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.
Friday, March 13, 2009
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?
Sunday, February 15, 2009
That Lady Eve (1941)
What a bizarre movie. It's considered a screwball comedy which was very popular during this time period along with the other genre called Film Noir.
(1) This is a long and confusing plot explanation so good luck: A rich man is in Soutyh America studying snakes. He goes aboard a cruise ship to get back home to America. On board are two card sharks (a father and a daughter) who try to swindle rich people out of their money. Accidentally the daughter falls in love with the rich man after they try to pull a fast one of him. The rich man has a bodyguard who finds out the truth about the daughter and they subsequently break up. Both are devastated. Having unfinished business with the rich man, the daughter "disguises" her self as a royal princess and goes to visit her uncle who lives next door to the rich man. All she does is change her accent. Although the rich man realizes they look very similar he is thrown off because the rich man believes if she was going to disguise herself they would dye their hair, or something but since she didn't it possibly can't be the girl from the boat (riiiight)-- SOOO they end up falling in love but to get revenge on him the daughter now princess tells the rich man about all the people shes had sex with which makes the rich guy really upset because he's a virgin so they get divorced. After finalizing the divorce she feels bad realizing she really did love him and her revenge backfired on her. She soon finds out that he is going back on the cruise to South America to study snakes agani. Determine to win him back for a third time unbeknownst to him she goes back as the original card shark girl and they fall in love all over again.
Yep, thats the entire story.
(2) Barbra Stanwick was really great though. Her ability to play a low class card shark and an upscale princess was quite intriguing. She pulled off each of them flawlessly. The guy that played the rich man was hilarious with his slapstick comedy. He was so believable. Despite the story being extremely unrealistic they both execute what is expected of them therefore the audience ignore this unbelievability because we want them to be together.
(3) This was made in the Hollywood Classical Film era where it was natural bright lighthing, realistic costumes and continuity editting. Nothing really mise-en-scene worthy that enhances the story.
(4) The premise was so bizarre but I did laugh a lot. Overall I would give it a 4 out of 5 stars. They loose a star for being so unrealistic.
(1) This is a long and confusing plot explanation so good luck: A rich man is in Soutyh America studying snakes. He goes aboard a cruise ship to get back home to America. On board are two card sharks (a father and a daughter) who try to swindle rich people out of their money. Accidentally the daughter falls in love with the rich man after they try to pull a fast one of him. The rich man has a bodyguard who finds out the truth about the daughter and they subsequently break up. Both are devastated. Having unfinished business with the rich man, the daughter "disguises" her self as a royal princess and goes to visit her uncle who lives next door to the rich man. All she does is change her accent. Although the rich man realizes they look very similar he is thrown off because the rich man believes if she was going to disguise herself they would dye their hair, or something but since she didn't it possibly can't be the girl from the boat (riiiight)-- SOOO they end up falling in love but to get revenge on him the daughter now princess tells the rich man about all the people shes had sex with which makes the rich guy really upset because he's a virgin so they get divorced. After finalizing the divorce she feels bad realizing she really did love him and her revenge backfired on her. She soon finds out that he is going back on the cruise to South America to study snakes agani. Determine to win him back for a third time unbeknownst to him she goes back as the original card shark girl and they fall in love all over again.
Yep, thats the entire story.
(2) Barbra Stanwick was really great though. Her ability to play a low class card shark and an upscale princess was quite intriguing. She pulled off each of them flawlessly. The guy that played the rich man was hilarious with his slapstick comedy. He was so believable. Despite the story being extremely unrealistic they both execute what is expected of them therefore the audience ignore this unbelievability because we want them to be together.
(3) This was made in the Hollywood Classical Film era where it was natural bright lighthing, realistic costumes and continuity editting. Nothing really mise-en-scene worthy that enhances the story.
(4) The premise was so bizarre but I did laugh a lot. Overall I would give it a 4 out of 5 stars. They loose a star for being so unrealistic.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
The Birds
I am deeply and utterly petrified of birds. I do not know when this phobia started exactly, but this movie does not help.
(1) The plot begins like any other cheesy romance story. Melanie Daniels is a pracitcal joker and tries to play a joke on Mitch Brenner. Things go horribly wrong when she gets attacked by a seagull, therefore she is forced to stay in the small town of Bodega Bay where Mitch lives. While she is there the birds decide to go crazy, attack the village and take over the entire town.
(2) Surprisingly I had no real issues with acting in this film. Tippi Hendren I know had to suffer a lot emotionally and physically for this movie and she did a brilliant job. I really did enjoy watching her. The only annoying actress was the little girl who played Katy. But Suzanne Planchett was also a brilliant actress. It's very hard to be scared convincingly and everyone did a great job at it.
(3) I guess the actual Birds count as scenery. I mean, they were very fake looking in some scenes but very realistic in others. It was more of the sound of the birds chirping and pecking and the ruffling of feathers, that was scary to me. I feel bad that Tippi Hendren had to wear the same outfit the entire movie. I feel like Bodega Bay should have had one dress shop where she could have bought a new outfit, I mean she was abke to buy pajamas. The use of the color green is interesting to note too. The lovebirds and Tippi Hendren's dress were both green indicating that maybe this was the cause of what was happening in Bodega Bay.
(4) It's considered to be a classic Hitchcock film and I know why. It's not that movie is scary but it is suspenseful. The romantic love story is subdued and is just a plot device. I would give the movie a 3 out of 5. They loose points on unrealistic looking birds and not giving us a clear reason as to why the birds went crazy.
(1) The plot begins like any other cheesy romance story. Melanie Daniels is a pracitcal joker and tries to play a joke on Mitch Brenner. Things go horribly wrong when she gets attacked by a seagull, therefore she is forced to stay in the small town of Bodega Bay where Mitch lives. While she is there the birds decide to go crazy, attack the village and take over the entire town.
(2) Surprisingly I had no real issues with acting in this film. Tippi Hendren I know had to suffer a lot emotionally and physically for this movie and she did a brilliant job. I really did enjoy watching her. The only annoying actress was the little girl who played Katy. But Suzanne Planchett was also a brilliant actress. It's very hard to be scared convincingly and everyone did a great job at it.
(3) I guess the actual Birds count as scenery. I mean, they were very fake looking in some scenes but very realistic in others. It was more of the sound of the birds chirping and pecking and the ruffling of feathers, that was scary to me. I feel bad that Tippi Hendren had to wear the same outfit the entire movie. I feel like Bodega Bay should have had one dress shop where she could have bought a new outfit, I mean she was abke to buy pajamas. The use of the color green is interesting to note too. The lovebirds and Tippi Hendren's dress were both green indicating that maybe this was the cause of what was happening in Bodega Bay.
(4) It's considered to be a classic Hitchcock film and I know why. It's not that movie is scary but it is suspenseful. The romantic love story is subdued and is just a plot device. I would give the movie a 3 out of 5. They loose points on unrealistic looking birds and not giving us a clear reason as to why the birds went crazy.
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Contemporary Movie #1: Twilight
I have been waiting for this movie since the summer where I read all four books in less than two weeks (I'm a loser-- I know). I even bought the T shirt for the movie when I bought the fourth book. Needless to say I was beyond excited. And although many people adored the movie, it's nowhere near as good as the book (is it ever?)
(1) The storyline is simple. Vampire falls in love with non-vampire-- what do they do? They fall in love anyway and live happily ever after and fight other vampires. Unfortunately like most novel to movie scripts, a lot of background is cut out. You didn't really truly understand Bella in this movie where in the book you know her so well you are practically her. You breathe, sleep and cry with her. In the movie she was just some character. Unlike the book though, the movie really portrayed her friends at the school brilliantly. I had a deeper apprecaition for the characters now.
(2) Robert Pattinson was amazing no doubt. Gorgeous, perfect, simply just magical. I get chills when I think about it-- probably because he's so handsome but this acting-- well-- he's much better than Kristen Stewart who was dull. Anyone could have played that part. And she did not do Bella justice, you didn't feel her pain, or sorrow. She brought no emotions to the screen. In the book you cry your eyes off and in this movie you just want to her die. Sadly, I did not like the girl who played Alice either. And Alice is my favorite character in the novels, she just didn't have the bubbliness of Alice. She was just too-- nonhyper.
(3) The movie itself was quite dark which I can't decide if I liked or didn't like. I must say, I was highly disappointed with the meadow scene. That is the dream that Stephanie Meyer had that embarked her into writing these novels and they just failed to deliver. There was no magic at all. When you saw him in the sun, it didn't even look that different. I wanted a body like a diamond like Emma Frost from X-men. SOMETHING. Not specks of light. I think they did a good job though making Forks out to be the gloomiest place on earth though. Overall- the mise-en-scene isn't that noteworthy.
(4) If I hadn't of read the books, I would have been lost at certain points. My mother was confused a lot and I had to keep telling her things from the novel to get her to understand. As usual the book is better than the movie and I recommend people reading the series and then seeing the movies.
I guess I would rate is a 3 out of 5. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't amazing. And Robert Pattinson is just gorgeous.
(1) The storyline is simple. Vampire falls in love with non-vampire-- what do they do? They fall in love anyway and live happily ever after and fight other vampires. Unfortunately like most novel to movie scripts, a lot of background is cut out. You didn't really truly understand Bella in this movie where in the book you know her so well you are practically her. You breathe, sleep and cry with her. In the movie she was just some character. Unlike the book though, the movie really portrayed her friends at the school brilliantly. I had a deeper apprecaition for the characters now.
(2) Robert Pattinson was amazing no doubt. Gorgeous, perfect, simply just magical. I get chills when I think about it-- probably because he's so handsome but this acting-- well-- he's much better than Kristen Stewart who was dull. Anyone could have played that part. And she did not do Bella justice, you didn't feel her pain, or sorrow. She brought no emotions to the screen. In the book you cry your eyes off and in this movie you just want to her die. Sadly, I did not like the girl who played Alice either. And Alice is my favorite character in the novels, she just didn't have the bubbliness of Alice. She was just too-- nonhyper.
(3) The movie itself was quite dark which I can't decide if I liked or didn't like. I must say, I was highly disappointed with the meadow scene. That is the dream that Stephanie Meyer had that embarked her into writing these novels and they just failed to deliver. There was no magic at all. When you saw him in the sun, it didn't even look that different. I wanted a body like a diamond like Emma Frost from X-men. SOMETHING. Not specks of light. I think they did a good job though making Forks out to be the gloomiest place on earth though. Overall- the mise-en-scene isn't that noteworthy.
(4) If I hadn't of read the books, I would have been lost at certain points. My mother was confused a lot and I had to keep telling her things from the novel to get her to understand. As usual the book is better than the movie and I recommend people reading the series and then seeing the movies.
I guess I would rate is a 3 out of 5. It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't amazing. And Robert Pattinson is just gorgeous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
