, Suzuki and Kurosawa) 6 of the 11 are Seijun Suzuki movies. I love his films and I'm not going to stop watching them. I discovered Argentinian filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski films this year (Mexico), thanks to Mycomplex. The Holy Mountain was good but I loved El Topo. Of the 4 Italian films I watched, 3 were from Federico Fellini (La Dolce Vita, Amarcord and La Strada) My favorite of the 3 and of all Fellini films is now La Strada. I watched the other 2 films in Park Chan-Wook's vengeance trilogy and I actually think Lady Vengeance may be the best of the 3. Last year, I devoted much more time to European film without much of an affinity for Asian cinema. This has changed this year. I am much more interested in Korean films lately. I think it just took me a little while to assimilate myself to thier style. I have also been able to scratch a few films off my "Classics I have no excuse for not having seen" list. I am now very happy to report that I have seen and enjoyed Vertigo, Sunset Boulevard and 12 Angry Men. Wow, that's embarrassing. Especially with the 12 Angry Men, but let me explain.... (excuse alert) I was always pretty convinced I would love this film. But when I am already that familiar with an iconic film that I've never actually seen, it takes a lot to want to actually put it on and sit through it. That being said, upon finally watching it, I immediately felt pretty stupid for letting such an incredible film slip by for that long. Notable 5: I'm going to conclude this post with a list of 5 films that I probably had the best time with so far this year. 1. La Strada - This is my most recent viewing. I've liked other Fellini films but none of his had such an enjoyable character as Gelsomina. I think she gave this film an entry point that I haven't previously experienced with his films. 2. Synecdoche, New York - I can't really describe how much I loved this film. It hit all the right notes for me and I probably only understood about half of it the first time. Monty (Mycomplex) told me that Charlie Kaufman may be the best American screenwriter alive today and I would have to second that. I would add that as much as I loved his work portrayed by Jonze and Gondry, I think this is his best film. He never over-exaggerated the outrageous things that happen, he just let them play out. Never even asking you if you were on board. 3. Let The Right One In - You know, the teenage vampire movie.... No, not that one, the good one. I don't have a lot to say about this one. It really is as good as you've heard. If you haven't yet, watch it. 4. Detective Bureau 2-3: Go Hell Bastards - By far, the best title of a movie I've seen in a long time. This is one of Seijun Suzuki's lesser known movies and I had one hell of a good time with it. If you liked Branded to Kill or Tokyo Drifter, this is a great watch along those same lines. 5. Lady Vengeance - As I said before, this is probably my favorite of the Vengeance Trilogy. It was just as aesthetically brilliant as Oldboy but I think it's 3rd act gave this film the heart that was missing in the previous 2. Well, that should just about do it. I now have just about 186 days to watch another 100 films. In case your not to good with the numbers, that works out to an average of 1 film every 1.86 days. I'm not sure how I'm gonna do it but it shall be done. Recommendations are more than welcome...... Peace & Love Emery.
]]>Mon, 29 Jun 2009 19:33:51 GMTleeroy711leeroy711 Blog6/29/2009 3:33:51 PM I&rsquo;m writing this to take a moment and reflect on my past 6 months in film viewing. At the beginning of the year, I set a goal of watching 200 films I haven&rsquo;t previously seen in 2009. Today, I am relieved to report that with the 6th month of the year ending, I have just finished watching my 100th film. I decided to create a list of the films I&rsquo;ve seen so I could better keep track of them. Also, because this is an attempt to expand my film knowledge as a whole, I like to be able to sort them by release year, my rating, and the country the originated. This way I can more clearly see any gaping holes in my choices of films. So with all of that in mind, let&rsquo;s take a look. The oldest film I&rsquo;ve seen this year was 1947&rsquo;s Out of the Past. I have to say, I&rsquo;m kind of disappointed in myself. I think I generally gravitate towards older films but to see that this is the oldest I&rsquo;ve seen this year is somewhat shocking. I've only seen 2 films from the 40s this year. By Decade:1940s - 2 films 1950s - 10 films 1960s - 12 films 1970s - 12 films 1980s - 7 films 1990s - 1 film 2000s - 56 films So, as you can see, over half of the movies I've watched this year have been released in the within the past 9 years. I would chalk some of that up to availability plus a general attempt to stay current and up to date. I did find it pretty odd that I have only seen one film this year from the 90s. (To Live 1994) I grew up in the 90s, I fell in love with film in the 90s. Maybe that well is simply drying up. So in summary, the rest of my year needs to include more films from the 40s and prior and a few more from the 90s. By Country: Australia - 1 film Belgium - 1 film China - 3 films Czechoslovakia - 1 film France - 4 films Germany - 1 film Italy - 4 films Japan - 11 films Mexico - 2 films Romania - 1 film South Korea - 3 films Spain - 3 film Sweden - 1 film United Kingdom - 3 films United States - 61 films. Okay, so again it seems that the majority of films I've seen are some of the most readily available (domestic). Interestingly also, the 11 Japanese films I've seen this year are from only 3 directors (Miike, Suzuki and Kurosawa) 6 of the 11 are Seijun Suzuki movies. I love his films and I'm not going to stop watching them. I discovered Argentinian filmmaker Alejandro Jodorowski films this year (Mexico), thanks to Mycomplex. The Holy Mountain was good but I loved El Topo. Of the 4 Italian films I watched, 3 were from Federico Fellini (La Dolce Vita, Amarcord and La Strada) My favorite of the 3 and of all Fellini films is now La Strada. I watched the other 2 films in Park Chan-Wook's vengeance trilogy and I actually think Lady Vengeance may be the best of the 3. Last year, I devoted much more time to European film without much of an affinity for Asian cinema. This has changed this year. I am much more interested in Korean films lately. I think it just took me a little while to assimilate myself to thier style. I have also been able to scratch a few films off my "Classics I have no excuse for not having seen" list. I am now very happy to report that I have seen and enjoyed Vertigo, Sunset Boulevard and 12 Angry Men. Wow, that's embarrassing. Especially with the 12 Angry Men, but let me explain.... (excuse alert) I was always pretty convinced I would love this film. But when I am already that familiar with an iconic film that I've never actually seen, it takes a lot to want to actually put it on and sit through it. That being said, upon finally watching it, I immediately felt pretty stupid for letting such an incredible film slip by for that long. Notable 5: I'm going to conclude this post with a list of 5 films that I probably had the best time with so far this year. 1. La Strada - This is my most recent viewing. I've liked other Fellini films but none of his had such an enjoyable character as Gelsomina. I think she gave this film an entry point that I haven't previously experienced with his films. 2. Synecdoche, New York - I can't really describe how much I loved this film. It hit all the right notes for me and I probably only understood about half of it the first time. Monty (Mycomplex) told me that Charlie Kaufman may be the best American screenwriter alive today and I would have to second that. I would add that as much as I loved his work portrayed by Jonze and Gondry, I think this is his best film. He never over-exaggerated the outrageous things that happen, he just let them play out. Never even asking you if you were on board. 3. Let The Right One In - You know, the teenage vampire movie.... No, not that one, the good one. I don't have a lot to say about this one. It really is as good as you've heard. If you haven't yet, watch it. 4. Detective Bureau 2-3: Go Hell Bastards - By far, the best title of a movie I've seen in a long time. This is one of Seijun Suzuki's lesser known movies and I had one hell of a good time with it. If you liked Branded to Kill or Tokyo Drifter, this is a great watch along those same lines. 5. Lady Vengeance - As I said before, this is probably my favorite of the Vengeance Trilogy. It was just as aesthetically brilliant as Oldboy but I think it's 3rd act gave this film the heart that was missing in the previous 2. Well, that should just about do it. I now have just about 186 days to watch another 100 films. In case your not to good with the numbers, that works out to an average of 1 film every 1.86 days. I'm not sure how I'm gonna do it but it shall be done. Recommendations are more than welcome...... Peace &amp; Love Emery. http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_mow/archive/2009/5/3/42003.aspx Post By: The_MOW
Post To: The_MOW Blog
Post Date: 5/3/2009 4:44:07 PM
Body: A young man (John Savoca), who is a minority, is on trial for the murder of his father, which he says he didn't commit. Both sides have presented their cases, and now it's in the hands of the jury of his peers. Each men believe that the boy, who has a criminal record, is guilty. However, one man of the jury, known only as "Juror #8" (Henry Fonda, who also served as the movie's producer) believes the boy is possibly not guilty. Now, he must convince the others of the jury that there is reasonable doubt in the boy's guilt. One of the first things that you will notice is that there are only three sets in this film. Two of which, the courtroom and the jury room bathroom, are only seen briefly. The other room is a cramped jury room which appears to be a few flights up because of the obvious matte painting outside the room windows. Because of the use of a small, rectangular set like the Jury Room, this pretty much hampers the camera angles. It's pretty obvious that the walls, and items in the room, had to be moved around for some camera angles. The director did do a good job with the camera angles. The director was able to come up with some angles to aid in what little drama there is in the movie. Each of the performers were really good in their roles, possibly due to rehearsing for two weeks prior to the start of filming. It is hard to tell which of the cast members really stand out from the rest, but each have their moments where they do. I guess you could say Fonda does, mostly because he has to play the one juror who is uncertain of the guilt or innocense of the defendant. Jack Klugman was a bit disappointing, in my opinion, but he did have his moments. Another slight problem was the development of characters. The only way we get to know anything about them is when they offer a little about their pasts in private conversation and during deliberations. None of the scenes really stand out, mostly because the vast majority of the picture takes place in one room, which looks pretty accurate. However, the scene in the bathroom where some juror's try to get "Juror #8" to see their side, and get him to change his vote, is probably the most interesting scene. There is little action in this movie, unless you count the more heated arguments as action. There is also some drama, and a few suspenseful moments in this film. I strongly suggest that you imagine yourself as a juror who believes the defendant is guilty. You will truly appreciate the performances, especially Fonda's, then. It may also aid in the suspense of the film as you listen to the arguments, and presented with the evidence. It may also be interesting if you see Fonda as the defence attorney, and the other jurors as the prosecution. I have seen this film twice in the last week on Turner Classic Movies, and have to say that I wasn't disappointed in anything each time. This could be a good first-choice rental, or a solid choice for your second if your first choice is not available. Also, if you have a classic movies collection at home, I think this may be a good addition to the collection.
]]>Sun, 03 May 2009 20:44:07 GMTThe_MOWThe_MOW Blog5/3/2009 4:44:07 PMA young man (John Savoca), who is a minority, is on trial for the murder of his father, which he says he didn't commit. Both sides have presented their cases, and now it's in the hands of the jury of his peers. Each men believe that the boy, who has a criminal record, is guilty. However, one man of the jury, known only as "Juror #8" (Henry Fonda, who also served as the movie's producer) believes the boy is possibly not guilty. Now, he must convince the others of the jury that there is reasonable doubt in the boy's guilt. One of the first things that you will notice is that there are only three sets in this film. Two of which, the courtroom and the jury room bathroom, are only seen briefly. The other room is a cramped jury room which appears to be a few flights up because of the obvious matte painting outside the room windows. Because of the use of a small, rectangular set like the Jury Room, this pretty much hampers the camera angles. It's pretty obvious that the walls, and items in the room, had to be moved around for some camera angles. The director did do a good job with the camera angles. The director was able to come up with some angles to aid in what little drama there is in the movie. Each of the performers were really good in their roles, possibly due to rehearsing for two weeks prior to the start of filming. It is hard to tell which of the cast members really stand out from the rest, but each have their moments where they do. I guess you could say Fonda does, mostly because he has to play the one juror who is uncertain of the guilt or innocense of the defendant. Jack Klugman was a bit disappointing, in my opinion, but he did have his moments. Another slight problem was the development of characters. The only way we get to know anything about them is when they offer a little about their pasts in private conversation and during deliberations. None of the scenes really stand out, mostly because the vast majority of the picture takes place in one room, which looks pretty accurate. However, the scene in the bathroom where some juror's try to get "Juror #8" to see their side, and get him to change his vote, is probably the most interesting scene. There is little action in this movie, unless you count the more heated arguments as action. There is also some drama, and a few suspenseful moments in this film. I strongly suggest that you imagine yourself as a juror who believes the defendant is guilty. You will truly appreciate the performances, especially Fonda's, then. It may also aid in the suspense of the film as you listen to the arguments, and presented with the evidence. It may also be interesting if you see Fonda as the defence attorney, and the other jurors as the prosecution. I have seen this film twice in the last week on Turner Classic Movies, and have to say that I wasn't disappointed in anything each time. This could be a good first-choice rental, or a solid choice for your second if your first choice is not available. Also, if you have a classic movies collection at home, I think this may be a good addition to the collection. http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/12/11/38235.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 12/11/2008 11:01:42 AM
Body: The fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 16:01:42 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com12/11/2008 11:01:42 AMThe fanboys are so serious about The Dark Knight being the best film of 2008 that if the Academy snubs the comic-book adaptation for a Best Picture nomination, they’re liable to storm the Kodak Theatre on February 22 in protest. But why should anyone be worried that it won’t get the nomination? It wouldn’t be much of a coup for the year’s top-grossing blockbuster to be named one of the five Best Picture candidates. In fact, since the very first Academy Awards, the top award has often been handed out to films that were #1 at the box office in their respective year. And the last time it happened was as recent as 2003, with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. Thanks to popular and talented filmmakers like D.W. Griffith, Walt Disney, David Lean and Steven Spielberg, it’s hardly uncommon for films to make money and earn critical respect. But this isn’t an opportunity to spotlight overrated top-grossing Best Pictures like Titanic, Rain Man and Rocky, which were decidedly not their year’s best films. Rather, this is a chance to ease the minds of fanboys just in case The Dark Knight doesn’t get the nod. Some of these blockbusters were indeed nominated for Best Picture, and a few even won the award, but some of them were both their year’s biggest moneymaker (in the U.S.) and best film (from the U.S.) without gaining proper Academy recognition. 1937: Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs Domestic Gross: $66,596,803 It’s certainly not the best feature-length animated film from Disney. That would be the box office disappointment Pinocchio, which came out a few years later and revealed the true breadth of Uncle Walt’s magic. But this was the first, and it’s enchanting enough that it towers over even the best live-action films of its year, including The Awful Truth, The Life of Emile Zola and The Good Earth. 1946: The Best Years of Our Lives Domestic Gross: $11,300,000 If a film like this came out today, it would probably be ignored at the box office, just as most movies responding to the Iraq War and its effects have been box office poison. Yet The Best Years of Our Lives was a huge hit with moviegoers, and it was named Best Picture, too. If you haven’t seen it, you might think that its success had to do with the idea that movies were far more patriotic in tone then. But in reality, this film is more critical of post-wartime America and more supportive and revealing of veteran’s struggles than much of what Hollywood attempts now. 1957: The Bridge on the River Kwai Domestic Gross: $17,195,000 If you only knew the successes of Snow White and this film, you might think the best way to both box office and Oscar gold is to feature a song involving whistling. Unlike “Whistle While You Work,” however, the catchy tune in this film was a hit from decades earlier, and certain circumstances allowed it to add subtext, one of many elements that makes David Lean’s POW epic so rich and wonderful. Of course, it’s that widescreen mise-en-scene that really makes this film just barely edge out 12 Angry Men and Sweet Smell of Success to be considered the year’s finest Hollywood release. 1962: Lawrence of Arabia Domestic Gross: $20,310,000 Nothing against Christopher Nolan and his interest in making truly big-screen-appropriate blockbusters, but even if he does want to completely shoot his next movie for the IMAX format, he’ll never be as fit for 70mm as David Lean was. We all remember that famous shot of the rider in the distance who eventually approaches the foreground, but despite what’s written above for the River Kwai’s entry on this list, Lean wasn’t just good for widescreen spectacle. He could actually direct action pretty well, too, for starters. If only he’d lived long enough to have been forced to deliver his own superhero flick. 1965: Doctor Zhivago Domestic Gross: $60,954,000 Enough with the David Lean, right? This isn’t even that great a film, but the mid-60s weren’t a particularly good time in terms of Hollywood output. If you prefer, some sources place The Sound of Music as the year’s box office champ (its listed domestic take includes rerelease income), and there’s plenty who think that Best Picture-winner was the best film of 1965 instead (hi, Mom). 1972: The Godfather Domestic Gross: $86,691,000 It won the box office, it won the Academy Awards and it still has the utmost respect of film critics and fans today. Few people could honestly say there was a better film in 1972. Even the silly voters who allowed Bob Fosse to win Best Director for Cabaret that year probably wish they could go back and change their minds. 1980: The Empire Strikes Back Domestic Gross: $209,398,025 Argue all you want that 1977 deserves to be on this list, too, but both Close Encounters of the Third Kind and Annie Hall are better films. Besides, anytime critics include the first Star Wars as one of the best films of all time, they actually depreciate the quality of its sequel. Putting that film in the same league with The Empire Strikes Back is like putting the 1966 Batman movie on equal standing with The Dark Knight. Okay, that’s overdoing it. Maybe like putting Batman Begins on the same level, then. 1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark Domestic Gross: $209,562,121 It’s terrible to have to include two George Lucas productions on this list, mainly because by 1999 he was putting out films that were their year’s top earners and top turkeys. Plus, thanks to the latest Indiana Jones movie, it’s a little tough to watch Raiders without thinking of how the protagonist will one day fly through the air in a nuked fridge. But it’s still a damn good action-adventure flick, arguably the greatest of all time. 1985: Back to the Future Domestic Gross: $210,609,762 Robert Zemeckis gets more credit for the double success of Forrest Gump because that film won Best Picture in addition to topping the box office in 1994. Yet it’s this top-grossing film that deserves more esteem. It may not have been nominated for Best Picture, but it captured the mid-80s’ hunger for science fiction and nostalgia perfectly, turning it into one of the most memorable films of the decade, and of all time. With all respect to Sydney Pollack and John Huston, does anyone even think of Out of Africa or Prizzi’s Honor much today? 1995: Toy Story Domestic Gross: $191,796,233 Compared to WALL-E, this film seems technically crude. It’s perhaps analogous to, in 1995, comparing Toy Story to Snow White. That’s how far it seems the wizards at Pixar have come in 13 years. But just as Disney’s first animated feature enchants us still to this day, Toy Story, far from being dated, has aged better than most of Hollywood’s films from the same year. If ever there was a year for a Pixar movie to be nominated for Best Picture, 1995 was the year. It was better than Braveheart, let alone Babe, then, and it’s better than those films now. That said, it would be just as interesting to see Braveheart 3-D next year along with the 3-D rerelease of Toy Story. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jjgittes/archive/2008/11/19/37455.aspx Post By: jjgittes
Post To: jjgittes Blog
Post Date: 11/19/2008 3:03:21 PM
Body: A film that almost exclusively takes place in a single room is a frightening prospect, both to an audience (the potential boredom is very high) and to a filmmaker to somehow make it work, make it move and most importantly, make it cinematic. Sidney Lumet achieved just that with one of his earliest feature films – the Reel 13 Classic from late October - 12 ANGRY MEN. The driving force behind making this film work is editing. The pace is impeccable and manages to make a one-room movie bristle with energy. Lumet doesn't overpower us with too much camera movement, but he knows just how long to hold on a shot and when to move on to the next. It doesn't hurt to have such a good story as a foundation either. To be honest, though I hadn't seen the film, we had studied the teleplay in high school and even then, I found the concept of one juror after another succumbing to "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) kind of contrived. However, Lumet and his ensemble make it seem plausible, primarily by the way the editor and the writer make the plot unfold. It unravels the way good mysteries should - one strand at a time, leaving bread crumbs for the audience to follow the trail, but also making sure they don't arrive there too soon.As far as the aforementioned ensemble is concerned, it was a great choice of Lumet not to go overboard with the star power. Essentially, he has 11 character actors and one star, which is perfect for this sort of thing. It adds to the sense of verisimilitude – they feel like real guys in that room (with the exception of Fonda, of course), guys that you could have seen on the street or at the bar in 1957. As it happens, Fonda's a bit of a weak link amidst the cast, not so much for what he does as the lack of dimensions to the character. His Juror 8 is less of a man than a symbol of righteous indignation. Similarly, Lee J. Cobb as the primary antagonist hits a few false notes, tending to veer towards Pacino-like bellowing. It is the rest of the cast that make the film feel so alive – actors like Jack Warden, Jack Klugman and perhaps most of all, E.G. Marshall. These actors are seasoned veterans who make the most of this opportunity to be on equal ground with someone like Fonda. With every close-up, they each give us a little more insight into their character – all with their expression or their detailed facial movements. It's practically a tutorial for what film acting should be.Still, I have to think that, at the end of the day, it's the oft-underrated Lumet who is primarily responsible for making 12 ANGRY MEN such an effective and thought-provoking piece of entertainment (10 on IMDb's all-time rankings!). It takes a great deal of knowledge of the craft of filmmaking to make such a static story work so beautifully on screen and Lumet had enough confidence in his abilities to be up to the task. And as with most great films, the devil's in the details. It's the small things (the sound design, the facial expressions, the rhythm) that make 12 ANGRY MEN not just a great one-room movie, but a great movie period. (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org)
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:03:21 GMTjjgittesjjgittes Blog11/19/2008 3:03:21 PMA film that almost exclusively takes place in a single room is a frightening prospect, both to an audience (the potential boredom is very high) and to a filmmaker to somehow make it work, make it move and most importantly, make it cinematic. Sidney Lumet achieved just that with one of his earliest feature films &ndash; the Reel 13 Classic from late October - 12 ANGRY MEN. The driving force behind making this film work is editing. The pace is impeccable and manages to make a one-room movie bristle with energy. Lumet doesn't overpower us with too much camera movement, but he knows just how long to hold on a shot and when to move on to the next. It doesn't hurt to have such a good story as a foundation either. To be honest, though I hadn't seen the film, we had studied the teleplay in high school and even then, I found the concept of one juror after another succumbing to "Juror 8" (Henry Fonda) kind of contrived. However, Lumet and his ensemble make it seem plausible, primarily by the way the editor and the writer make the plot unfold. It unravels the way good mysteries should - one strand at a time, leaving bread crumbs for the audience to follow the trail, but also making sure they don't arrive there too soon.As far as the aforementioned ensemble is concerned, it was a great choice of Lumet not to go overboard with the star power. Essentially, he has 11 character actors and one star, which is perfect for this sort of thing. It adds to the sense of verisimilitude &ndash; they feel like real guys in that room (with the exception of Fonda, of course), guys that you could have seen on the street or at the bar in 1957. As it happens, Fonda's a bit of a weak link amidst the cast, not so much for what he does as the lack of dimensions to the character. His Juror 8 is less of a man than a symbol of righteous indignation. Similarly, Lee J. Cobb as the primary antagonist hits a few false notes, tending to veer towards Pacino-like bellowing. It is the rest of the cast that make the film feel so alive &ndash; actors like Jack Warden, Jack Klugman and perhaps most of all, E.G. Marshall. These actors are seasoned veterans who make the most of this opportunity to be on equal ground with someone like Fonda. With every close-up, they each give us a little more insight into their character &ndash; all with their expression or their detailed facial movements. It's practically a tutorial for what film acting should be.Still, I have to think that, at the end of the day, it's the oft-underrated Lumet who is primarily responsible for making 12 ANGRY MEN such an effective and thought-provoking piece of entertainment (10 on IMDb's all-time rankings!). It takes a great deal of knowledge of the craft of filmmaking to make such a static story work so beautifully on screen and Lumet had enough confidence in his abilities to be up to the task. And as with most great films, the devil's in the details. It's the small things (the sound design, the facial expressions, the rhythm) that make 12 ANGRY MEN not just a great one-room movie, but a great movie period. (For more on this or any other Reel 13 film, check out their website at www.reel13.org) http://www.spout.com/blogs/risselada/archive/2008/11/19/37447.aspx Post By: Risselada
Post To: Risselada Blog
Post Date: 11/19/2008 2:46:31 PM
Body: I first heard about Mumia Abu-Jamal earlier this year. I was walking down the street in downtown Chicago where I work and someone handed me a flyer. It was all about Mumia, his predicament of supposedly being wrongfully imprisoned and sentenced to death, and that he was never given a fair trial. All of these issues are dealt with in the documentary Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt? which appears to have originally aired on HBO in 1996. The film was recently re-released this year on DVD. I love watching stuff like this. The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills for instance. And the kind of case file examinations you see on Court TV or the Discover channel at 1 AM. Ambiguous court cases. Conflicting evidence. Motives and evidence coming from every different angle. The title of the movie mentions "reasonable doubt". We are presented the facts argued by the prosecution, but generally the film feels like it is taking the side of the defense, arguing that the Philadelphia Police Department and the judge in the case were biased against Mumia from the starts. From the very moment police arrived on the scene of the crime, through collecting and recording evidence, through selection of the jury, through coercion of witnesses, through suppression of evidence, and through the sentencing process we are shown how Mumia may not have had a fair trial. When it's all over the films seems to be asking the viewers whether at this point there is a reasonable doubt left that Mumia may be innocent. Now I'm not too knowledgeable about what the exact definition of a "reasonable" doubt is within our court system. But my personal definition seems to include smaller levels of doubt than many average people, especially when emotions or other agendas are involved. It may be what appeals to me in these kinds of films. The suspicion that the system is against the individual. The audacity I see in many people who seem so certain of pronouncing someone guilty and heaping such immense sentences on that person when the ratio of certainty vs. the extent of the punishment seems to be way off. The fear that I may by accident be targeted as the patsy by a system that cares not for any individual rights of any individual if impeding on them suits their ulterior motives. Now I'm not saying that Mumia's case clearly fits that bill, but this is the sentiment that draws me to be interested in these types of cases. After watching this movie I have done some slight additional investigation on the matter. There are additional pieces of information left out of this film, some more conspicuous than others. And of course there have been several additional developments in the matter during the twelve years since this movie was released. The murder that Mumia was convicted of occurred in 1981, the same year I was born. When this movie first came out Mumia had been in prison on death row for fourteen years. Now in 2008 it has been twenty-six years since the incident. At this time Mumia is no longer on death row, but still in prison with a life sentence. But as evidenced by the fact that earlier this year I received a flyer regarding his predicament (and I think some kind of big rally taking place) there are still massive social movements that have grown out of this case. The case has become the impetus for groups arguing for as many issues as racism, police and judicial corruption, freedom of speech, and a lot more. In fact a movie documenting not only the case itself but the way it has affected and become the icon for so many other social and political groups and movements might be a more relevant and conscientious documentary than this film is. Is it possible that this film could help get Mumia freed like the film The Thin Blue Line did? It's unlikely at this point, but it probably has helped to increase the awareness that has fueled all of these social movements. After looking at ratings and reviews for this film on different websites you may assume that giving a high rating for this film means you think Mumia is innocent and a low rating means you think he is guilty. I rate this film highly even though I am really not sure because the film is very engaging without being deceptive. You can always do your own research later. But some of the most compelling portions of the movie have to be the emotional testimonies from a couple people who claim to have witnessed events that suggest Mumia's innocence and how they were coerced by the police to lie under oath. The fact that Mumia is so well spoken doesn't hurt the fascination with his case either. Like the jurors in one of my favorite films 12 Angry Men, I look at these cases and seek to find any possible doubt, put it altogether and ask myself "is it reasonable?" In the case of Mumia, I have not made up my mind, but if you find these kinds of questionable court case studies fascinating I highly recommend checking out the recent re-release of this film on DVD. Other recommendations: The Thin Blue Line, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills Rating: 9/10
]]>Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:46:31 GMTRisseladaRisselada Blog11/19/2008 2:46:31 PMI first heard about Mumia Abu-Jamal earlier this year. I was walking down the street in downtown Chicago where I work and someone handed me a flyer. It was all about Mumia, his predicament of supposedly being wrongfully imprisoned and sentenced to death, and that he was never given a fair trial. All of these issues are dealt with in the documentary Mumia Abu-Jamal: A Case for Reasonable Doubt? which appears to have originally aired on HBO in 1996. The film was recently re-released this year on DVD. I love watching stuff like this. The Thin Blue Line and Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills for instance. And the kind of case file examinations you see on Court TV or the Discover channel at 1 AM. Ambiguous court cases. Conflicting evidence. Motives and evidence coming from every different angle. The title of the movie mentions "reasonable doubt". We are presented the facts argued by the prosecution, but generally the film feels like it is taking the side of the defense, arguing that the Philadelphia Police Department and the judge in the case were biased against Mumia from the starts. From the very moment police arrived on the scene of the crime, through collecting and recording evidence, through selection of the jury, through coercion of witnesses, through suppression of evidence, and through the sentencing process we are shown how Mumia may not have had a fair trial. When it's all over the films seems to be asking the viewers whether at this point there is a reasonable doubt left that Mumia may be innocent. Now I'm not too knowledgeable about what the exact definition of a "reasonable" doubt is within our court system. But my personal definition seems to include smaller levels of doubt than many average people, especially when emotions or other agendas are involved. It may be what appeals to me in these kinds of films. The suspicion that the system is against the individual. The audacity I see in many people who seem so certain of pronouncing someone guilty and heaping such immense sentences on that person when the ratio of certainty vs. the extent of the punishment seems to be way off. The fear that I may by accident be targeted as the patsy by a system that cares not for any individual rights of any individual if impeding on them suits their ulterior motives. Now I'm not saying that Mumia's case clearly fits that bill, but this is the sentiment that draws me to be interested in these types of cases. After watching this movie I have done some slight additional investigation on the matter. There are additional pieces of information left out of this film, some more conspicuous than others. And of course there have been several additional developments in the matter during the twelve years since this movie was released. The murder that Mumia was convicted of occurred in 1981, the same year I was born. When this movie first came out Mumia had been in prison on death row for fourteen years. Now in 2008 it has been twenty-six years since the incident. At this time Mumia is no longer on death row, but still in prison with a life sentence. But as evidenced by the fact that earlier this year I received a flyer regarding his predicament (and I think some kind of big rally taking place) there are still massive social movements that have grown out of this case. The case has become the impetus for groups arguing for as many issues as racism, police and judicial corruption, freedom of speech, and a lot more. In fact a movie documenting not only the case itself but the way it has affected and become the icon for so many other social and political groups and movements might be a more relevant and conscientious documentary than this film is. Is it possible that this film could help get Mumia freed like the film The Thin Blue Line did? It's unlikely at this point, but it probably has helped to increase the awareness that has fueled all of these social movements. After looking at ratings and reviews for this film on different websites you may assume that giving a high rating for this film means you think Mumia is innocent and a low rating means you think he is guilty. I rate this film highly even though I am really not sure because the film is very engaging without being deceptive. You can always do your own research later. But some of the most compelling portions of the movie have to be the emotional testimonies from a couple people who claim to have witnessed events that suggest Mumia's innocence and how they were coerced by the police to lie under oath. The fact that Mumia is so well spoken doesn't hurt the fascination with his case either. Like the jurors in one of my favorite films 12 Angry Men, I look at these cases and seek to find any possible doubt, put it altogether and ask myself "is it reasonable?" In the case of Mumia, I have not made up my mind, but if you find these kinds of questionable court case studies fascinating I highly recommend checking out the recent re-release of this film on DVD. Other recommendations: The Thin Blue Line, Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills Rating: 9/10 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Classic/MemberTagFilms.aspxClassic
Number of films tagged: 816

Number of people who tagged: 313

Number of times used: 1454

]]>Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:30:46 GMT8163131454Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Great/MemberTagFilms.aspxGreat
Number of films tagged: 231

Number of people who tagged: 202

Number of times used: 371

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 17:11:49 GMT231202371Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/murder/MemberTagFilms.aspxmurder
Number of films tagged: 8748

Number of people who tagged: 157

Number of times used: 831

]]>Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:42:29 GMT8748157831Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mystery/MemberTagFilms.aspxmystery
Number of films tagged: 156

Number of people who tagged: 82

Number of times used: 208

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:30 GMT15682208Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/children/MemberTagFilms.aspxchildren
Number of films tagged: 212

Number of people who tagged: 66

Number of times used: 270

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:28:15 GMT21266270Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/father/MemberTagFilms.aspxfather
Number of films tagged: 3580

Number of people who tagged: 51

Number of times used: 213

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT358051213Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/excellent/MemberTagFilms.aspxexcellent
Number of films tagged: 44

Number of people who tagged: 44

Number of times used: 60

]]>Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:40:08 GMT444460Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/son/MemberTagFilms.aspxson
Number of films tagged: 2321

Number of people who tagged: 40

Number of times used: 111

]]>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 04:48:06 GMT232140111Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/boy/MemberTagFilms.aspxboy
Number of films tagged: 1318

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 60

]]>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:02:48 GMT13183660Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lawyer/MemberTagFilms.aspxlawyer
Number of films tagged: 1764

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 82

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:55:09 GMT17643582Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/train/MemberTagFilms.aspxtrain
Number of films tagged: 66

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 80

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:52:46 GMT663280Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/courtroom/MemberTagFilms.aspxcourtroom
Number of films tagged: 355

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 42

]]>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:00:35 GMT3552542Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/guilt/MemberTagFilms.aspxguilt
Number of films tagged: 521

Number of people who tagged: 23

Number of times used: 36

]]>Tue, 15 Sep 2009 13:42:35 GMT5212336Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/conflict/MemberTagFilms.aspxconflict
Number of films tagged: 1686

Number of people who tagged: 20

Number of times used: 41

]]>Fri, 13 Mar 2009 13:01:49 GMT16862041Tag