At first I was absolutely dreading watching this movie. I thought "oh god, this is going to be another horrible old black and white movie." And holy shit, I was so wrong. I not only laughed my ass off, I cried my eyes out. I never realized how truly talented Marilyn Monroe was until I saw this movie.
(1) The plot is interesting. It takes place during the bootlegging time. Two musicians work in an illegal club and accidentally witness a murder. The two of them disguise themselves as girls and travel to Florida so they don't get whacked. While they are there one of them falls in love with Marilyn Monroe and their secret is out. The ending is actually ambiguous now that I think about it.
(2) Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon and Marilyn Monroe. Shall I say more? First let's start with Tony Curtis-- his brilliant portrayal of three characters one so different than the next. Jack Lemmon is the most believable woman I have ever witnessed. And Marilyn Monroe's sincerity is amazing to see.
(3) Originally this movie was going to be in color. But the make up for the drag scenes was too harsh for colored film stock and they decided to shoot the movie in black and white. I actually like this about the movie. The black and white makes it feel more like a gangsta movie in the beginning and sets the stage for the rest of the film. I'm trying to think of anything else that made the movie stand out. But the film is a typical Classical Hollywood Film.
(4) Overall-- I never laughed so hard in my life. Jack Lemmon is the most hilarious comedian ever. And if you have not seen this movie, then I suggest you rent it and give it a fair chance. I too was dreading it at first but I overall enjoyed it. It's definitely in my top ten all time favorite movies!!
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Contemporart Movie #2: Alice in Wonderland Tim Burton
I love Tim Burton and I was uber excited to be seeing this in 3D IMAX. I never really enjoyed the story of Alice in Wonderland but I was more excited to watch it for it's aesthetic value and use of German Expressionism that Burton is so famous for.
(1) Alice returns to Underworld and thinks she is dreaming. She doesn't accept the fact that she has been returned to fight the jabberwocky. She comes around realizes shes not dreaming and kills the jabberwocky. She then goes home--- there's a lot more too it but this will do. What bothered me the most was that unless you knew the "first" Alice in Wonderland then you would be lost and I was mostly lost.
(2) Alice the main character was so unlikeable. I wanted her to die the entire movie. She was boring, stiff, annoying, stupid and just boring. Helena Bonham Carter was amazing though. She really knows how to act. She was suppose to be the villian and she was the most likeable character. I don't know if that was a script problem or just that she's so talented. Even Anne Hathaway was bad in this movie. She was so stagnant.
(3) As always Tim Burton's mise-en-scene was beautiful. The white queen was certainly white and the red queen was certainly red. And the heart shapes that followed the red queen were really well done too. I loved the modernization of everything and the gothic undertones that Tim Burton brings to his films. But I did find the 3D graphics a little distracting.
(4) Overall I was majorly disappointed in this movie. I thought it could be so much better and I was expecting so much better. I give it a 2 out of 5. It looses points because the characters were unrelatable and unlikeable. It was too dark and just not what I was expecting. Out of all the movies I've reviewed so far this one I hate the most.
(1) Alice returns to Underworld and thinks she is dreaming. She doesn't accept the fact that she has been returned to fight the jabberwocky. She comes around realizes shes not dreaming and kills the jabberwocky. She then goes home--- there's a lot more too it but this will do. What bothered me the most was that unless you knew the "first" Alice in Wonderland then you would be lost and I was mostly lost.
(2) Alice the main character was so unlikeable. I wanted her to die the entire movie. She was boring, stiff, annoying, stupid and just boring. Helena Bonham Carter was amazing though. She really knows how to act. She was suppose to be the villian and she was the most likeable character. I don't know if that was a script problem or just that she's so talented. Even Anne Hathaway was bad in this movie. She was so stagnant.
(3) As always Tim Burton's mise-en-scene was beautiful. The white queen was certainly white and the red queen was certainly red. And the heart shapes that followed the red queen were really well done too. I loved the modernization of everything and the gothic undertones that Tim Burton brings to his films. But I did find the 3D graphics a little distracting.
(4) Overall I was majorly disappointed in this movie. I thought it could be so much better and I was expecting so much better. I give it a 2 out of 5. It looses points because the characters were unrelatable and unlikeable. It was too dark and just not what I was expecting. Out of all the movies I've reviewed so far this one I hate the most.
Dr. Strangelove or How I Learned to Quit Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
First and foremost I would like to apologize for my very long hiatus. Life happens and a lot of changes have taken place in mine. But I am back and determined more than ever to review "classic" movies. I will also be trying to review a contemporary movie once a week as well.
To those who are new here is how I critque movies: (1) plot, a simple description of the plot plus an alaysis of the narrative structure, themes and overall writing. (2) characters and acting, if the actors were believable, moving or just plain awful. (3) mise-en-scene, a fancy word for all artistic flourishes within the film such as lighting, costume, scenery, editting- any thing that enhances the story that is not directly said and last but certainly not least (4) overall rating, where I determine if this movie is good, ok, bad or just the worst movie I've ever seen.
I am going to also make these sound more scholary (and no more cursing-- even if it is horrible).
So to kick off my comeback I would like to talk about one of my favorite movies of all time (number 2 behind The Godfather) Dr Strange Love.
(1) Taking place post world war 2 during the height of the cold war -- A crazy general Jack. D. Ripper is paranoid of communism. He ceases all radio communication between him and the rest of the USA army and orders wing attack R. Wing attack R is to drop h-bombs into the USSR. after the army catches wind of what is going on the President teams up with the USSR and fight off the planes. One plane goes rogue and drops the bomb causing the USSR's doomsday device to go off which launches every nuclear missile in the world thus ending the world--- and hilarity ensues!!
(2) Acting is this movie. Petter Sellers plays three distinct and very different characters each funnier than the rest. His sane British officer, his mid western president and of course the stereotypical crazy German-- each one is better than the next. George C. Scott has one of his best performances as Turgidson and is so over the top and crazy that you can't help but laugh. Their believablity and over the topness is what makes this satire work.
(3) Kubrick is known for his creative use of mise-en-scene being considered a perfectionist. Although he had the genius idea of creating a "warroom" there is nothing else that noteworthy. Instead of focusing on mise-en-scene Kubrick paid more attention to character which is something uncharacteristic of Kubrick. For example, if you think of 2001: Space Odyssey or A Clockwork Orange you can visualize the 1960s "mod" style but this is lacking in Dr. Strangelove *well it does take place in the 50s* but even so-- there's no real stylization. Also interesting to note that this film was his last black and white film.
(4) As states earlier this is one of my all time favorite movies. The reason I love it so much is that it's hysterically funny yet very poignant. It truly does make you think of the capacity of such people to make decisions that can alter our lives. Although we live in a democracy and we elect our leaders it's still interesting to see what can happen if a crazy person rises up the ranks.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a good laugh. I rate it a 5 out of 5. All though its ridiculous and over the top it's strangely realistic at the same time and I am just a die hard Kubrick fan.
To those who are new here is how I critque movies: (1) plot, a simple description of the plot plus an alaysis of the narrative structure, themes and overall writing. (2) characters and acting, if the actors were believable, moving or just plain awful. (3) mise-en-scene, a fancy word for all artistic flourishes within the film such as lighting, costume, scenery, editting- any thing that enhances the story that is not directly said and last but certainly not least (4) overall rating, where I determine if this movie is good, ok, bad or just the worst movie I've ever seen.
I am going to also make these sound more scholary (and no more cursing-- even if it is horrible).
So to kick off my comeback I would like to talk about one of my favorite movies of all time (number 2 behind The Godfather) Dr Strange Love.
(1) Taking place post world war 2 during the height of the cold war -- A crazy general Jack. D. Ripper is paranoid of communism. He ceases all radio communication between him and the rest of the USA army and orders wing attack R. Wing attack R is to drop h-bombs into the USSR. after the army catches wind of what is going on the President teams up with the USSR and fight off the planes. One plane goes rogue and drops the bomb causing the USSR's doomsday device to go off which launches every nuclear missile in the world thus ending the world--- and hilarity ensues!!
(2) Acting is this movie. Petter Sellers plays three distinct and very different characters each funnier than the rest. His sane British officer, his mid western president and of course the stereotypical crazy German-- each one is better than the next. George C. Scott has one of his best performances as Turgidson and is so over the top and crazy that you can't help but laugh. Their believablity and over the topness is what makes this satire work.
(3) Kubrick is known for his creative use of mise-en-scene being considered a perfectionist. Although he had the genius idea of creating a "warroom" there is nothing else that noteworthy. Instead of focusing on mise-en-scene Kubrick paid more attention to character which is something uncharacteristic of Kubrick. For example, if you think of 2001: Space Odyssey or A Clockwork Orange you can visualize the 1960s "mod" style but this is lacking in Dr. Strangelove *well it does take place in the 50s* but even so-- there's no real stylization. Also interesting to note that this film was his last black and white film.
(4) As states earlier this is one of my all time favorite movies. The reason I love it so much is that it's hysterically funny yet very poignant. It truly does make you think of the capacity of such people to make decisions that can alter our lives. Although we live in a democracy and we elect our leaders it's still interesting to see what can happen if a crazy person rises up the ranks.
I highly recommend this movie to anyone who is interested in a good laugh. I rate it a 5 out of 5. All though its ridiculous and over the top it's strangely realistic at the same time and I am just a die hard Kubrick fan.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Blow-Up (1966) Antonioni
Probably one of my new favorite movies, the favorite I've watched so far this semester. As if I didn't want to live in the 1960s badly enough, now I wish I was living in the 60s in London.
(1) Basically this movie is very plotless- a plot starts but then it kinda doesn't go anywhere. There are random gratuitous scenes that just make no sense but capture the essence of the 60s. Thomas is a fashion photographer who gets really sick of it, so he decides to go to the park and take some landscape pictures. Because he's a womanizer he sees this couple in the park and starts taking photos. When the woman discovers him she freaks out and demands the film. He says no. When he develops the pictures he notices something strange and thinks he sees a gun killing the male in the park. When he goes to check it out he sees the body dead. Then he goes back with his friend the body mysteriously disappears. Now this seems like a straightforward plot but add a random threesome, tennis with mimes, thomas buying a propellar from an airplane for no apparent reason otehr than he's got to have it and a musical performance by the Yardbirds and then you have this movie. (I like how I wrote plotless yet this is the longest plot summay I've written)
(2) How does one critique the acting in this film. There's no dialogue in half the film. It's more action filled but this action is standing doing nothing. So I don't know if I can provide a fair assessment of the acting.
(3) The mise-en-scene is just utterly brilliant. To just capture the 60s to such perfection is mind numbing. Though bizarre it's just so beautiful. To the lighthing, costumes, music, editting, it's just so.... 60s.
(4) You will either love this movie because you enjoy the 60s or you will hate it. There's no inbetween. You will it either brilliant or just plain silly. I give it 5 out of 5 stars because I can find no flaws. It's brilliant combination of contemporary life and traditional italian neo-realism is just something that I applaud.
(1) Basically this movie is very plotless- a plot starts but then it kinda doesn't go anywhere. There are random gratuitous scenes that just make no sense but capture the essence of the 60s. Thomas is a fashion photographer who gets really sick of it, so he decides to go to the park and take some landscape pictures. Because he's a womanizer he sees this couple in the park and starts taking photos. When the woman discovers him she freaks out and demands the film. He says no. When he develops the pictures he notices something strange and thinks he sees a gun killing the male in the park. When he goes to check it out he sees the body dead. Then he goes back with his friend the body mysteriously disappears. Now this seems like a straightforward plot but add a random threesome, tennis with mimes, thomas buying a propellar from an airplane for no apparent reason otehr than he's got to have it and a musical performance by the Yardbirds and then you have this movie. (I like how I wrote plotless yet this is the longest plot summay I've written)
(2) How does one critique the acting in this film. There's no dialogue in half the film. It's more action filled but this action is standing doing nothing. So I don't know if I can provide a fair assessment of the acting.
(3) The mise-en-scene is just utterly brilliant. To just capture the 60s to such perfection is mind numbing. Though bizarre it's just so beautiful. To the lighthing, costumes, music, editting, it's just so.... 60s.
(4) You will either love this movie because you enjoy the 60s or you will hate it. There's no inbetween. You will it either brilliant or just plain silly. I give it 5 out of 5 stars because I can find no flaws. It's brilliant combination of contemporary life and traditional italian neo-realism is just something that I applaud.
Early Summer (1951) Ozu
This two and a half hour saga was quite and interesting experience. This is basically a movie in which all the things you expect to be in a movie, aren't in the movie. There's so much build up and then he just cuts it all out. Oh yeah and its a Japanese film.
(1)T he plot of the movie is Noroki, is 28 and not yet married, her parents and her brother are very concerned that someone so old is not married (so old?). She is very modernized compared to her traditional parents and brother. She recieves a proposal from a business man but turns him down for her next door neighbor.
(2) The acting was so great especially by the two small children who were so believeable as brothers. And they responded to the other actors so realistically. I really enjoyed watching them. As I said in an earlier post it's very hard to critique acting in a foreign film. But the children were just children and stood out as being natural.
(3) It's very slow movie, but the aesthetics are so beautiful -- you dont mind staring at it for a while. The use of framing is genius in this movie. The architecture of the Japanese house was really dramatized and it was beautiful. The deep depth of focus present a realistic point of view
(4) Although the message of the movie is very bleek. That no matter what you do you will never be happy it was still just a great insight to the world of Japanese traditional culture. Overall I give it a 4 out of 5. It looses points on its slow pacing and the use of ellipses which you miss important story details. I know these are intentional but it's STILL annoying.
Overall despite it being long I really enjoyed myself.
(1)T he plot of the movie is Noroki, is 28 and not yet married, her parents and her brother are very concerned that someone so old is not married (so old?). She is very modernized compared to her traditional parents and brother. She recieves a proposal from a business man but turns him down for her next door neighbor.
(2) The acting was so great especially by the two small children who were so believeable as brothers. And they responded to the other actors so realistically. I really enjoyed watching them. As I said in an earlier post it's very hard to critique acting in a foreign film. But the children were just children and stood out as being natural.
(3) It's very slow movie, but the aesthetics are so beautiful -- you dont mind staring at it for a while. The use of framing is genius in this movie. The architecture of the Japanese house was really dramatized and it was beautiful. The deep depth of focus present a realistic point of view
(4) Although the message of the movie is very bleek. That no matter what you do you will never be happy it was still just a great insight to the world of Japanese traditional culture. Overall I give it a 4 out of 5. It looses points on its slow pacing and the use of ellipses which you miss important story details. I know these are intentional but it's STILL annoying.
Overall despite it being long I really enjoyed myself.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Rashomon (1950)
This is another one where I really don't know where to begin. Just so absolutely incredible, dare I say BETTER than the book? I am just watching so many great films lately I can't even complain. I used to hate foreign films but now they really don't bother me. Who cares? I barely read the subtitles anyway, I was too interested in looking at the film because it was gorgeous.
(1) The plot of Rashoman is quite interesting. It's four witness testimonies about a crime that was committed in the woods. Each share a different perspective of what actually happens. The purpose of this is to realize their are many different versions of the truth and sometimes the actual truth will never be known. Although it's the same "scene" repeated over and over again-- it's told different each time which makes the narrative structure extremely interesting.
(2) It's hard to judge acting when the actors are speaking in another language. You can't hear them express emotion but you can try to see it. But still it's too hard to critique. I don't have any complaints though so that is a good sign.
(3) There is no mise-en-scene really to discuss because it's the narrative structure that really impacts the movie but I noted the long depth of field used frequently to allow the audience to clearly see the big picture rather than focusing on one particular thing.
(4) It's quite interesting to watch and it's quite poignant. Overall I am going to give this movie a 5 out of 5. It's worth watching and seeing to really understand why it's considered a significant art film.
(1) The plot of Rashoman is quite interesting. It's four witness testimonies about a crime that was committed in the woods. Each share a different perspective of what actually happens. The purpose of this is to realize their are many different versions of the truth and sometimes the actual truth will never be known. Although it's the same "scene" repeated over and over again-- it's told different each time which makes the narrative structure extremely interesting.
(2) It's hard to judge acting when the actors are speaking in another language. You can't hear them express emotion but you can try to see it. But still it's too hard to critique. I don't have any complaints though so that is a good sign.
(3) There is no mise-en-scene really to discuss because it's the narrative structure that really impacts the movie but I noted the long depth of field used frequently to allow the audience to clearly see the big picture rather than focusing on one particular thing.
(4) It's quite interesting to watch and it's quite poignant. Overall I am going to give this movie a 5 out of 5. It's worth watching and seeing to really understand why it's considered a significant art film.
Citizen Kane
WARNING: This post doesn't follow my usual structure. I wrote from the heart on this one rather than analytically.
Just growing up in today's society, you hear of this movie that oh there's this guy and his last words are Rosebud and you spend the whole movie trying to figure out what it is and at the end you realize it's his sled. You hear that as a kid and you are like, that sounds really stupid. Why would anyone want to see that?
Well now as a film major, and having the capability to analyze a film, I finally watched this movie. Words cannot describe how amazing of a movie this is. From beginning to end. There wasn't a moment that I was bored. And trust me, I was very skeptical, I had to read two articles beforehand that went on and on about how experimental it was, how anti Hollywood it was, and I thought to myself, great another experimental film, lame. But I was completely and utterly amazed.
First of all, lets just ignore the brilliance of mise-en-scene and lighthing and all that jazz and talk about one of the most underrated actors of our time. Orson Welles. He had to play Kane, throughout many generations. And I still cannot believe the old Kane was the same person who played the young Kane. I mean, he was just out of fucking control brilliant. His presence, his speech, his body language, his everything. I still can't believe how incredible he was.
What to talk about next? I can sit here and talk on and on about depth of filed and mise en scene which were all amazing. But really what drove this movie to utter perfection was Orson Welles.
If you have no seen this movie. I pity you. It is considered one of the best movies of all time, and I finally realize why. You must go see it and you too will sit in awe of just how amazing it is.
Overall I give it a 4.8 out of 5. (Whaaaat how can you do that??) I would give it 5 out of 5 but I am subtracting very little points because the movie is a tad long and there is one continuity flaw and as poignant as the ending is--a sled?? really?
Just growing up in today's society, you hear of this movie that oh there's this guy and his last words are Rosebud and you spend the whole movie trying to figure out what it is and at the end you realize it's his sled. You hear that as a kid and you are like, that sounds really stupid. Why would anyone want to see that?
Well now as a film major, and having the capability to analyze a film, I finally watched this movie. Words cannot describe how amazing of a movie this is. From beginning to end. There wasn't a moment that I was bored. And trust me, I was very skeptical, I had to read two articles beforehand that went on and on about how experimental it was, how anti Hollywood it was, and I thought to myself, great another experimental film, lame. But I was completely and utterly amazed.
First of all, lets just ignore the brilliance of mise-en-scene and lighthing and all that jazz and talk about one of the most underrated actors of our time. Orson Welles. He had to play Kane, throughout many generations. And I still cannot believe the old Kane was the same person who played the young Kane. I mean, he was just out of fucking control brilliant. His presence, his speech, his body language, his everything. I still can't believe how incredible he was.
What to talk about next? I can sit here and talk on and on about depth of filed and mise en scene which were all amazing. But really what drove this movie to utter perfection was Orson Welles.
If you have no seen this movie. I pity you. It is considered one of the best movies of all time, and I finally realize why. You must go see it and you too will sit in awe of just how amazing it is.
Overall I give it a 4.8 out of 5. (Whaaaat how can you do that??) I would give it 5 out of 5 but I am subtracting very little points because the movie is a tad long and there is one continuity flaw and as poignant as the ending is--a sled?? really?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
