|
Post by AD on Oct 31, 2010 23:12:49 GMT -5
Well, October wasn’t exactly a rousing success (at least not in terms of the number of people who actually participated), but it saw more activity than anything else in this section in recent months, so let’s build on that! Now, onto the business at hand: Challenge: Watch any movie in Roger Ebert’s Great Movies collection and review it by the end of the month.Suggested by Eric FuerstFULL LISTThere you have it, pretty straightforward. You have over 350 titles to choose from. They range from silent classics to 21st century favorites. From foreign art films to Hollywood blockbusters. There should be something for everybody, so let’s get started! Note: the October thread will remain open, so there’s no reason you can’t still post in it if you did some Halloween movie watching, or are just running behind.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on Nov 8, 2010 1:09:34 GMT -5
Plan on watching these, simply because I have them on DVD and it will cause me no effort at all.
12 Angry Men Annie Hall Babel The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (originally intended to watch it for October MMC) Dr. Strangelove Fargo Ikiru Magnolia Manhatten
Now, of course I will watch them, but don't expect reviews any time in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by Atomsk on Nov 8, 2010 12:27:58 GMT -5
Wow, I never realized Amadeus was on the list. Watched it in Humanities class, and loved it. I noticed I've seen a few on that list. I'm interested in watching these:
25th Hour Adaptation Babel The Big Lebowski Blade Runner Fargo Do The Right Thing Lost in Translation Leaving Las Vegas Groundhog Day Grave of the Fireflies One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest Planes, Trains, and Automobiles Ripley's Game Say Anything Taxi Driver Three Colors Trilogy Waking Life Vengeance is Mine
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Nov 12, 2010 23:00:56 GMT -5
I'm hoping to catch up on some reviews this week. It'd be great if more people did the same!
Films i've already watched this month (all second viewings for school):
REAR WINDOW (Hitchcock, 1954) SUNSET BOULEVARD (Wilder, 1950) VERTIGO (Hitchcock, 1958)
Will definitely watch the following:
THE BIRTH OF A NATION (Griffith, 1915) METROPOLIS [2010 Restoration] (Lang, 1926) THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (Laughton, 1958) PSYCHO (Hitchcock, 1960) - SECOND VIEWING TOP HAT (Sandrich, 1935)
|
|
|
Post by Atomsk on Nov 13, 2010 1:21:09 GMT -5
25th Hour Wow, I'm surprised by how much I liked this. Given, I watched American History X days before this, and I gotta say, Norton has some seriously fucked up roles. The most beautiful part of this movie though was his monologue in the bathroom of the bar he's at with his father. One of the things that I didn't like was the relationship between Jacob and his student. I thought it was just randomly thrown in, but if there was some hidden message in it, I didn't really get it.
I got a few from my list downloaded, so I'll be sure to review more later on this week. Hopefully, I'll go more in-depth with my later ones.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Nov 14, 2010 0:29:19 GMT -5
Chimes at Midnight (Orson Welles, 1965) Let me start by saying that I love me some Orson Welles. Let me continue by saying that I do not love me some William Shakespeare. I know that makes me sound like some uneducated philistine, but let me explain. When I’ve read Shakespeare, I’ve enjoyed him quite a bit. But, when viewing films based on his work, that Shakespearian dialogue tends to be more of a distancing device for me. I generally don’t have a problem understanding what is being said, but I find it very difficult to become immersed in the experience when I’m so caught up in trying to follow the dialogue. I’ve been told it’s an acquired taste, but if that’s the case I have yet to acquire it. That being said, thanks to Welles‘ contributions, I was still able to find a few things to appreciate about “Chimes at Midnight” His decision to cast himself as Falstaff is of particular interest to me. I can’t help but think that only a terribly self-loathing person could see himself in that role, which puts him on the receiving end of many a fat joke, among other insults and degradations. It’s not unlike his role in his great film noir “Touch of Evil,” in that he seemed to be publicly acknowledging his own real life self-destruction through the characters he chose for himself. There’s also a spectacular battle scene, which is among the best I’ve ever seen. Budgetary constraints forced Welles to shoot it almost entirely in close and medium shots, which actually allows the viewer feel more intimately acquainted with the action. The result is ten minutes of some of the most captivating sustained brutality ever captured on celluloid. Obviously, I neither loved nor hated this movie. I saw it, I’m glad I did, but I wouldn’t leave my house to see it again. The battle was transcendent, but I honestly couldn't describe any other scene in much detail. Perhaps that says more about me than it does about the film.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Nov 14, 2010 23:44:13 GMT -5
Come and See (Elem Klimov, 1985) If movies are a vacation from real life, then “Come and See” is a weekend getaway to the seventh level of hell. People should not be subjected to this film without full warning, and at least 24 hours to mentally prepare themselves. Roger Ebert hit the nail on the head when he wrote “this 1985 film from Russia is one of the most devastating films ever about anything.” The film starts off ordinarily enough for a war film, with a brave young boy from Byelorussia eager to go fight the Nazis and become a war hero. But after the first air strike by the Germans (maybe thirty minutes in) the film descends into abject horror. During this scene a bomb explodes close to the main character, Florya, and he loses part of his hearing. For the next twenty or thirty minutes of the film we hear a constant ringing and the voices are all slightly muffled. This gives these events, which are already horrifying enough, a slightly surreal, nightmarish quality. If the events of the first hour are enhanced by clever filmmaking, the second hour requires no such trickery. This is when Florya comes face to face the Nazis in a small village. It would be nice to think that the atrocities witnessed here were sensationalized for the film, but given what we all learned in history class we can take no such comfort. It must be noted that the images in these scenes are far more gut wrenching than the violence in “Saving Private Ryan,” and with less than a tenth the blood and gore. To use a played out cliché, this is not a film for the weak of heart, but those willing to take the journey will find it one of the most captivating visions of real world horror ever filmed. The title comes from the Book of Revelations, which I’m sure you know prophesizes Armageddon. I tend to think the when the end of all things does come to pass it will look a lot more like the events in this movie than what is described in the Bible.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Nov 19, 2010 20:05:22 GMT -5
Touchez Pas au Grisbi (Jacques Becker, 1954) The IMDb tells me that “Touchez Pas au Grisbi,” translated to English, means “Hands off the Loot.” I have nothing interesting to add to that, I just think it’s a great fucking title! Wikipedia tells me it actually means “Don’t Touch the Loot,” but I don’t think that has as nice of a ring to it. It was also called “Honour Among Thieves” in the UK, and that, while not a particularly interesting title, probably gives you a better idea of what the film is really about. When Max learns that his best friend Riton has been kidnapped, and their “loot” demanded as the ransom, there is no question that he is going to pay up. We learn from an internal monologue that this is not the first time that Riton has cost Max a lot of money, but there’s no “enough is enough” type of moment. These two men are friends, and that means more than any amount of money. There’s never any speech about following a “code” or remaining loyal, because nobody needs to say it. That’s just the way things are. Most storytellers would probably want to paint a more complex picture of this relationship, maybe keep Max’s intentions a bit more ambiguous, but Jacques Becker seems uninterested in such distractions. All stories about criminals are inherently tragic, but not all tragedies are the result of betrayal. It’s also a flawlessly structured crime thriller. At 94 minutes, it’s not a second longer than it needs to be, and yet Becker had the confidence to let things develop at their own pace. When the film begins, the heist that is central to the plot has already taken place. We then spend nearly half of the film watching seemingly innocuous events, and listening to characters make small talk, but this is all necessary to establishing the characters and it actually moves along quite briskly. Despite the relative lack of action this is by no means a slow paced movie, and when the bullets do start to fly it’s all the more dramatic because we care what happens to every single character.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Nov 25, 2010 21:16:09 GMT -5
There's only a few days left in this month, but it would be really nice if a few people could get at least one review posted. I'm not asking for anything too detailed, just a few sentences would be be better than nothing. Right now it feels a bit like I'm throwing a party that nobody bothered to attend, except atomsk, and he left early. -------------------------------------------Sweet Smell of Success (Alexander Mackendrick, 1957) It wasn’t until the very last scene of “Sweet Smell of Success” that I realized what I was watching was actually a film noir. It may be a film about press agents and gossip columnists instead of private investigators and femmes fatale, but it deals with the darker side of the human condition in the same unflinching manner that characterized all the great noirs of the 40’s and 50’s. I love it when a movie, or book, or story of any kind, can sneak up on me like that. Burt Lancaster’s J.J. Hunsecker might not be planning to murder anybody, but he still manages to seem as vial and repulsive a villain as Orson Welles in “The Third Man” or Lee Marvin in “The Big Heat.” Lancaster, in my opinion, is one of the most underrated actors of his era. His handsome features, size, and athleticism caused him to be typecast as a traditional leading man, but his work here reveals a range that many refused to acknowledge during his career. He did win an Oscar for “Elmer Gantry,” but that was more of a showy movie star role. It’s a good performance in a good movie, but if I was going to show somebody just one Burt Lancaster film, it would probably be “Sweet Smell of Success.” While Lancaster steals every scene that he’s in, and is the actor most commonly associated with the film, the real leading man here is the recently departed Tony Curtis. He’s in practically every scene, so it was pretty much up to him to do most of the heavy lifting, and he couldn’t have done it any better. In “Some Like it Hot” he played a character who was arguably as morally corrupt, yet still managed to be utterly lovable. There’s none of that in this film. After all, as I pointed out earlier, this is a film noir. The screenplay is also a thing of beauty. It’s one of those great noir scripts that is endlessly quotable, and almost unrealistically clever, but never seems robotic or unnatural, like some it’s counterparts of that era. Today it seems that fastly-spoken dialogue is often substituted for witty dialogue (like in every movie Guy Richie has ever directed), but that’s certainly not a problem for “Sweet Smell of Success.” This is a movie about men who talk fast and think faster. That’s more rare than it should be.
|
|
|
Post by Rishlicious on Nov 26, 2010 21:24:43 GMT -5
I've actually watched four of the films listed and got notes for reviews, just haven't had any time to properly write them up because I've had a few exams this month and spent most of my time studying. I'll definitely get at least one done though!
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Nov 30, 2010 18:56:28 GMT -5
I dropped the ball this month! All I do is write papers about film for school, so it has been tough to work up the motivation to do even more writing about film in my leisure time. If we try this again in December, i'll hopefully get more time to participate. Here's the qualifying titles I wound up watching...
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER (Laughton, 1958)
I'd been anxious to see this and I wasn't at all disappointed. The visuals alone are masterful - the old cliche that every frame of the film could be in an art gallery certainly applies - and Mitchum's performance is absolutely terrifying. I was reminded of Hitchcock (Shadow of a Doubt), and thus it's unfortunate that we never got to see just how much Laughton could've offered behind the scenes (he who gave what might be my favorite performance of all time in The Hunchback of Notre Dame). Oh, and an elderly Lillian Gish wielding a rifle is something I never thought i'd see.
PSYCHO (Hitchcock, 1960)
I guess i'd never given Anthony Perkins' performance enough credit. Not that I ever considered it to be bad or anything, but I felt that the material sort of overshadowed everyone on screen. He's spectacular. Also, I love the ways that Hitchcock gets us to care about him. There's the lengthy "clean up" scene after Janet Leigh's murder. When he pushes her car into a swamp, it stops halfway and he gets worried. We get worried too - "oh no, he's going to get caught!" It's a great little game he plays with the audiences - Hitchcock's a master of manipulation as much as he is suspense.
REAR WINDOW (Hitchcock, 1954)
On my second viewing, I took particular interest in Stewart's character as Hitchcock's alterego and also the ties between voyeurism and filmmaking. The building he spies on almost resembles a frame - it's as if he were directing a film as he concocts the stories of these people's lives. His attraction to Grace Kelly only occurs when she enters the "film" world (when she goes looking for evidence of the murder). Also, Stewart's biggest fear comes to fruition when the villain walks off of the frame and enters the world "behind the scenes", if you will. It's a moment not unlike Sherlock, Jr. or The Purple Rose of Cairo - with the movie stars entering the "real" world.
SAFETY LAST! (Newmeyer & Taylor, 1923)
The second Harold Lloyd film that i've seen. What strikes me about him, when compared to Keaton and Chaplin, is how competent he is in the action sequences. I'm not speaking of Lloyd's own technical prowess as an athlete, but rather the persona he plays and how vastly it differs from Keaton and Chaplin. The Tramp, for instance, seemingly stumbles his way into every feat of athleticism, whereas Lloyd is a weird mix of a clown and a bonafide action star.
SUNSET BOULEVARD (Wilder, 1950)
I don't have much to say about this. It's just a wonderful movie. Anyone who doesn't like "old films" should watch some Billy Wilder and shut up.
TOP HAT (Sandrich, 1935)
I'm a huge fan of Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers. Their films together birthed my appreciation of musicals, and they were both contributing factors in my growing admiration of Hollywood in the 1930s. This film is no Swing Time, which I think is their best, but it's exemplary of what made them stars and what chemistry they had. There's a tremendous dance number ("Cheek to Cheek") and many very good ones, although the plot is a bit typical and more than a little ridiculous.
VERTIGO (Hitchcock, 1958)
I find it hard to articulate my opinion on films like this - tremendous feats of ambition that reimagine cinema as it was known at the time. It's incredible that this film could have been made in Hollywood, much less becoming such a revered classic that is known by even the least adventurous of movie watchers.
|
|
|
Post by AD on Nov 30, 2010 21:39:38 GMT -5
Anyone who doesn't like "old films" should watch some Billy Wilder and shut up. This, my good man, is the truest thing you have ever written. ---------------------------------------------------------------------Rififi (Jules Dassin, 1955) Generally, when dealing with heist films, the heist either takes place very early, allowing for a lengthy aftermath, or is the climax, allowing for a lengthy build up. “Rififi” places it’s masterful thirty minute heist sequence smack dab in the middle of it’s two hour running time. It occurs to me that this is, at least mathematically, the ideal structure for such a film, and I’m surprised it isn’t used more often. In fairness, Jon Huston’s “The Asphalt Jungle” used a similar structure five years earlier, but with a less compelling heist. Speaking of the heist, it’s impossible for me to talk about it without falling into hyperbole, so I’m just gonna dive in. It’s the best fucking heist scene you ever will see! It’s based around the concept of an alarm system which responds to the slightest sounds and vibrations. This is a device that has been borrowed by dozens of films since, most successfully in Jean-Pierre Melville’s “Le Cercle Rouge,” but it’s never been handled quite as well as it is in “Rififi.” For the entire length of this sequence, the characters never speak, no musical score is heard, and every slight sound causes a spike in the viewer’s heart rate. I recall that I had a pretty bad cold the first time a saw this move, and while watching this scene I got a tickle in my throat, but I fought to hold back the cough. The filmmakers had succeeded in convincing me that I was right there in the middle of the action. Writer-director Jules Dassin was an American living in exile after being blacklisted by Hollywood for refusing to testify in front of the House Un-American Activities Committee. I believe you can see his understandable bitterness coming through in a scene where one of the burglars' wife chastises him for choosing the life of a thief, which has led to the kidnapping of their son. “You're not the only one that had an unhappy childhood,” she tells him, “there are millions like you, and, in my eyes, they are the tough ones, not you!” I’m sure you can probably read between the lines for yourself. Additional thought: this has nothing to do with anything, but Jean Servais, looks an awful lot like Bela Lugosi to me. I just had to mention that.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 1, 2010 0:21:17 GMT -5
I've been meaning to see Rififi for quite some time, as well as Night and the City. Of Dassin's work, i've seen Brute Force, The Naked City, Thieves' Highway, and The Law, and they're all tremendously entertaining. Brute Force might be my favorite prison break movie. It's villain is incredibly memorable: a weirdly fetishistic, perhaps homosexual Hume Cronyn.
Have you thought about a topic for next month?
|
|
|
Post by AD on Dec 1, 2010 1:23:32 GMT -5
I have one that's ready to go, but I'll hold off posting it if you have an idea that you'd like to do instead.
|
|
|
Post by Her 69 Eyes on Dec 1, 2010 2:50:38 GMT -5
Go ahead with your idea. I just wanted to make sure we keep this going... hopefully atleast one or two others will join in sometime soon.
|
|