pippin06's Recent Activity - Spout

Spout Group:Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Group Name: Spout Customer Care - Get answers to your questions here!
Group Description:

Have a general question? Need help with some thing on the site? Have a bug you would like to report? Well then, you have come to the right place. No matter what you are having trouble with, we would like to help you find a solution. And maybe, through your own experience with the site, you will want to help other users too. That's what communities are all about.

Created: 8/1/2007
Number of Members: 79
Number of discussion posts: 513

Spout Group:HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 00:53:17 GMT

Group Name: HORROR MOVIES 101 - FOR ALL WHO LOVE HORROR MOVIES
Group Description: " I bid you welcome... Enter freely and of your own will..."
Created: 12/17/2006
Number of Members: 414
Number of Lists: 6
Number of discussion posts: 2333

Spout Group:foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 05:42:31 GMT

Group Name: foureyedmonsters - Talk to Susan & Arin about the movie and those addictive podcasts.
Created: 6/4/2007
Number of Members: 322
Number of discussion posts: 56

Spout Group:Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 20:20:23 GMT

Group Name: Weekly Theme - "Fighting off boredom with the Iron Fist of Variety"
Created: 6/30/2008
Number of Members: 52
Number of Lists: 12
Number of discussion posts: 701

Spout Group:Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 20:10:52 GMT

Group Name: Spout Mavens - Spout's best movie reviewers. Membership is limited.
Group Description:

A group of Spout's best reviewers.
Read the requirements.

Created: 6/20/2007
Number of Members: 36
Number of Lists: 9
Number of discussion posts: 451

Spout Group:missing a film - we'll help you find a film

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:30:05 GMT

Group Name: missing a film - we'll help you find a film
Created: 3/5/2007
Number of Members: 131
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 234

Spout Group:Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:05:26 GMT

Group Name: Friends of Foreign Flicks - Discussions of all films not American.
Group Description:

At some point you just want more than what's right in front of you.

Created: 4/24/2008
Number of Members: 30
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 92

Spout Group:The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:05:39 GMT

Group Name: The Documentary - A place to talk about the much overlooked genre of the Documentary.
Created: 4/2/2006
Number of Members: 49
Number of Lists: 4
Number of discussion posts: 53

Spout Group:Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:03:03 GMT

Group Name: Sound on Sight - Podcasts, movie reviews, interviews, news and more.
Group Description:

Sound on Sight proudly brings you two podcasts each week. Voted best podcast in 2008, these hard working hosts cover everything from mainstream Hollywood films to noir, horror, science fiction, cult cinema, documentary film making and more. Look out for a new show added every Tuesday and Thursday morning.

http://www.soundonsight.org/

Created: 1/6/2008
Number of Members: 104
Number of discussion posts: 150

Spout Group:Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:43:26 GMT

Group Name: Worst Movie Ever - The Group is dedicated to uncovering the bombs, so you don't have too.
Created: 5/5/2006
Number of Members: 200
Number of Lists: 10
Number of discussion posts: 412

Spout Group:Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss

Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:42:29 GMT

Group Name: Movie Polls - Vote in weekly polls and discuss
Group Description:

Each week I will post a new poll. Please vote in the poll and reply to the discussion thread to discuss the question. Please do not vote more than once.

Created: 11/25/2008
Number of Members: 66
Number of discussion posts: 414

Spout Group:Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:29:56 GMT

Group Name: Zombie Obsession - Zombie Lovers, Unite!
Group Description:

Join us to discuss your favorite or most horrifying Zombie Movies or just your most memorable Zombie Moments. From Funny to Scary to Gory to Bizarre...

Created: 5/28/2007
Number of Members: 104
Number of Lists: 1
Number of discussion posts: 594

Spout Group:A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:25 GMT

Group Name: A World of MSTies - Thank You, Won't We?
Group Description:

Glorify the best show ever (MST3K) with wit, wisdom and downright wackiness!

Created: 4/23/2008
Number of Members: 10
Number of Lists: 2
Number of discussion posts: 23

Spout Group:It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys

Mon, 24 Aug 2009 11:11:33 GMT

Group Name: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar! - Devoted to everything nominated or snubbed by the Academy of Golden Guys
Group Description: Year after year, movie lovers and non movie lovers alike discuss ad nauseum the fate of films nominated for the utmost honor, the Academy Award. Some people watch it for the fashion. Some people watch for the haute couture. Some people watch for their fill of celebrity sightings. If you are a member of this group, you love everything about the Super Bowl of movies, especially the movies themselves! You love to make predictions, guess at the politics, discuss and dissect who should have been nominated and who should have won...or, you're just an avid movie lover that likes to pay attention. Come join the group!
Created: 3/4/2006
Number of Members: 41
Number of Lists: 58
Number of discussion posts: 226

Spout Group:Movie Marathons

Sat, 22 Aug 2009 16:33:02 GMT

Group Name: Movie Marathons
Group Description:

This is a group for members to start and organize movie marathons. Its primary purpose is to get more people exposed to more film. And to watch these films and discuss them as a group.

Anyone can start a marathon and marathons can be organized in many different ways to showcase the films of a director, actor, genre, theme etc...

Check the Guidlines and Suggestions discussion for ideas.

Created: 7/22/2009
Number of Members: 15
Number of discussion posts: 22

Spout Group:Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!

Wed, 19 Aug 2009 00:31:56 GMT

Group Name: Movies we do not want to see - Try to convince us to see these movies!
Group Description: Want to be a member? Send me a message with a list of at least 5 movies that you do not want to see. There are many movies that I do not want to see. I'm not sure if its right of me to decide never to see a movie without seeing it. You know...like when a kid says they hate mushrooms even though they admit never trying them. So maybe this is a good spot for people to display movies they don't think they want to see, and see if anyone can convince us to try them out.
Created: 3/22/2006
Number of Members: 20
Number of Lists: 3
Number of discussion posts: 190

Spout Post: Viewing City Lights for the AFI Project

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 02:49:36 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/22/2009 9:49:36 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx City Lights is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#76)100 Funniest Films (#38)100 Years...100 Passions (#10)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (The Tramp is the #38 hero)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#33)The Revised Top 100 (#11)10 Top 10's (#1 Romantic Comedy) Chugging right along with the AFI Project (for now), Netflix brought me the next entry on the Original list, City Lights, the second Charlie Chaplin film on the list and, also, the second I have ever seen. I knew nothing about it except that it experienced a colossal jump in ranking when the AFI revised its greatest list. I'm happy to say that this was the first time I actually agreed with such a sizable re-rank. I loved this film quite a bit; it's really quite something, timeless and ageless, even if it was a silent film released only a few years after talkies grew popular. I read that Chaplin took quite the risk in releasing another silent film, but what a loss to the world it would have been if he hadn't. City Lights depicts everything resoundingly meaningful about love and turns out to be one of the funniest films I've seen in a while if not ever in my whole life. In City Lights, Chaplin reprises his role as the hapless Tramp. On the day of dedication to a new city monument, he happens upon a blind girl, a flower seller (Virginia Churchill), who, quite accidentally, mistakes the Tramp for a millionaire. Fortunately, the Tramp meets an actual millionaire (Harry Myers) and prevents him from committing suicide. Problematically, however, while the millionaire sees the Tramp as his best friend forever for his valiant efforts in dissuading the rich man from plummeting to his death, he only remembers this when he's teetotaling-drunk. Sobriety drives memory of the Tramp from the millionaire's head, so he frequently forgets that he invited the Tramp into his mansion or gave him his Rolls Royce and, eventually, $1,000.00. Confused by the millionaire's forgetfulness, the Tramp becomes inspired by his friend's drunken generosity to help the poor blind girl pay her overdue rent and even seek an eye operation that would allow her to see. The Tramp, thus, generates a few ideas and undertakes a few self-effacing adventures for the woman he has grown to love. He enters the funniest boxing match ever filmed, where he is beyond outmatched, in order to save the pretty girl and her grandmother from homelessness, even as the girl wonders after her mysterious benefactor and yearns for the day when the eye operation will allow her to see the kind man who has helped her. Unfortunately, she can't predict when that day will come or what sights it will bring her. City Lights is a beautiful, perfectly executed film that is riotously funny in some spots and heart-wrenchingly touching in others. The visual gags in this film struck me as far more hilarious in this film than in The Gold Rush, and the story, with its schizophrenic millionaire acting as a parallel to the Tramp's mistaken identity, feels fresh and original, even as the film is 78 years old. Chaplin's physical comedy is in top form in this film. The boxing match is by far the best scene and one of the funniest sequences in film that I've ever seen, so much so that to try to describe it would not do it justice. The film unquestionably earns its place on the AFI's comedy list. The supporting players are also exquisite. Virginia Cherrill's blind girl remained sympathetic throughout the film, but her performance rang most poignant with the film's powerful ending, wherein the now-seeing blind girl solves her mystery. The ambiguity of her expression and, therefore, her feelings tells ten stories in one, and Cherrill's performance rings true and is as engaging and interesting as Chaplin's endearing Tramp. The end provides the perfect dramatic foil to the silly slapstick and clever visual gaffes leading up to it. The pacing and consistency of this film were so good that it felt like a short 90 plus minutes, and the sparingly employed sound effects added the right amount of texture to the film. In short, City Lights was a brilliant piece of film making, and Chaplin's risk in releasing his already-filmed but silent product in the age of the talking picture was one of the most worthwhile risks taken in all of cinema. There is a reason why the film earned so many AFI rankings. I think it's pretty safe to call the flawless City Lights a masterpiece, and so I'm inclined to rate this film a 10 on the patented ratings scale for masterpiece! I also think it might pass the test. City Lights is unlike any other film of its genre, before or since. It doesn't follow the romantic comedy formula that has been repeatedly relied upon in later films nor is it the creator; mistaken identity may be a plot device that has been used before, but this story is truly an original spin on that concept that might have been imitated in succeeding films but has never been as effectively duplicated. As such, any fan of Chaplin, silent films, or film in general would do well to see City Lights. It's undeniably one of the greatest films ever made.

Spout Post: Re:Oscar Buzz and Awards Season, 2010

Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:44:48 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 12/18/2009 7:44:48 AM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] [quote user="pippin06"] Hm...I don't know why any of my movie links didn't work. Grr to Spout. Other grrs to Spout? The Golden Globes nom list is completed, but the following three nominees did not make it to the list. Why...? Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was nominated for Animated film, but a bug in Spout's system is preventing me from loading its page. Baaria was nominated for Foreign Language film but does not seem to have an entry under its title or any conceivable translation/working title. Georgia O'Keefe was nominated for TV movie (directed by Bob Balaban) and has the same problem as Baaria. The individual awards for which each film is nominated will be ascribed to their list entries subsequently. Now compiling the Critics Choice list... [/quote] The Critics' Choice nominee list is now up, with the following Spout-related hiccups: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Animated Film) has a bug, as does Food, Inc. and Anvil! The Story of Anvil (both Documentaries). Michael Moore's latest effort, Capitalism: A Love Story, does not seem to have a Spout entry under its release or any of its working titles. Again, as above, individual awards will be put under the list entries later. It takes a bit of work, you know... [/quote] The SAG noms list is up, with the following exceptions (all of which are TV movies): Georgia O'Keefe, A Number, and Great Performances: Cyrano de Bergerac do not have entries in the Spout system. Remember: the SAGs are a great way to measure predictions for the performance categories. Bye.

Spout Post: Re:Oscar Buzz and Awards Season, 2010

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 13:00:13 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 12/17/2009 8:00:13 AM
Body: [quote user="pippin06"] Hm...I don't know why any of my movie links didn't work. Grr to Spout. Other grrs to Spout? The Golden Globes nom list is completed, but the following three nominees did not make it to the list. Why...? Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was nominated for Animated film, but a bug in Spout's system is preventing me from loading its page. Baaria was nominated for Foreign Language film but does not seem to have an entry under its title or any conceivable translation/working title. Georgia O'Keefe was nominated for TV movie (directed by Bob Balaban) and has the same problem as Baaria. The individual awards for which each film is nominated will be ascribed to their list entries subsequently. Now compiling the Critics Choice list... [/quote] The Critics' Choice nominee list is now up, with the following Spout-related hiccups: Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs (Animated Film) has a bug, as does Food, Inc. and Anvil! The Story of Anvil (both Documentaries). Michael Moore's latest effort, Capitalism: A Love Story, does not seem to have a Spout entry under its release or any of its working titles. Again, as above, individual awards will be put under the list entries later. It takes a bit of work, you know...

Spout Post: Re:Oscar Buzz and Awards Season, 2010

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:28:34 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 12/17/2009 7:28:34 AM
Body: Hm...I don't know why any of my movie links didn't work. Grr to Spout. Other grrs to Spout? The Golden Globes nom list is completed, but the following three nominees did not make it to the list. Why...? Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs was nominated for Animated film, but a bug in Spout's system is preventing me from loading its page. Baaria was nominated for Foreign Language film but does not seem to have an entry under its title or any conceivable translation/working title. Georgia O'Keefe was nominated for TV movie (directed by Bob Balaban) and has the same problem as Baaria. The individual awards for which each film is nominated will be ascribed to their list entries subsequently. Now compiling the Critics Choice list...

Spout Post: Re:Oscar Buzz and Awards Season, 2010

Thu, 17 Dec 2009 05:39:18 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 12/17/2009 12:39:18 AM
Body: [quote user="Risselada"] What's your opinion of movies this year? I was looking at the Golden Globe nominations and I kind of realized there weren't that many movies this year that people were really going crazy about. I have no clue what movie would even have a chance of winning best picture. There is no stand out. Maybe there are a few more that will squeeze in here at the end of December?? Brothers seemed like it might have been a good drama. And I have a website that keeps highly recommending The Hurt Locker to me. Inglourious Basterds was quite fun and very cinematic, but do you really think an exploitation style movie like that has a chance of winning any awards? Do you think it was good enough to? I loved A Serious Man, but at this point I can't imagine ever not loving a new Coen brothers movie. I've heard great reviews, but not enough hubub to make me expect it to win much. Maybe it's like this every year though... [/quote] I think you are definitely right in the sense that the popular excitement around the awards season crop is at a new low. Another part of the reason I haven't been so devoted to this group/thread because the buzz has been very slow in coming....but it's coming now. Still, I don't hear people talking about these films as much as they are talking about Twilight and maybe Sherlock Holmes (which looks fun, though will likely see no awards gold). The biggest buzz is circling around Up in the Air, George Clooney's new vehicle about a frequent flyer who ponders his life from the many airports and planes he frequents. It has been very well reviewed (90% at Rotten Tomatoes in limited release; 83 at Metacritic) and may have the draw because of Clooney. So far, it is the most nominated film for the Globes and the Critics Choice awards (those group lists are in process...). The movie piques my interest for sure; I think it's an early front runner for Best Picture. I like George Clooney, and the story is actually intriguing and relevant to our current culture. I think Inglorious Basterds will see a lot of nominations, but I would be surprised if it won anything big. Perhaps screenplay...but it is a very niche film, and as creative as QT is, he never sees the love come awards season because of his very niche style. I haven't seen it yet, but maybe if the voters are younger and hipper (unlikely)... The Hurt Locker will be well nominated. It's timely and relevant, though its serious, timely, and relevant subject matter might not draw audiences until after the awards fanfare. I anticipate some acting award noms for this film, though the buzz for Best Actor has been coalescing around Colin Firth for A Single Man, about a gay professor who has lost his longtime partner and must cope with the help of his best friend Julianne Moore. A Serious Man will see the usual nominations for the Coens (writing; directing), but I would be surprised if it won. It is as not as well reviewed as their achievements of recent previous years, namely No Country for Old Men and Burn After Reading (and oh, how I am so behind). Avatar, James Cameron's long-awaited over-budget scifi epic, I expect to win a bunch of the technical awards, particularly visual effects. Up, Pixar's latest effort, is the usual animated front-runner, though not by much - the Princess and the Frog (Disney's return to cel animation with African-American characters) and Fantastic Mr. Fox (Wes Anderson does animation!) are very stiff competition for the otherwise almost-perfect Pixar. Brothers will get love for Tobey Maguire, at least as far as nominations, but that film has not been as well reviewed. I want to see it, because I love the three main leads (including Natalie Portman and Jake Gyllenhaal, whom I've often confused for Tobey Maguire in the past), but I don't expect it to get too many nominations and, thus, wins. Other likely (and actual) nominees include the film adaptation of the musical Nine, which was adapted from Fellini's 8 1/2, though that's not a critics' shoo-in; Invictus for Morgan Freeman's performance as post-apartheid Nelson Mandela; and Precious (see the page for the whole title) because it took home several film festival prizes. In fact, I'm just studying the two lists and remembering many of the reviews I usually read on imdb, Rotten Tomatoes, and the New York Times. I'm probably most excited to see Inglorious Basterds and Up in the Air of all of them as well as Fantastic Mr. Fox. Whether I get a chance to see any of them will be the real question in the coming months. So that's my two cents. Any other thoughts?

Spout Post: Oscar Buzz and Awards Season, 2010

Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:28:13 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 12/15/2009 1:28:13 PM
Body: Greetings group and Spout at large! I am late to the starting line this year, partially due to the fact that this website seems to be dying a slow death. Disagree? Sound off below! (I learned that from Mike Ausiello at ew.com). This thread is to discuss all Oscar buzz and the noms for the major Oscar predictors. As a reminder, those predictors are the Golden Globes, the Critics Choice Awards, the Screen Actors' Guild awards, and the Directors' Guild awards. If the film or person wins an Oscar in at least one category, chances are, it won one of these awards first (and the preponderance of these award wins is pretty much a guarantee). In years past, I've devoted this thread to random news items. I may still, but my focus will not be as much on the news items or the buzz as it will be on the predictions, which will appear in a new thread after the Oscar noms come out in January/February. Keep checking back if you're interested. I will still develop the nom lists for all of the predictors and the Oscars, but I have been steadily working on what is known as the AFI Project (see my blog), and I'm so close to completing a list and having watched a good chunk of those films that I haven't been so focused on newer films. That will change in the coming months, I'm sure, but there it is. However, if YOU would like to talk buzz, this is the place to do it. Don't be shy! There are some obvious buzzworthy candidates already cropping up on the Golden Globes short lists, which were announced today. Feel free to discuss. I may check back to do the same on occasion. In the meantime, it's a wonderful season for Oscar! Let us Oscar-lovers rejoice...!

Spout Post: Revisiting Dances with Wolves for the AFI Project

Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:26:03 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/13/2009 11:26:03 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Dances with Wolves is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#75)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#59) While blogging about or reviewing Ben-Hur, I said there were only four four-hour films I had patience to sit through or even enjoy. That may not have been entirely true, though, for the record, I had never seen a four-hour version of Dances with Wolves prior to borrowing a collector's edition DVD copy from my parents. The cut of the film most people are familiar with is three hours long; apparently, director and star Kevin Costner had an hour's worth of footage to reinstate to the film for home distribution. In actuality, this four-hour cut adds much to the film and makes me enjoy it more than I used to on previous viewings. Still, Dances with Wolves is another film that inspires controversy amongst the general film-viewing public, at least in my experience. Some people think it's inspired and inspiring, textured with beautiful photography and cinematography. featuring a strong adapted screenplay, strong performances (including one by Costner himself), and the novelty of being one of the first sympathetic portrayals of American Indians in film to date. Still others find the film long, protracted, boring, and hollow with Costner and his questionable acting ability and a simplistic view of Indian culture that makes the sympathy of its portrayal somewhat pedantic and trite. I've seen the film a fair few times and tend to lean more toward the former category. Yes, it's long, and there are points in the film that make me cringe (at least from performance choices made by ole' Kevin), but, all in all, Dances with Wolves is a beautiful film with a keen eye to the truth in history vis a vis the Indian genocide brought on by western expansion and so-called manifest destiny. The film follows a Civil War soldier, Lieutenant John Dunbar (Costner). After a risky move leads to Union success in a fictional battle, Lt. Dunbar is given top medical treatment, military decoration, and the choice of any post he wants. He elects a fort (Sedgwick) in largely unsettled South Dakota, truly at the edge of the frontier. He finds the fort abandoned and is alarmed to discover that his nearest neighbors are a tribe of Sioux Indians who are as curious about and cautious of him as he is of them. Still, both Dunbar and the tribe's holy man, Kicking Bird (Graham Greene), see their awkward introduction as a chance to seek information about the other party; Dunbar is attracted to the Indians' lifestyle, while Kicking Bird wants to know of any influx of white men that may spell doom and destruction for his people. After cautious meetings at the fort and at the Indians' camp, Dunbar is soon dubbed "Dances with Wolves" (in lieu of an affinity he has for a lone wolf who shadows the fort) and becomes romantically embroiled with Kicking Bird's adopted daughter, a white woman who survived a Pawnee Indian attack at a young age and who goes by the name Stands with a Fist (Mary McDonnell). It's not long before Dances with Wolves is made one of the tribe and husband to Stands with a Fist, but soon thereafter, the Union army finds the abandoned fort and souvenirs of Dunbar's defection. When Dances with Wolves attempts to cover his tracks, the Union soldiers detain him, threatening him as a traitor and with the design of torturing him for information about the land and its native occupants. The appeal of Dances with Wolves stems from Costner's thoroughly sensitive and sympathetic treatment of the Sioux. Is it overly simplistic? Perhaps, but remember that Costner was filming one of the first examples of film in which Indians were not the aggressors, begging to be out-gunned and defeated by white settlers trying to set up their piece of the so-called American dream. For such a subject to attain a connection to the audience, generalizing and oversimplifying a culture may have been necessary, and Dances with Wolves works because such a connection to the viewer is provided. The film does not focus exclusively on the Dunbar character; there are scenes in which the tribal leaders confer amongst themselves about the meaning of Dunbar's presence and the possibilities it may symbolize, and the film isn't exactly meant to be a documentary. Maybe Costner just begs for the criticism. After all, he's what I would call an awkward actor; he has a certain everyman demeanor that gives him some credibility and suspension of disbelief in the characters he chooses to play, but his faults and limits become painfully obvious in roles that challenge him to seek three dimensions. His performance (which is the fulcrum of the film, since it is told from his point of view and through his sporadic narration) is strongest when he focuses on Dunbar's feelings and fosters connection from Dunbar to the other characters, because it as if Costner is connecting to them and connecting them to the viewer. His performance is weakest in moments of subtlety, whether that subtlety stems from irony, sarcasm, or quiet moments when the Dunbar character must appreciate or observe something around or before him. Costner may never be a strong actor, but his limitations are not as jarring in Dances with Wolves, quite possibly because the man sees something of himself in the character, and the man as the director had passion in his subject. The film is beautiful, and anyone who says different is lying to be contrary. The photography is absolutely stunning, and the use of natural light and focus on the contours of the wilderness truly add texture to a film that is already complexly layered. And the score! It pains me that of John Barry's prolific film score work, Out of Africa was the only film to earn a coveted position on the 25 film scores list, but this score did not. The Dances with Wolves score is so beautiful and so epic; I own it on cassette tape (it's my favorite part of the film, personally), and after re-watching the film for this project, I felt inclined to pop the CD version on my wish list. The score tells so much story and sounds so much like what is being depicted visually, or, perhaps evokes that reaction so heartily; Barry did such great work in creating a score that is essentially synonymous with the visual elements of the film. Also, the supporting performances were wonderful, including all of the actors who portrayed the various members of the tribe. Even if the treatment of the Sioux in this film was overly simplistic, the Indian actors' devotion to the material was real, and their performances natural. Mary McDonnell also offered a fine performance, even if her character's memory of the English language strained credibility (considering that the younger version of the character seemed barely able to use the English language to start). All in all, Dances with Wolves is a well-made film. I think it catches most of its flack because it beat out GoodFellas for Best Picture (and Costner, like so many other directors, beat out Scorsese for Best Director). I enjoy it, though; I think it's a good story rooted in history, and I think the film is brave for championing fact and not the American dream. I also think the film has a lot of heart, much of which results from the clear passion of its director and star. Is it one of America's greatest movies ever? Well, I think, though it is enjoyable, that such a claim is a tall one indeed. It has good points, but I don't regard the film as one of the 100 of America's best; incidentally, the AFI also changed its mind, replacing the film with In the Heat of the Night (which was new to the Revised list - and is a very very good film). In the land of the patented ratings scale, I think Dances with Wolves merits an 8 for having minor flaws but being very good - after all, if nothing else, the production values are outstanding, and Costner really is not so annoying (no matter what the naysayers say). As to the test, I can't see owning the film; I've seen it about a half dozen times, and I feel satiated on that account. Plus, Dances with Wolves sees ample cable rotation, so, if I really feel the need, I can always search it out for another viewing. Chances are, I won't. As for other potential viewers, Dances with Wolves may not be for everyone, but for someone like me, who regards westerns as her least favorite genre, such a potential viewer could do far worse than Dances with Wolves.

Spout Post: Viewing The Gold Rush for the AFI Project

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:18:31 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/10/2009 6:18:31 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The Gold Rush is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#74)100 Funniest Films (#25)The Revised Top 100 (#58) Taking another break from the regularly-scheduled queue in favor of completing the Original AFI Greatest list, the next film ordered up via my weekly red envelope happens to be the first of three entries on the original list featuring Charlie Chaplin (or Charles, whichever you prefer). I'll tell you a secret: this is the first Charlie Chaplin film I've ever seen in its entirety. Let's just say that as I surmise I must have undiagnosed adult attention deficit disorder, silent films (of which this is the second entry on the Original list, following The Birth of a Nation) have never been my primary preference, but now that I'm a little older, a little wiser, a little more eclectic in my movie-viewing tastes, I was more than ready and able to watch a non-talkie that wasn't expected to be racist. That alone made me excited...thus, happily, I waddled into The Gold Rush. Now, gentle reader, normally I take time to summarize the plot here, mostly in my own words (or in some borrowed from around the page if my memory feels too tested). This time, I don't think I will - since the Spout page gives you the entire plot, from beginning to end, right above my review. Why bother re-summarizing it? It's a silent film, so the plot is offered visually, and there really isn't anything I would add, except to say that I watched the original 1925 theatrical release of the film, even though there is a reboot from 1942 with a changed ending and narration by Chaplin himself. Since I am of the mind that the AFI no doubt based their subjective rankings on the original film, I decided to go all quiet and no talk. The story is offered above. I kind of loved The Gold Rush. I am anticipating that I will like City Lights, Chaplin's next entry on the AFI list, more based upon the plot summary, but this film really was quite funny. I smiled, at least, throughout most of the film. Watching a silent film, especially by artistic genius Chaplin, one has to marvel at the inventiveness of the visual gaffes that are created and used in place of what words would otherwise provide. I think the Gold Rush pioneered several film making concepts that would influence not only comedy films for years to come but also animation and film that focuses entirely on what is seen rather than what is heard. Charlie Chaplin was clearly the pioneer and reigning king of what he did. Truly, my favorite part of The Gold Rush was when he first found the cabin of Black Larsen and kept finding new and interesting ways to be blown over by the gusting Alaska winds. Chaplin's prowess for physical comedy could never be equaled, even with the likes of manic types like Jim Carrey and Robin Williams. They're loud, and Chaplin's comedic genius rested solely in his expressions and tongue-in-cheek movements, per the restrictions of film making at that time. Also, after viewing this film, I'm really appreciating why Wall-E, the Pixar film about the robot marooned on an abandoned Earth in the distant future, is often described as "Chaplin-esque." My post-viewing research led me to discover that critics of the time thought Chaplin sold out his Little Tramp persona with the original ending of this film. I think these critics were a bit narrow-minded in their view, especially since The Little Tramp character was flushed down the toilet when he struck it rich with the help of Big Jim. I didn't mind the ending of the original release; I think it was organically connected to the progression of the prospector's flirtation with Georgia, and that to cave in to some repeated formula created around this character, without putting the character itself within the context of the film at hand, is to equally do said character injustice. My only (small) problem with the film is the disjointed connection between the first and second acts, which all coalesce by the end of the film, but which feel like two different films with the way the transition was handled (and I'm not sure if the way the transition was handled was owing to the way silent films were constructed in those days). First, it's all about the lonely prospector's unsuccessful hunt for gold and his battle to survive (especially when Big Jim hallucinates and sees him as a giant chicken). Then, the film suddenly finds the prospector in town at the local club and wooing Georgia. There was all a point to it, and the connection was clarified later in the film, but I definitely felt as though the movie had started over and become something else when the prospector stumbled into that saloon. Nevertheless, The Gold Rush was truly funny and entertaining, and I can find very little I didn't like about it, considering that it is an 85-year-old silent movie. As such, I believe the film merits a 9 for being perfectly entertaining on the patented and trademarked ratings scale. I considered giving it a 10 but for that awkward mid-movie transition and because the story, funny though it was, didn't have that timelessness that truly makes a film a masterpiece. I'm feeling as though I might find that ranking in City Lights, which is my next foray into Chaplin's repertoire. As for the test, I don't believe that it passes, simply because I doubt I would want to watch this film too many times, though I might stop on it if one of the classic film stations is having a Chaplin marathon or something. In any event, don't be put off by the silent film format. Some of these films were truly novel and ingenious given the limitations of their times; The Gold Rush really is one such film.

Spout Post: Revisiting Wuthering Heights for the AFI Project

Tue, 08 Dec 2009 03:28:24 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/7/2009 10:28:24 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Wuthering Heights is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#73)100 Years...100 Passions (#15) Surprisingly, there is no DVD of this version of Wuthering Heights currently in print. After careful research, in an attempt to avoid acquiring the film through other, more questionable means, I managed to find out that Hulu was streaming this film - but only for a limited time! In fact, it expired on the day I finished watching it. It was like fate that I should find a legally streaming copy of the film, just as it was fate that brought Heathcliff to Cathy on those fated English moors... I digress. Wuthering Heights happens to be one of my favorite books (originally written by Emily Bronte), and I had remembered seeing this version of its adaptation in my 12th grade advanced placement English class shortly after reading the novel for the first time in that class as well. From the recesses of my memory, I remembered not particularly loving the film, but I could not remember why. In the end, I realized what it was: the adaptation is one of the worst adaptations in the history of print to screen. It literally lops off one half of the book! And whether that half of the book is, arguably, the boring half or not, I feel that the progression of events in this classic film version are a bit disingenuous, since it neglects to depict half of these tempestuous characters' lives to give them the true meaning as written by Bronte. Yet, the film follows the first half of the book closely. Directed by William Wyler (who also directed Ben-Hur amongst several other films), the movie opens when a stranger named Lockwood becomes lost on the English moors and finds himself at the doorstep of a sombre household. The name of the estate is Wuthering Heights, and when he arrives, he begs of its apparent lord some lodging, for the winds and the snows have made him lost. Begrudgingly, he is granted his request, but when he settles down to sleep in one of the abandoned upstairs rooms, he hears the breath of a voice on the wind in the room's drafts and looks out the cracked window only to see the apparition of a woman, whom he believes may be another lost traveler like himself. He desperately calls out for the estate's owner, who, in a fit of disbelieving rage and anguish, runs madly out into the storm. This behavior prompts the housekeeper, Ellen Dean (Flora Robson), to tell Lockwood what gave rise to it. In the early 19th century, the house's original owner, Mr. Earnshaw, brings home a bedraggled orphan from Liverpool, Heathcliff. Mr. Earnshaw's son, Hindley, sees him as a rival for his father's affections and despises him, while his sister, Catherine, takes to Heathcliff like glue. Their fast friendship develops into love, complete with the imaginings of their very own castle on the moors. Soon after, Mr. Earnshaw dies, and though Cathy and Heathcliff seem bound for a destiny of happiness, obstacles interfere with their wild, passionate love. Hindley (Hugh Williams) forces Heathcliff (Laurence Olivier) to work as a stable boy. Meanwhile, Cathy's (Merle Oberon) tastes change as she blossoms into a young woman, and after meeting a wealthy neighbor, Edgar Linton (David Niven), she pines for the finer things in life, while Heathcliff erupts into a fit of jealousy and leaves, particularly after hearing the first half of a tragic confession to Ellen on Cathy's part, in which she opines that though Heathcliff is below her desired station in life, she loves him dearly. Heathcliff's departure leaves Cathy bewildered and alone, and so she accepts a proposal of marriage from Edgar. A few scant years later, however, Heathcliff returns, wealthy and refined himself, whereupon he announces that he has purchased Wuthering Heights in order to liberate Hindley from his alcohol and gambling-related debts. To further enact his plan of spiteful revenge against these siblings, he marries Edgar's sister Isabella (Geraldine Fitzgerald), though he does not love her. This act causes Cathy to become affected by a mysterious illness that hurtles her toward an untimely death and forces Heathcliff to review his choices and attempt to coax the woman he loves from death's door. What works in Wuthering Heights and what translated well into this adaptation was the overall spirit of the endless, timeless love that binds the Heathcliff and Cathy characters and becomes the theme for the novel itself. The Brontes were products of the romantic era, so coined because novels of their type contained these epic, often tragic, always difficult romances, and everything from the cinematography (which won an Oscar) to the art direction to the performances in this film captured some of the grandiose theatricality and utter satisfaction produced by this romance. The entire picture, though, is truly carried on the shoulders of Sir Laurence Olivier, whose Shakespeare and theater training made him a convincing and dashing Heathcliff. After watching this film again and performing my usual post-film research, I read that he wanted his real-life love, Vivien Leigh, to be Cathy, but that the studio denied his request, believing that she was not yet a star pending the release of Gone with the Wind. Still, all throughout the picture, I felt that in some ways, Ms. Oberon reminded me very much of Leigh, and I couldn't help but wonder what the erstwhile Scarlett might have been like in the role of Cathy, a character not too far-flung from Scarlett in many respects, but with her native English accent and her real-life husband in the opposite role. On the other hand, Merle Oberon offered a great performance, even if her portrayal felt a bit more classically hammy than that of Sir Olivier. In fact, the film is engaging because the spirit of the story is taken so to heart by the ensemble of actors, the director, and the other filmmakers. The major flaw in this film, however, comes from the fact that the adaptation truly ignores half the book. The book does not stop at Cathy's illness and the tragic subsequent events - it follows Heathcliff into old age more fully, into the lives of his offspring and of Cathy's offspring (as she did have at least one child with Edgar). It depicts Heathcliff's endless regrets as to how he chose to fight in life for Cathy and how he mourns her death, and while the ending is essentially the same as that of the film, it's far more poetic and satisfying in the book because the book is more about Heathcliff as a character and his endless devotion to Cathy, mirrored in its more organic ending, than about their troubled romance in life. While it can more often than not be argued that film adaptations lose so much in comparison to their written source material, I feel that this is especially true of Wuthering Heights because the ending feels too pat and contrived in the film version, whereas it carries a deep, emotional, and tear-jerking significance in the novel. This loss constitutes a major flaw in the film, in this viewer's opinion. Yet again, this may be why the AFI dropped Wuthering Heights off of its Revised greatest films list (where it was replaced by Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid after that film's own significant decline). The novel, with all of its weighty themes and careful images, is far more timeless than this film version, even if its parts have a mark of excellence. Given everything I've discussed, I'm very much inclined to give the film a 7 for being shaky but entertaining. After all, the spirit of the novel is there, and the film is engaging of its own accord, even if it's the diet soda version of the novel. As to the test, Wuthering Heights does not pass. I am much more inclined to own the book and now sort of desperately want to read it again (actually, maybe I do own the book...I think it's time to revisit my library). It is also with this same caution that I recommend this film to others: if you don't care about the book, and you love epic romances, you will love Wuthering Heights, the film. Fans of the book would do well to steer clear of the film altogether.

Spout Post: Viewing Moonstruck for the AFI Project

Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:25:03 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 12/7/2009 3:25:03 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Moonstruck is on the following AFI lists: 100 Funniest Films (#41)100 Years...100 Passions (#17)100 Movie Quotes (#96 - Loretta Castorini: "Snap out of it!")10 Top 10's (#8 Romantic Comedy) This film also represents a very big cheat on my part. I have hitherto advertised a sequence of nine Oscar nominated-dramas topping my Netflix queue. Well....that would be true only if Moonstruck was counted as a drama. Most lists and critics and people who decide to pin genres on films have listed this as a romantic comedy. Because I regard it as more of a dramedy, given the fact that the true laughs are rare and many of the scenes in Moonstruck actually originate from serious, non-funny type situations, and given the fact that to call it a comedy would break what was naturally my stream-of-consciousness queuing with an aberration to what would otherwise be a sequence of nine dramas, I just went with it. Hey, it's my party here, right? So, this represents the eighth of (roughly) nine Oscar-nominated dramas (ish) topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track. I have always wanted to see Moonstruck but never really found an opportunity to do so for one reason or another. Perhaps, it's because that I'm not a huge Cher fan; I mean, I respect her, and I think she's a great artist, but I'm not always necessarily jiving with the art she creates. I'm even less of a fan of Nicolas Cage, who always seems to play a version of Nicolas Cage in his movies, or at least it seems to me. He has such a distinctive voice and set of physical features that it is hard for me to suspend disbelief with each new project of his; however, Moonstruck's story always interested me, and I do enjoy romantic comedies, particularly when they offer a spark of originality and deviate some from what is otherwise the tried-and-true blueprint of one of the most formulaic genres in film. Plus, it's an AFI movie, so it was a necessary addition to the queue. Apparently, as the plot summary above says so much more eloquently than I could out of the box, "when there's a full moon over Brooklyn, anything can happen." Loretta Castorini (Cher) is a widow who believes that her love life and brief previous marriage, after which she became a widow, is cursed with bad luck. She agrees to marry Johnny Cammareri (Danny Aiello) because he seems like a nice man who could help take care of her and because he knows how to propose on one knee, and though she does not love him, she takes these facts as good signs that her bad luck is over. Though Loretta wants the wedding to take place in one month, Johnny will not marry Loretta until he visits his dying mother in Sicily, but while he is gone, he asks Loretta to mend broken fences between him and his brother, bakery operator Ronny (Cage). What Loretta soon discovers, however, is that Ronny blames Johnny for indirectly causing an accident at the bakery that cost him his hand, but when Loretta doesn't give in to Ronny's demonstrative theatrics, Ronny falls head over heels in love with Loretta. Though she tries her hardest to avoid Ronny out of respect for Johnny, she finds him too hard to resist and begins having a tempestuous and passionate affair with him. In the meantime, Loretta's father (Vincent Gardenia) is having an affair of his own, and while Loretta's mother (Olympia Dukakis) suspects this is happening, she finds herself being wooed by a college professor (John Mahoney) who normally gets involved with his students. When the family coalesces around the breakfast table in anticipation of Johnny's return, the confessions fly. Moonstruck can definitely be appreciated for its quirky deviations from the otherwise tedious romantic comedy blueprint. Loretta, as the heroine, is motivated to marry less for her own livelihood than for a cure to her mid-life ennui, but the man she initially chooses almost seems to exacerbate that ennui. Ronny seems to teach Loretta passion, even as Loretta teaches Ronny a few things about adulthood and maturity. While Moonstruck boasts some of the same old romcom ingredients, the vivid characters spice up the picture and give the film its Shakespearean-like tenor (consider some of the comedies). The characters would not be so vivid without some of the most notable ingredients of all. Cher won an Oscar for her performance, and it is simply because she makes Loretta all at once world-weary and charming yet still able to be surprised. She's the window into this slice of life, and without her very organic and grounded performance as a woman acclimating to the changes in her surroundings and her personal attitude, Moonstruck would have been very dull indeed. All of the actors did an amazing job, though, and formed a terrific ensemble that was delightful to watch. Nicolas Cage was actually quite funny, and it was one of the only times in my memory that my disbelief was actually suspended for one of his performances. Olympia Dukakis and Vincent Gardenia had pitch-perfect delivery in their respective parental roles; Dukakis' wizened mother (for which she also won an Oscar) with an acerbic wit was easily my favorite character, while Gardenia kept his philandering father from descending into despicable depths and gave him a slight lovable-but-naughty oaf undercurrent that made him endearing. The script was wonderful (it also won an Oscar) and provided this ensemble and director Norman Jewison some great material with which to work. This family and this odd little romance was truly given all three dimensions; Moonstruck has a lot of heart but not only from its romance side. The film is as much a story about family and the ties that bind than it is about the unpredictability of love. I didn't love Moonstruck completely, though, only because I didn't find the film all that funny, at least until the very end. The scene in the Castorini kitchen, in which the confessions start to fly, prompts many a witty barb from its in-house peanut gallery and prompted this viewer to laugh out loud on a couple of occasions, but this was the only time throughout watching the film. There were some chuckles to be elicited from Dukakis and Cher (the famous "snap out of it" line is far funnier in context), but the rest of the film didn't boast as much comedy as all of the rankings would leave a potential viewer to believe. Also, this film would really be most meaningful to a woman in Loretta's situation (or in her parents' situation), who is faced with certain life prospects and encounters new information that influences her choices. I'm not condemning the film on these ideas, but I was less inclined to love it for these reasons, and I think that limits to a film's appeal can be considered something of a flaw when evaluating it for its overall rating. I also am less apt to like a "comedy" that I only occasionally found truly funny. I think because the story was cute and contained a breath of originality in its execution of an otherwise formulaic concept in its writing and performances, Moonstruck is a wonderful film, even if it's not one of my favorites. Therefore, I feel it's fair to give the film an 8 for minor flaws/very good. As to the test, I would have to watch it once or twice more before deciding to invest in it for the possibility of many repeat viewings. I liked Moonstruck quite a bit, and other romcom fans, I believe, would too, for its originality and vivacious characters and story; there are simply others I like better, including others on the above AFI lists.

Spout Post: Viewing Ben-Hur for the AFI Project

Mon, 30 Nov 2009 04:13:35 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/29/2009 11:13:35 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Ben-Hur is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#72)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#49)25 Film Scores (#21)100 Most Inspiring Movies (#56)The Revised Top 100 (#100)10 Top 10's (#2 Epic) Ben-Hur was Instantly viewed on Netflix, but oh how I avoided this film like the seventh plague until this project. For various reasons, I have always been turned off by these biblical epics; I mean, I suppose they're somewhat more interesting than a visit to church, but they are, as a rule, long, overblown, and, statistically speaking, feature Charlton Heston, of whom I am not much of a fan. This is one of the films on the list that I only agreed to watch because it was on the list, like The Birth of a Nation. Unexpectedly, I did sort of like the movie; it was better than I thought it was going to be. Still, it was a bit long and overblown. I'll get to that in a minute. Good old Chuck plays Judah Ben-Hur, a prince among the Jews in Judea, which has recently been conquered by the Roman Empire. The subtitle of this film is "A Tale of the Christ;" which exists because Ben-Hur's struggles are contemporaneous to (and in some ways mirror) the life and death of Jesus Christ. Judah is visited by his childhood friend, a Roman named Messala (Stephen Boyd), who has recently been appointed tribune. His childhood idealism has morphed into naked ambition, and he wants Judah to help convince the Jews that the Romans are really copacetic guys who are there to keep peace and order for the Emperor (Caesar, according to the film). While Judah agrees to preach his own personal philosophy of non-violence toward everyone, he refuses to betray the names of potential resistors to Messala, which would only condemn them to their deaths, thereby inciting a deep divide between the two friends that cannot be mended. In fact, eager to prove his authority and standing, Messala looks for any chance he can to make an example of Judah. Unfortunately, Judah's sister accidentally disturbs a rooftop tile as the Governor of the Judean province passes in a parade of arms, and while Judah claims responsibility in order to protect his sister, though insisting that it was still an accident, Messala chooses to throw Judah, his sister, and his mother, despite having known them since being a boy, into the citadel. Judah is eventually moved to rowing in the galleys of the Roman fleet, where after years of improbable survival, he manages to save the emperor's consul, Commander Quintus Arrius (Jack Hawkins) after an attack by opposing Macedonians. This act of bravery results in a close bond formed between the two. The consul adopts Judah as his son, in turn bequeathing Ben-Hur with standing amongst the Romans and allowing him freedom to seek out his mother and sister as well as the ability to continue his highly-skilled charioteering and to seek revenge on Messala. At critical points, when Judah is about to lose all hope and/or his life, he encounters Jesus without realizing who he is and benefits from these meetings, until Judah is finally made to realize who the kind stranger is and how his benevolence has helped him and his family in so many ways. In my mind, Ben-Hur plays like a well-orchestrated mess. The film could very easily be divided into three movements: the first surrounds the intrigue of Judah's meeting with Messala and the circumstances that lead to his imprisonment and eventual emancipation. The second involves Judah's progression toward revenge, which incorporates the chariot race trumpeted by most who elevate the film's status amongst the greats. The third involves the denouement toward which the story progresses, when Judah seeks out his mother and sister, who have since become lepers after a long stay in the Roman prison system, and his final encounter with Jesus. While these story segments do form one cohesive whole with an overarching theme, each segment offers an individual tone, pacing, and atmosphere that differs from the other two segments, and because these divisions and separations are felt, the overlong running time is also felt. And the film was overlong. Due to the film's epic scope, some scenes were stretched to gargantuan lengths to incorporate the expensive grandeur employed in the costumes, art direction, cinematography, and visual effects. The presentation of the charioteers in the race, which occurs two-thirds of the way into the film (as the climax to the second segment), was several minutes on its own, no doubt due to the fact that director William Wyler really wanted to drive home the scope of filming something so large and complex. In fact, in places where such an aesthetic was clearly the aim, the scenes tended to run several minutes long (the Macedonian attack, etc.). All in all, some more careful editing might have trimmed the film to, at least, a streamlined three hours, but I'm probably being blasphemous when discussing the amputation of one of the "greats" that won 11 Oscars. Moreover, the acting was very theatrical and melodramatic on all fronts, from Mr. Heston to some of the supporting characters/performers. As such, it was hard to connect to any of the characters, though many of the ideas being explored, especially in relationship to the fundamentals of Christianity, might impress many viewers. I did enjoy the spectacle that the film offered, as the film clearly deserved at most of its many Oscars. The attention to detail paid to the backdrops, costumes, and surrounding sets to recreate a convincing Roman Empire were rather astounding to behold. Also, the score by Miklos Rozsa was extremely moving and served to tell the story as much as the actions being performed and the words being spoken (and is another example of movie underscoring that could likely stand on its own). In essence, the film was not as bad as I thought it was going to be. It was exciting (thought not necessarily heart-pounding) in places and moving in others, and the film was certainly inspirational, as it drew parallels between Ben-Hur's life and that of Jesus Christ. My biggest narrative problem was feeling that Messala's comeuppance, while grisly, was not satisfying, as his character stubbornly adhered to the tenets of the Empire he served, even if the example set by his leaders might not be the right one; of course, his character might have remained the villain even in death in order to highlight the benevolence of Ben-Hur (and, of course, of Jesus). Yet, I still liked the movie because it was such a grand spectacle, because Wyler clearly took risks to satisfy his spectacle-laden vision, and because Mr. Heston was actually a charismatic leading man. On the other hand, the film was, in many ways, just what I predicted it would be, so I feel inclined to rate this film a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and minor flaws/very good. Others may disagree, but I find that while some aspects of the film can truly be considered timeless, not all aspects of the film will hold up (consider that the AFI dropped Ben-Hur 28 spots on the Revised list to the #100 placement). The test, then, does not pass. There are only four four-hour films I have patience to watch repeatedly, as a rule, and three of them have "Lord of the Rings" in the title. I think people who enjoy the sort of classic epic spectacle coupled with the religious parable that this film provides will enjoy Ben-Hur, even though my personal preferences and biases prevent from completely enjoying it myself.

Spout Post: Oscar Flashback: Kramer vs. Kramer (1979)

Sat, 28 Nov 2009 16:36:21 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/28/2009 11:36:21 AM
Body: What's an Oscar Flashback (tm)? Read here: Next on my Netflix queue was Kramer vs. Kramer, which won the Oscar for Best Picture and for which Robert Benton won the Best Director Oscar; Dustin Hoffman won the Best Actor Oscar; Justin Henry was nominated for the Best Supporting Actor Oscar; Jane Alexander was nominated for and Meryl Streep won the Best Supporting Actress Oscar; Robert Benton won the Best Adapted Screenplay Oscar; Jerry Greenberg was nominated for the Best Film Editing Oscar; and Nestor Almendros was nominated for the Best Cinematography Oscar; (film year, 1979; awarding year, 1980). The other nominees in these categories were: Best Picture Apocalypse NowAll That JazzNorma RaeBreaking Away Best Director Apocalypse Now - Francis Ford CoppolaAll That Jazz - Bob FosseLa Cage aux Folles - Edouard MolinaroBreaking Away - Peter YatesBest Actor ...And Justice For All - Al PacinoAll That Jazz - Roy ScheiderBeing There - Peter SellersThe China Syndrome - Jack Lemmon Best Supporting Actor Being There - Melvyn Douglas (Winner) Apocalypse Now - Robert DuvallThe Black Stallion - Mickey RooneyThe Rose - Frederic Forrest Best Supporting Actress Breaking Away - Barbara BarrieManhattan - Mariel HemingwayStarting Over - Candice Bergen Best Adapted Screenplay Apocalypse NowLa Cage aux FollesA Little RomanceNorma Rae Best Film Editing All That Jazz (Winner) Apocalypse NowThe Black StallionThe Rose Best Cinematography Apocalypse Now (Winner) All That JazzThe Black Hole1941 This film also represents the seventh of nine Oscar-nominated dramas topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track. I watched Kramer vs. Kramer instantly on Netflix. I initially queued it up because it featured one of my favorite actresses, Meryl Steep, in one of her Oscar-winning performances as well as a Dustin Hoffman in the prime of his career. It was also one of those films that I'd heard about as a child but never found myself interested in watching. After all, I am one child of the half of the population whose parents did not find their marriage ending in divorce, so a movie about this subject held little to no interest for me when I was younger. Even now, I was a bit wary of watching it, only because I believed I wouldn't relate to the topic at hand, but, fortunately, this is not a movie that necessarily requires the viewer to relate to it but to observe what is being explored with an eye to the diplomatic, since it's a film in which both sides of the divorce are being depicted, though whether each side is given a fair treatment is up for interpretation. As the film opens, Ted Kramer (Hoffman) returns home from his day at his high-powered yuppie advertising job to find his wife Joanna (Streep) in the process of leaving him and their young son, Billy (Henry). She claims she cannot stay anymore, though it is a mystery to everyone, including Ted, why that is. Ted must, thus, cope with raising his son alone, a task that had been primarily handled by Joanna in the past. It's rocky at first; Ted resents Billy for the toll raising him is taking on his career, while Billy resents Ted for driving his mother away, but after awhile, the two form a deep bond and love for each other. They are just starting to get in the swing of their personal routine when Joanna returns, boasting a high-paying career of her own, with designs of reclaiming Billy. What ensues is a nasty custody battle in court, which causes Ted to be discharged from one job only to beg for another job at a substantial pay cut in order to make himself worthy of custody in the eyes of the judge. This process also involves character assassinations by both parties' attorneys in an effort to construe the other party as a bad parent, and though Ted's attorney makes a good case, Joanna is still awarded custody by the judge under the oft-relied upon theory that a "child belongs with its mother;" however, she rethinks her situation when she sees how close Ted and Billy have become. For 1979, Kramer vs. Kramer was a mature, early study of a growing phenomenon in society as well as in film: divorce. Adapted from a novel, the film depicts the causes and effects of divorce on the husband and wife being affected as well as on the family unit when children are involved, and to that end, the depiction is sensitive and realistic. None of the situations portrayed descend into manipulative melodrama; the emotions that the Ted and Joanna (and Billy) characters experience are organic and expected. The moral is that divorce is never wanted, is never an easy choice to make, and often involves consequences that can temporarily debilitate a family structure as members of the family cope with the drastic change. The only problem, and the review from the All Movie Guide suggests this as well, though it's an impression I retained when I was watching the film, is that the title suggests that this is really going to be a two-sided analysis of husband and wife. It really isn't: Ted is clearly propped up to be the sympathetic party, the hero of the situation as he makes such stunning sacrifices in support of his little boy, while Joanna is made to be more of the villain of the piece. She walks out on spouse and child, after all, and while the court hearing explores some of her motives in this regard, it's told through a couple of perfunctory monologues. Perhaps, if there had been a visual glimpse into situations that bothered Joanna prior to the film beginning with her departure, both sides of the equation might have been easier to swallow. As it was, Joanna just leaves, and there are times, given Hoffman's fine performance, that his personality prompts the viewer to consider that Joanna might have had good reason to leave. Those moments are few and far between, though. Still, the film is praised for exploring the father's point of view, particularly in light of the judicial bias against awarding fathers primary custody of their children, and to that end, the story and the film are quite effective. The case of Kramer vs. Kramer might just as well be called a tie, so there's no real reason why custody of Billy should be given to Joanna from the viewer's vantage point, especially since she's the spouse who did the leaving. I don't know if this problem is still rampant, so I'm not sure how timeless this film will be in the end, but for its year of release, this was quite a progressive exploration and a fine line to tread. Hoffman offers one of the performances of his career as Ted Kramer. He is believable in every way, but the most convincing aspects of his portrayal arrive in the quiet moments, when a careful glimpse of his facial expressions reveal so much. Meryl Streep did a fine job too, as usual, but this is especially true because in the hands of a less adept actress, Joanna could have lost all sympathy and integrity as a character, only to be viewed as emotionally unstable if not potentially mentally unwell. Meryl infused Joanna with a degree of realism and grounded perspective - it's her performance that makes this film a tearjerker in a non-manipulative way (of course, I don't think it's possible to suggest that Streep is not deserving of an Oscar she's won when she mostly deserves all of the Oscars for which she has been nominated, including those she's lost). Henry is also very good as Billy; he seemed very natural and not forced or overly melodramatic, as child performances can sometimes be. The only other difficulty I had with the film stems from how realistic the ending was. I suppose it is possible for Joanna to make the choice that she did (it's not like I'm spoiling it, since the Spout page does that so well), but after a long-drawn out custody battle and years of resignation and conviction that she was going to reclaim her son, only to realize, at the very last moment, that Billy is meant to be with Ted? That's why they call it drama, folks, but it might have been more realistic (and a more palatable conclusion) for them to strike up a joint custody arrangement; then Billy could see them both, as children often do. Perhaps, joint custody did not really exist in the waning years of the 70s. I don't really know. The only other note of interest that I would offer is that, though it was a contemporary film, director and screenwriter Benton employed excerpts from classical music to underscore it, at sporadic moments. That was a perplexing choice; it's hard to see what he was going for in that particular vein, except, perhaps, to add a touch of class to the proceedings. Otherwise, though it was nominated for several Oscars (including Cinematography, though it's unclear to me as to why), the film's technical elements appeared to be standard fare, focused as the picture was on the present of the year of its release. Kramer vs. Kramer was still an enjoyable picture that packed an emotional punch, with exquisite performances by its lead actors. It simply had some obvious flaws in story, and it is unclear whether or not these flaws can be attributed to the source novel or to the adaptation and direction, since both can be attributed to the same person (who won Oscars for both roles, too). As a result, I find myself thinking this film deserves a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and minor flaws/very good. It doesn't pass the test, though, because, like I indicated previously, it's not a film I can relate to, fortunately or unfortunately. Now to address an interesting controversy: Kramer vs. Kramer is most commonly known as the film that stole Best Picture from Apocalypse Now. Which side do I fall on? Even though the films are as different as night and day, to me, it's clear that Apocalypse Now was robbed. That film was much more powerful and much more artistically sound than Kramer vs. Kramer, which granted, is lovely in its simplicity and powerful performances but also lacks a story cohesion that Apocalypse Now naturally has, given the highly philosophical novel on which it was based. As evidence of my opinion, I offer a link to my Apocalypse Now review, which can be taken or left at will--but for the record, I generally enjoy simple dramatic stories over strange war stories any day. Apocalypse Now, however, was something unusual and unique, special even, for which I give extra credit points, while Kramer vs. Kramer was progressive but not necessarily unique. Compare: http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/10/4/35893.aspx

Spout Post: Revisiting Forrest Gump for the AFI Project

Thu, 26 Nov 2009 16:34:56 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/26/2009 11:34:56 AM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Forrest Gump is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#71)100 Movie Quotes (#40 - Forrest Gump: "Mama always said life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get.")100 Most Inspiring Movies (#37)The Revised Top 100 (#76) I believe that Forrest Gump happens to be one of the most polarizing films in the popular film lexicon. Take any sampling of people who have seen this film, and, almost guaranteed, half will say this is a modern masterpiece, while the other half will claim that it is melodramatic and manipulative tripe with a problematic protagonist. For the record, I am of the former category. This is one of my favorite films for so many reasons. On the most basic level, it holds up to repeat viewings so well, I actually notice aspects of it with each new viewing that I missed on previous attempts. It's endlessly quotable, even if you ignore that life is like a box of chocolates. It features Tom Hanks in a performance that is neither pandering and offensive nor ultimately that manipulative. And, unless I'm much mistaken, it's probably Robert Zemeckis' best film, a peak he would have reached fifteen years ago. I am unable to see why people have come to hate it so, and I suppose they have a right to their opinion, but for me, Forrest Gump as a film and as a piece of art is actually quite a masterpiece because it's collectively self-reflective. It invites Americans as a culture to revisit where we've been and consider where we're going, all in the space of 2.5 hours. Plus, it's simply an entertaining film, which I am proud to have in my collection (the test passed with flying colors on this one). Forrest Gump (Hanks) is a special man. He has a below-average IQ, but he is never wanting for an interesting life. Based on a novel, the film follows Forrest from his childhood with his doting mother (Sally Field) to adulthood. Without trying, Forrest finds himself a witness to some of the most significant historic events of the twentieth century, even as he finds his way to college (and the University of Alabama after Brown v. Board of Ed was rendered by the Supreme Court) through a football scholarship, the Vietnam War via choosing the army for his career, a shrimping boat via a promise to his war buddy and "best good friend" Benjamin Buford Blue aka Bubba (Mykelti Williamson), an investor in Apple Electronics thanks to his former Vietnam lieutenant and shrimping boat first mate Dan Taylor (Gary Sinise), around the world as a ping-pong champion, and cross-country just because he felt like running one day. He meets presidents at the White House (on multiple occasions), the King pre-fame, and John Lennon post-Beatles. And all Forrest ever cares about, despite all of these things he has seen, done, and been a part of, is his girl, his peas-and-carrots most special friend, Jenny (Robin Wright Penn), whom he loves with all his heart, and whose parallel life is quite the opposite of his idyllic, happenstance journey. Perhaps it's difficult to see past the fact that Forrest is "below-average" in intelligence. Maybe viewers find him to be too much of a caricature and distraction from the more profound aspects of the film. To this viewer, Forrest's intelligence is incidental to his state of being. He has only firm feelings about three things: his mama, his Jenny, and God; everything else floats past him like the feather that opens and closes the film, and whether the film represents advocacy for this bliss or merely offers up a different perspective to the harder, more cynical attitudes our country has adopted in these modern times is left for the viewer to judge. That's why Forrest Gump is a movie masterpiece. Forrest is the charismatic main character, and the film would lose its whole purpose for being if he weren't in it, or if Tom Hanks had not given his entirely Oscar-worthy performance as this man, but Forrest is as much a bystander in his story as the rest of us. The film is about perspectives, lessons learned, and love, and though told through dramatic historical events of the past 40-50 years, the film becomes the looking glass to our Alice. I think Zemeckis knew that when he agreed to direct this film, which is why he did such an amazing job. While the movie was commercially exploited to death by Paramount and everyone else, that doesn't mean that because of its "mainstream" position, its unusual main character, or its commercial success, that the film has lost any of its profundity, even as the years pass (if anything, it has become more profound with each new historical development in the 21st century). The characters that represent the viewer are the people who sit at the bus stop with Forrest, on that Southern park bench, listening to him as he weaves the story of his life, which is all at once fantastic and yet wholly believable simply because, as Jenny often says, he doesn't know any better. They are us - each new member of his limited audience offers a different reaction within the broad spectrum possible in response to a story like his, and quite succinctly parallels the broad spectrum of reactions to the film in general that its release has garnered since 1994. Besides the wonderful and touching performances of Hanks, Sinise, and Buttercup, I mean, Robin Wright Penn, and the wonderful story of life and love, Forrest Gump has so many other strong points. The soundtrack is completely awesome and kudos to Zemeckis and his creative team for picking recognizable and perfectly period-synced tunes that move the story along at a consistent and entertaining pace. It's one of the best soundtracks to own ever, by the way. Also, the visual effects are stunning, intermixing Forrest into footage of bygone figures, such as John F. Kennedy and George Wallace and John Lennon (and the editing must be truly superb to seamlessly interweave these scenes into the overall story arc). The attention to detail in art direction is truly magnificent; I could spend hours trying to find all of the little hints and nods to the event or occurrence at hand: consider that when Forrest goes to meet Kennedy after his stint on the All-American football team, he uses the restroom, wherein you hear strains from the musical Camelot and see a signed picture of Marilyn Monroe on the sink. Forrest Gump is one of those rare movie vehicles that really does have it all, from superficial entertainment values to deep and meaningful artistic symbolism. The only flaw I ascribe to the film is the fact that the Republican Party took the film up as its poster child of the American dream and wholesome values (Forrest, in his simplicity of wants, represents the success of conservatism, while Jenny, who experiments with sex, drugs, and rock n roll, represents the degradation of liberalism). I don't think there is any political propaganda to be drawn from this film; in fact, I think the implications are far more philosophical, even metaphysical, and moreso than even the filmmakers realized, but it all hearkens back to love and the pain and wonder of life moving forward. I think Forrest Gump is that modern masterpiece, as you may be able to tell from my preachy review, so count me in that half of the population. As such, I'm inclined to give it a 10 for masterpiece! And for the two people who have not seen this film, please do not be put off by its "simple" protagonist and controversy. Watch the film and decide for yourself whether you find the film to be melodramatic and manipulative or having more layers than a casserole. For me, Forrest Gump will always be one of my favorite films because the whole of what it represents is so much greater than the sum of its extraordinary parts.

Spout Post: Viewing Coal Miner's Daughter for the AFI Project

Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:27:42 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/24/2009 9:27:42 PM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Coal Miner's Daughter is on the following AFI list: 100 Most Inspiring Movies (#70) This film also represents the sixth of nine Oscar-nominated dramas topping my Netflix queue, just in case you were keeping track. I don't remember why I particularly wanted to see Coal Miner's Daughter, at least aside from its Oscar connections. I am not a huge fan of country music in general, Loretta Lynn in particular, or any actor in this cast. Perhaps, I was fascinated by the notion that someone thought to make a biopic of a living legend, a woman literally still alive and kicking with her country charms, even if the movie was adapted from her autobiography. How strange it must have been for Loretta to watch her life unfold before her, even as she was the one to choose Sissy Spacek to play her (and how many people get the opportunity to choose the actor/actress that will play them in the movie of their life story?). For that reason, I felt compelled to see how close Ms. Spacek came to capturing the essence of her real-life inspiration as well as whether or not she deserved the Academy Award she earned for her performance. Coal Miner's Daughter literally traces Loretta Lynn's (Spacek) life from age 13, when she met her soon-to-be husband, Dolittle "Mooney" Lynn (Tommy Lee Jones), to the height of her resurgence, prompted by the release of the autobiographical song that also happens to be the movie's title. She begins life as the eldest of eight children born to Mr. and Mrs. Ted Webb (Levon Helm, who was apparently in The Band), a poor coal miner in Butcher's Hollow, Kentucky, who reluctantly allows young "Loretty" to marry "Doo." Loretta is almost too young to have big dreams and is swept away by the grown-up passions of her paramour turned husband. Times are rocky at first, though, as Doo is several years older than Loretta, but they find their way out of Kentucky, make a home for themselves and their family, and have four children by the time Loretta turns 20. One day, Doo is inspired to give Loretta a guitar for an anniversary gift, which prompts her to learn the instrument as well as to write her own songs, which she sings with her trademark hard and natural country voice. Impressed by that voice, Doo convinces her to sing in a few local honky-tonks and eventually to cut a demo tape, which the pair proceed to schlepp to country radio stations across the South in the hopes of earning Loretta actual fame. This strategy works, as her song soon becomes a hit and earns her a regular spot on the Grand Ole Opry show in Nashville. As her fame rises, she meets and strikes up a friendship with her idol, Patsy Cline (Beverly D'Angelo), and tours with her until Cline's tragic death. Loretta's fame continues to rise, as her marriage barely hangs on through the stress of touring, declining privacy, and Doo's cheating until she has a nervous breakdown on stage, and Doo comes to her rescue. Still, Loretta remains true to her roots and loyal to her husband, eventually reinventing herself as all lasting legends do. Coal Miner's Daughter showcased quite a lot of heart and soul and all basically because Spacek is so winning and convincing as Loretta Lynn. I think if her performance fell flat, the entire film would have crumbled right along with it, but Ms. Lynn's instincts were on the money when she chose Spacek to portray her on-screen persona. First, and impressively, Spacek plays a woman who ages from 13 to her 40s in the space of two hours. Second, she is actually doing the singing, and her voice is, needless to say, a dead ringer for Lynn's. Third, the essence of the country singer was captured so much, suspension of disbelief was complete, but for the fact that the two women do not look that much alike (at least until Spacek is wigged for Lynn's later years). Sissy Spacek is the focal point around which the success of this film revolves, and since the film is not only sustained but buoyed by her thorough and amazing portrayal, I would say that Spacek probably deserved her Oscar and then some. Everything else was pretty standard fare for a biopic of this type, which is also the type of film that Oscar adores. Director Michael Apted tended to emphasize some of the social themes, such as the abject poverty into which Loretta Lynn was born, but otherwise, the film depicted a life story for a living woman in the most complete way possible. Jones did a fine job, though I haven't seen any archive footage of Loretta's husband to make an accurate comparison. I was less impressed with D'Angelo, but, to be fair, as Sissy/Loretta exclaimed ever-so-succinctly in the film, "Nobody can sing like Patsy!" Still, she was far less of a dead-ringer than her co-star, both in singing and in spoken inflection, and it was difficult to suspend disbelief for D'Angelo's performance. The film earned six other Oscar nominations in categories such as art direction, cinematography, and sound. While they weren't obviously exceptional to me, the film as a whole was well put-together, and Loretta Lynn's life story was as engrossingly rendered as if she'd read her own book aloud with that same down-to-earth and folksy charm that her fans have come to adore her for in addition to her music, which traditionally depicted strong women of conviction. For that reason, I would be remiss in rating this film anything less than an 8 for minor flaws/very good (largely for the distracting portrayal of Patsy Cline, who does happen to be a personal favorite of mine), though I don't think it passes the test. It was a good movie but not one I'd likely want to watch more than once. Also, it's a definite must-see for all Loretta Lynn fans, and if you watch the collectors' edition DVD, take a few minutes to check out the interview between director Apted and Lynn as they reflect on the making of this film. It's interesting to hear how Loretta received it and found it strange and difficult to watch because it was so piercingly accurate in its portrayal of her life.

Spout Post: Viewing The French Connection for the AFI Project

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 00:27:11 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/23/2009 7:27:11 PM
Body: What's the AFI Project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx The French Connection is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#70)100 Most Heart-Pounding Movies (#8)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle is the #44 hero)The Revised Top 100 (#93) Since my priority is the AFI Project, I took a small hiatus from the regularly-scheduled Netflix queue to order up the next entry on the Original AFI list. I'm on movie #70, people! That's quite a few movies, and with this current go-round on the original list, it's probably going to be two years by the time I can finally move on to the next list of the series. Still, this project has provided me the opportunity to watch films I've heard much about but never paid much attention or given much thought to, including this rough-and-tumble cop drama. I have never seen it before because it's not the kind of film I automatically gravitate toward; I might be in trouble for saying this, but if there are "chick flicks," this always struck me as a dude's movie. I could instantly tell from what I read and learned that it was probably going to be violent, graphic even, and intense, with no obvious comic relief, like in, say, Die Hard. Now, after giving the film a whirl, I still kind of feel that way, but this film cannot be categorized so simply. The French Connection was a complex study of human nature in some ways that was both intriguing and alienating, given the sheer unlikeable veneer of the film's so-called hero. The hero in question is Jimmy "Popeye" Doyle (Gene Hackman - Lex Luthor! And, yes, other stuff too), a hungry New York City detective on narcotics detail, looking for a big break in a case of heroin being smuggled from Europe to the United States, which, as it turns out, is being peddled by French kingpin Alain Charnier (Fernando Rey). Popeye and his partner, Buddy Russo (Roy Scheider - pick your favorite character here), have been shaking down every two-bit thug in their precinct with little success. Popeye in particular has quite the reputation, as he's particularly hot-tempered, ornery, and, well, all-out racist as well as largely ineffective. Still, while on patrol after patrol and stakeout after stakeout, Popeye phones in a hunch by following a corner store owner and his wife who seem to be raking in much more money than is logical for a man in his position. Sal Boca and his wife, Angie, just so happen to be Charnier's American connections to prominent NYC mafia and an outlet for the sale of $32 million worth of heroin. Thus, Popeye and his usually rash instincts are put to the test, in turn testing the faith of his partner, his superiors, and the federal agents called in to help with the investigation. There were some truly astounding parts of the French Connection that had me glued to the screen, encompassed by the intensity and gritty realism of it all, but there were also parts of this movie that left me cold. Apparently, the film was inspired by a true story, and Popeye and Buddy had real-life counterparts, thereby providing many morsels of thought on which to chew. On the one hand, this was one intense film. The story is rather uninteresting and even somewhat pedestrian as cop dramas go. at least to start, but the film takes a turn for the refreshingly exciting when the unpredictable Popeye decides to undertake a high-speed car chase on his own, commandeering some poor schmuck's vehicle, and driving under a subway overpass as the train carrying a hit-man and Charnier's lieutenant careens on ahead of him. This happens to be some of the most exciting action ever committed to celluloid, given the fact that director William Friedkin chose to film some of the chase from the actual vantage point of the backseat of the very fast car as it collided into various walls, oncoming vehicles, and narrowly missed a pedestrian. If the film doesn't interest you on the story or plot alone, at least watch it for this chase scene. My heart was literally popping out of my chest, and I had goosebumps as Popeye navigated helter-skelter the underbelly of Big Apple streets, aiming for his elusive quarry, while barely surviving several collisions in the process. The performances were largely very good. The rapport between Hackman and Scheider was clearly comfortable and well-cultivated, and their subtle mixture of buddy/partner/annoying roommate in their relationship gave the film its heart. Also, the cinematography was brilliantly rendered, moving from handheld docu-style camera angles to sweeping aerial shots, from shadowy black and white hues to pale fluorescence inside and outside various city buildings effortlessly, further ratcheting up the intensity of the film. Also, the story itself was pretty convincing. The Spout page notes that the film did not end on a particularly happy note, but this almost makes the film more compelling, given the fact that not every case or situation ends in easily resolved, neatly wrapped up packages of happiness. The true-to-life tone and pace of the piece, consistently maintained by Friedkin, made the story a meaty one that rang true, even if it ultimately ended in ruin. The quintessential problem with this picture is Popeye as a character. He is clearly one of the most flawed heroes to ever grace the screen, and while his deeds and tenacity may be celebrated, his apparent motivations and methods make his character both complex and awkward. He is tremendously hard to relate to as a person, particularly if the viewer doesn't share his caveman-like penchant for spouting off and pulling his gun at the slightest twitch, so it was hard to connect to him or to the importance of his quest, even as the Buddy character provided Popeye the much needed humanity to bridge the gap between the film's story and the viewer. Still, since my day job finds me working the field of anti-discrimination and civil rights, I don't exactly see Popeye as particularly heroic. Without spoiling the film, he doesn't actually save anything, or if he does, it's via morally questionable methods amidst subtle and not-so-subtle epithets that he hurls toward anyone different than him. Some viewers will be able to look past Popeye's veneer - which is never explained or given any clear motivation or back-story, other than the lack of his professional success - and to consider his need to be right, even to be accepted in a way over these other flaws. I can't, and I think that since the film seems to follow Popeye as a character (or Eddie Egan as a man, since he is the real-life inspiration for the character) more than the actual story in which Popeye finds himself to be the primary player, the lack of a full character wash coupled with the lack of redemption Popeye experiences as a result of his ordeal sort of detracts from the film for me. The AFI kept the film on the revised list, but it dropped 23 spots, and I wonder if that's because the Popeye character is so insensitive, so alienating, even as the rest of the film is an intense, interesting, and entertaining snapshot of two cops' struggle to attain some small level of success in their chosen field. The other element that detracted from the film was the brassy score, which all at once proved to be decidedly shrill, simultaneously accentuating and distracting from the action and dating the film more than most. More than once, I felt that a bit of Scorsese's panache at choosing rock and/or jazz soundtracks might have done wonders for the underscoring of this film, but, alas, Friedkin went a different direction. Come to think of it, the film would probably have been equally exciting without a score. All in all, The French Connection was a good, if flawed, film. The action was superb, even if the story was ordinary and the main character an unlikeable young curmudgeon with little hope of karmic redemption, which a potential viewer will either find engrossingly complex or distractingly estranging. Since I err toward the latter category, I find myself rating The French Connection as a 7.5, between shaky/entertaining and minor flaws/very good. In the land of the test, I'm unlikely to buy this film because I don't need to see it more than once, but I recommend it for the car chase alone (the rest is just icing on the cake, if you go in for this sort of film).

Spout Post: Viewing Shane for the AFI Project

Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:30:07 GMT

Post By: pippin06
Post To: Reel Thoughts
Post Date: 11/23/2009 12:30:07 AM
Body: What's the AFI project, you ask? For more information, or if you just enjoy my bemused ramblings, read here:http://www.spout.com/blogs/pippin06/archive/2008/3/1/25756.aspx Shane is on the following AFI lists: The Original Top 100 (#69)100 Years...100 Heroes and Villains (Shane is the #16 hero)100 Movie Quotes (#47 - Joey Starrett: "Shane. Shane. Come back!")100 Most Inspiring Movies (#53)The Revised Top 100 (#45)10 Top 10's (#3 Western) I knew nothing about Shane prior to ordering it up from the magical Netflix queue. Since it’s a western, and since, as most loyal readers of this blog know, westerns constitute my least favorite genre of film, my anecdotal knowledge of anything involving cowboys and gunfights and covered wagons in film is pretty limited, even if it’s a film that is considered great by the American Film Institute. So, anytime I watch one of the westerns on the lists, I must actively work to moderate my bias against the genre in order to enjoy the film, unless the film is just so wonderful, no moderation is needed. Shane is supposed to be one such film, but I was not so convinced this time around. Alan Ladd plays the title character, a drifter with a checkered past who happens upon the Wyoming farm of the Starrett family. The patriarch, Joe (Van Heflin), hires Shane on as a ranch-hand, especially when he shows pluck in standing up to land baron Rufus Ryker (Emile Meyer) and his lackeys. Ryker has been threatening to upend ranch-owners across the valleys in hopes of adding their claims to his own, and Starrett and his friends have been trying to organize resistance, for which Joe sees muscular and steady Shane as a perfect addition to the cause. Shane’s presence leads to unintended side effects, however. First, Joe’s son, Joey, idolizes Shane more than his own father, urging Shane to teach him how to shoot a gun and generally gravitating toward him as a father figure more than his otherwise beleaguered actual father. Joe’s wife, Marian (Jean Arthur), on the other hand, seems to be attracted to Shane more than her own husband, in spite of her love and loyalty to Joe. When Ryker is unable to scare the ranchers off their land by intimidation and strength alone, he enlists the help of a hired gun, Jack Wilson (Jack Palance), an infamous sharpshooter with an itchy trigger-finger and a no-holds-barred attitude toward his mercenary work, about whom Shane has some surprising knowledge. Wilson's presence incites war amongst the homesteaders, and Shane finds himself confronting his past and fighting for the ranchers, even as he realizes that he and his past have only served to disrupt the lives of the Starretts and their neighbors. Apparently, Shane is one of those westerns that are considered an essential entry in the canon of the genre - a widely accepted "great" exemplar of the formula of good versus evil set against a backdrop of wild, unexplored and largely unsettled territory and fraught with guns and horses and salty men defending their land and their families. Truthfully, Shane has some refreshing twists that other, more formulaic westerns do not share. The heroes and villains of this piece are much more gray and blurry and morally ambiguous than typically found in films of this genre. Shane's past, which is largely kept a mystery, or, at least, a hazy idea until the very end of the film, shows that he is not necessarily the ultimate in honorable men. Joe, the everyman fighting for his right to live, is moved to up the ante of his fight to violence, and even the land barons and hired help have a darker if not entirely unconvincing philosophy about the state of their surroundings. Some of the reviews on this page call this plot more meaningful because of its intelligence in focusing on the homesteader movement of that era and the blurring of the lines between the traditional good and evil, and, to that end, Shane definitely proved to be interesting, if not highly entertaining. Alan Ladd also gave a wonderful, understated performance as the titular character. His reserve and quiet nature were played delicately by Ladd, and when the director, George Stevens, allowed for this character to betray some of the inner turmoil and conflicting emotions with which Shane was clearly faced, Ladd was equal to the task. Still, this was not my favorite western, much less my favorite film. I found most of the supporting performances to be exceptionally ham-fisted and melodramatic. Jean Arthur, who has been in many good films, including Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, did not seem to infuse her performance and portrayal of Marian with the emotional punch that the presence of Shane apparently caused for her. The villains, including the inimitable Jack Palance, seemed so cookie-cutter in their way, even as they were complex, that I found them less than menacing - more of a nuisance than an all-out threat. The child - character or actor or both - was simply annoying and overly theatrical. He was not a very natural actor but may have been a product of the time at which the film was made; after all, most 50s films and television featured precocious yet dutiful children with a penchant for the melodramatic. I think the best part of Shane was some of the grittier realism that was offered, particularly within the actual fighting scenes. The fistfight between Shane and Ryker's lackeys was actually kind of exciting. Also, there is a scene when Wilson shoots one of Joe's compatriots, one of the more zealous members of the cause who decides to take on the bad guys alone and ends up the worse for it. The manner of his death was quite shocking and actually caught this viewer by surprise. It appeared to be quite a pioneering scene, and whether it was or not, director Stevens did a fine job in increasing the tension of the picture in this one moment, even as the rest of the film's pacing tended to plod along. I think I was most frustrated with the fact that Shane's character was such a mystery, considering that the film was supposed to be all about him. Instead, the film seemed to focus more on the effect he had on this family rather than his personal motivations or convictions, and while these elements were sometimes brought to the forefront, they most of the time were left buried beneath the surface. Perhaps, some viewers find this an effective storytelling technique (the AFI, after all, ranked this film 24 spots higher on its revised list for reasons I can't quite fathom), but for me, it served to disconnect me from the character. If it weren't for Ladd's performance, I might have become disinterested altogether in the whole affair, given the fact that Shane's particular story was told only in hints and allegations. As it was, I had a hard time feeling for little Joey when he was crying "Come back, Shane!" All in all, maybe this was a great film, and my bias against westerns has prevented me from seeing how or why. The trouble is, I've liked the other westerns I've seen so far while working on this project, including High Noon and Stagecoach and Butch Cassidy. This film just didn't do it for me, even though I can see how it might have power and epic scope to some viewers. As for my rating, I am inclined to award Shane a 6.5 between cute/mediocre and shaky/entertaining. There are some great artistic elements about the film and some entertaining moments, but all in all, I felt the film was slow and melodramatic. Thus, the test does not pass. Now, gentle reader, though you may disagree with my review of Shane, a fan of westerns might truly enjoy the film. I am prepared to accept that my bias played a role here. I guess I'd have to hear why this film is such a great western or film in general from someone who does not have the same bias. Feel free to comment with your thoughts.

Spout Member:The_MOW - Mickey Micklon

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: The_MOW
Name: Mickey Micklon
Interests: movies, sci-fi, professional wrestling
Occupation: Unemployed
Location: Salem, NH
Films listed: 369
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Blog posts: 372
Blog post views: 11337
Number of times tagged: 25
Member since: 4/4/2009
Last login: 10/13/2009

Spout Member:horror

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: horror
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 1/17/2009
Last login: 1/17/2009

Spout Member:butterknife

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: butterknife
Films listed: 1
Number of lists: 4
Blog posts: 1
Member since: 4/2/2008
Last login: 4/2/2008

Spout Member:rnt2630

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: rnt2630
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/13/2007
Last login: 9/13/2007

Spout Member:dsalaski

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: dsalaski
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:jennkp

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: jennkp
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/10/2007
Last login: 9/10/2007

Spout Member:Don0262

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Don0262
Films listed: 2
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/9/2007
Last login: 9/9/2007

Spout Member:martinluthar

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: martinluthar
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:clwoolfe

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: clwoolfe
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/8/2007
Last login: 9/8/2007

Spout Member:XtreamDenny

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: XtreamDenny
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:bofo

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: bofo
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:seanjoneswrexham

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: seanjoneswrexham
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/7/2007
Last login: 9/7/2007

Spout Member:nny921

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: nny921
Number of lists: 4
Number of groups: 2
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 11/20/2008

Spout Member:mr_lol

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: mr_lol
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/3/2007
Last login: 9/3/2007

Spout Member:fire1311

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: fire1311
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 9/1/2007
Last login: 9/1/2007

Spout Member:Argueta

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:00:00 GMT

Identity: Argueta
Number of lists: 4
Member since: 8/31/2007
Last login: 8/31/2007

Film:Funny Games

Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:47:00 GMT

Title: Funny Games
Year: 2007
Director: Michael Haneke
Times Tagged: 27
Number of Lists: 24
Number of blog posts: 14
Number of discussion threads: 8
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Dark Knight

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 23:13:34 GMT

Title: The Dark Knight
Year: 2008
Director: Christopher Nolan
Times Tagged: 149
Number of Lists: 98
Number of blog posts: 156
Number of discussion threads: 55
SpoutRating: 4

Film:H2

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:45:58 GMT

Title: H2
Year: 2009
Director: Rob Zombie
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 1

Film:Eleanor: First Lady of the World

Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:47:51 GMT

Title: Eleanor: First Lady of the World
Year: 1982
Director: John Erman
Number of blog posts: 1

Film:Black Test Car

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 23:01:54 GMT

Title: Black Test Car
Year: 1962
Number of Lists: 2
SpoutRating: 4

Film:Dumpster Baby

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 15:53:10 GMT

Title: Dumpster Baby
Director: James Bickert
Number of Lists: 1

Film:Rick

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:32:48 GMT

Title: Rick
Year: 2002
Director: Curtiss Clayton
Times Tagged: 1
Number of Lists: 1
SpoutRating: 2

Film:Speed Racer

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:21:45 GMT

Title: Speed Racer
Year: 2008
Director: Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Times Tagged: 90
Number of Lists: 16
Number of blog posts: 41
Number of discussion threads: 16
SpoutRating: 3

Film:Speed Racer [Anime Series]

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 14:20:43 GMT

Title: Speed Racer [Anime Series]
Year: 1967
Number of Lists: 1
Number of blog posts: 1
Number of discussion threads: 1
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Raven

Sat, 29 Aug 2009 04:13:53 GMT

Title: The Raven
Year: 2007
Director: Ulli Lommel
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 1

Film:The Ballad of the Sad Cafe

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:25:24 GMT

Title: The Ballad of the Sad Cafe
Year: 1991
Director: Simon Callow
Number of blog posts: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:New York, New York

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:22:40 GMT

Title: New York, New York
Year: 1977
Director: Martin Scorsese
Times Tagged: 23
Number of Lists: 12
Number of blog posts: 57
Number of discussion threads: 2
SpoutRating: 2

Film:St. Nick

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:01:06 GMT

Title: St. Nick
Year: 2009
Director: David Lowery
Times Tagged: 3
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 5
SpoutRating: 5

Film:We Are the Strange

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:25:52 GMT

Title: We Are the Strange
Year: 2007
Director: M dot Strange
Number of Lists: 3
Number of blog posts: 3
SpoutRating: 4

Film:The Sadist

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:08:29 GMT

Title: The Sadist
Year: 1963
Director: James Landis
Number of Lists: 4
SpoutRating: 3

Film:The Alligator People

Fri, 28 Aug 2009 14:04:19 GMT

Title: The Alligator People
Year: 1959
Director: Roy Del Ruth
Number of Lists: 2
Number of blog posts: 1
SpoutRating: 2