Stewie's Movie of the (Insert Trivial Amount of Time) part whatever: Annie Hall | by Stewie Griffin on Nov 20, 2009 at 1:57 pm |  | |
  1977 Best Picture at the Academy Awards
With that said, I want to pick this movie blog back up. It was a good idea, and it's always worth it to foster good cinematic vibes amongst the honorable members of the Movie/TV board.
Let's jump on it, shall we?
Our movie this week: Annie Hall
They say a picture is worth a thousand words. This picture is probably worth a million, all of which Woody Allen manages to pack into one of the wittiest, most endearing yet simultaneously annoying (because it's too true) scripts of all time. Allen plays Alvy Singer (Essentially himself), a fairly prominent comedian struggling to find love and happiness from the world. The problem is he doesn't like himself very much, despite his best efforts, and thus he can't settle on any woman who reciprocates a relationship's attraction.
Alongside Allen is Diane Keaton, who starts as the titular, charming Annie. She's clumsy, goofy, and awkward...and lovable. The movie is made by Allen's chemistry with Keaton, whose conversations are both maddening and hilarious.
The movie is not only a dialogue-driven gem: it's narratively unique in its own right. Allen takes liberties with traditional story-telling techniques to both personalize the story and also to make it more relatable. It's not so much a love story as it is a life story. Allen captures both his own sentiments as well as those of anyone who has ever struggled to settle in life. Allen and Keaton's mannerisms and wordplay captures all the awkwardness, comfortability, frustration, and elation which polarizes love so much
What can I say? You have to see this movie. It's brilliant in all aspects, damn quotable, and it will make you look at your own relationships in a new light. Also, it's a great social commentary on our psycho-therapy addicted culture, presenting both the positive and negative light of our culture's submerged mental health crisis.
If you haven't seen an Allen film, start here. If you have seen Allen, end here.
Category: Entertainment
Tags: comedy, Annie Hall, Diane Keaton, lollercaust, Woody Allen
Stewie's Movie of the Week - Week 8 - "The Prestige" | by Stewie Griffin on Mar 10, 2009 at 10:29 am | | |
Ok, the basics: Chris Nolan's film are timeless...literally. Chronology is ignored for thematic purposes. Nolan will tell his story on his own terms, in order that each and every detail is revealed in the exact timing he desires. It is this precision, this timing, this obsessive attention to detail that takes "The Prestige" from a solidly acted, well-shot film to a true cinematic accomplishment that most audiences will miss with either a first, incautious glance or a belligerent, overshooting contentiousness.
"The Prestige" is Nolan's boldest film. Some would say it borderlines or even crosses into pretentiousness; I would disagree. Nolan keeps his own insinuations behind the camera in so far as the nature of his characters and themes goes, but his authorial presence is felt from the film's first scene, which unlocks one of the movie's finest mysteries.
As a result of his boldness, Nolan presents us a flawed masterpiece. He relies heavily on coincidence and fantastical timing to move the story along. Critics have said the film depends on deus ex machina elements that otherwise would leave us with an unresolved and unintelligible tale. While I can certainly grant another these concerns, I think this is Nolan's intention. This is his magic in a movie about magicians. Follow me, here.
Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman are both great, Bale as the obsessed craftsman magician and Jackman as the alluring showman. Bale's mannerisms are as precise as ever, and Jackman's showiness is underlied by a haunting presence. The two begin the story (chronologically, for the sake of this review) as partner apprentices under a run-of-the-mill yet successful magician, but a terrible accident severs any friendliness there may have been between the two and sets the stage for the film's thematic concerns of revenge, obsession, and sacrifice, all of which are scored by a dark, brooding soundtrack and somber cinematography.
Many critics feel that the movie, which centers on trickery, fails to deceive the attentive viewer. I wholeheartedly disagree. In terms of determining the story's "twists" (which, trust me, there are more than enough), no, Nolan doesn't really trick anyone who is looking for his secrets. They are certainly possible to figure out if you really are watching closely, as the movie implores (I missed it on my first viewing, which was certainly casual). But, if you ask me, the twists are Nolan's own "turn" (the second stage of the magic trick). See below:
quote:
The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."
To me, Nolan's "prestige" is not the twist involving Bale's character or Jackman's character, but rather that underneath all the twists and turns of the film, and of life, lies one terrifying truth: greatness comes at the greatest cost. The last scenes of the film, while putting the narrative pieces together (at times, these can be baffling, and Nolan uses a lot of his own misdirection), subtly comment on this theme, especially the last shot. Nolan's cinematic magic tricks are only show, only a distraction for those who aren't really watching closely. For those who are watching closely, you will see an intricate portrait of how bittersweet it is to be an artist, a creator, a dreamer, and a human. The movie is Nolan's self-portrait, his own story. Watch closely.
Category: Entertainment
Tags: review, Movie, prestige, chris nolan, jonathan nolan, pandas
All the Oscar Nominees In One Day, Part II | by Baloo on Feb 27, 2009 at 2:34 pm | | |
Continuing our day-long march through the Best Picture nominees, we loaded up on a margarita or two before heading back in for the second half of the next movie.
THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Kind of drunk, the second half of this movie worked really well for me. To be honest, I really enjoyed the movie the first time, but watching just the climax and denouement of the movie was surprisingly effective. I already knew the story, but I fell back into the rhythm of the story and found it comforting.
Admittedly, it’s a lot easier to enjoy the final hour of the film when my legs haven’t fallen asleep from watching the first two hours. Also, it gave me a chance to study the film from a sheerly technical standpoint, and it really is a marvel. Say what you will about the films of David Fincher, but the man is a truly masterful technician. He’s probably the best technical director working right now.
I’ve said it before, but I think Benjamin Button is a film I respect more than I enjoy. I think Brad Pitt’s performance is brilliant in a way that is never truly appreciated in Hollywood. Subtlety is not something Hollywood does well. Roles that get highly praised tend to be over-the-top, just look at the other nominees. It was wonderful to see the Oscars honor a performance that was brilliant in its small moments.
SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
The movie felt wonderful after a full day of depressing tear jerkers. It’s frenetic pace also was more than welcome after the slow and brooding Benjamin Button.
So let me say the good things about Slumdog. It’s brilliantly edited. I know that sounds terrible thing to point out first, but it really was brilliantly edited. The movie is a kaleidoscope of color and emotions, and that’s the one thing that I really carried from it. It was a fun movie to watch. It was a pretty movie. It’s a shiny object, one that’s even more distracting given that it is simply not depressing.
But I’ve beaten this into the ground on the boards, but the script really was mediocre. Forget that it completely relies on a series of coincidences so fantatstic that it strains any sort of credibility whatsoever. Hell, forget that the main character cops to murder at the police station and they let him walk. We call that a plot hole. No, the worst part of the script is that it completely relies on a sudden change of personality from a major character without explanation. The movie’s happy ending is built on a lie, and it bothers the living crap out of me.
It’s a good movie, but it’s a movie that we’ll look back on in ten years and scratch our heads and say,” THAT won Best Picture?”
FROST/NIXON
The homestretch. Now, I’ve been critical of Slumdog, but putting this movie last was a major mistake. Half of the crowd walked. Part of it was that the showing didn’t end until after midnight and we were all pretty tired. I lost circulation in my left leg about the time Richard Nixon arrived for the interview. But it wasn’t just that.
If there is one thing I love in movies, it is ambition. I love movies that strive for greatness, even if they do not achieve it. There is a certain nobility to the Interesting Failure. Say what you will about the Slumdog and Benjamin Button, you cannot reasonably argue they were not ambitious movies. The director had ideas. They didn’t all work, but can admire his vision and what he was trying to accomplish.
There is nothing worse in film that striving for mediocrity and achieving it. Frost/Nixon is a quality, workmanlike movie. It is competently written, directed, and acted. It is also imminently forgettable the moment you walk out of the theatre. They strove for mediocrity and hit the bull’s eye. Worse yet, it has nothing to say. What insight did we possibly get on Watergate? I sat throughout the last hour thinking how much better All the President’s Men was. But even if I didn’t, Nixon was the battleground of last generation’s politics. It’s barely relevant today, and it just seemed awkward when they made a Bush parallel. I ate some popcorn, but I simply didn’t care.
Category: Entertainment
Tags:
Stewie's Movie of the Week - Week 7 - "No Country for Old Men" | by Stewie Griffin on Feb 26, 2009 at 4:06 pm | | |
(Forgive me for any choppiness in syntax, it's been a long, essay-filled week, and my writing fundamentals seem to have sprouted legs and run away)
Sorry for the delay on Week 7. I'm sure the 3 people who read this blog were just waiting pins and needles for it, but, hey, I do it for the kids.
It's been a busy week, and today is the first day I could sit down and actually watch a movie. Not feeling like a drive to Blockbuster or an online downl...uh...purchase...(don't hurt me MPAA) I decided to go through my meager movie collection (concerning quantity, by no means quality), and noticed it to be predominately comedic. As it were:
Fletch? Nah.
Dirty Work? Sober.
Dumb and Dumber? No, no, no!
I was tired, I was stressed, I was frustrated. I needed something darker, something more violent to soothe my bridled soul. And then my eyes beheld the movie I knew was meant for today's installment.
In the spirit of the Academy Awards, I selected the best "Best Picture" of the last fifteen years, in my not so humble opinion. That's a bold statement, but when you go back and look at the winners, the only "Best Picture" since Schindler's List that comes close, to me, is the Lord of the Rings third installment.
So, with that in mind, I sat down to watch No Country for Old Men for the first time in a year or so. Clearly, the delay was far too long.
Let me start with this: I could probably talk about this film more than any other movie ever played before my eyes. It's definitely in my top 5, hovering around in there depending on what kind of mood I'm in. That said, I'll try to limit my thoughts, but don't be surprised if I get all David-Foster-Wallace in here and end up with a thick stack of virtual footnotes. Let's go.
The genius of this film is its subtlety. It's Hitchcock-esque in it's direction, playing with the audience. The absence of any sort of soundtrack (other than the sound of west Texas, which is really a beautiful silent, musical wind) emphasizes how important every visual detail is, from the stunning cinematography of west Texas to the very feet of our beloved, or not so beloved, characters.
Speaking of the characters, the Coens again give us their trademark quirky characters, but these are probably their most real. As usual, they have mastered the dialect of the setting, and one-liners roll one after the other in every scene. The actors are all incredible. Brolin really broke through with this film, and since he's shown it wasn't a fluke or a character role. Tommy Lee Jones (our REAL protagonist....more on that later) is very, very good, delivering a collection of priceless, twanged repartees that will please fans of Eastwood and Wayne. Woody Harrelson blends in well, and Kelly Macdonald pulls off an incredible transition from her natural Scottish brogue to a Texan drawl. All are complemented by a terribly accurate accumulation of spot characters, whose scenes don't miss a beat.
Javier Bardem steals the show, however, as the chilling Chigurh. He's a walking "bubonic plague," a true agent of death and fate, it would seem. He's my favorite villain in all of cinema, certainly one of the most compelling psychologically. We don't know much about him, other than he has "principles that transcend money or drugs." He is a strong believer in fate, chancing many lives to the toss of a coin, at least those which do not stand between him and his task. He truly is a fascinating character, one whom I could speak on all day but will save that for a thread of some sort to avoid prolixity here.
I'll be honest: I hated the movie the first time I saw it, for the same reason many other people were so passionately angry with it. There is absolutely no resolution. The presumed protagonist is killed off-screen, we don't know what happens to the money, and we are left with a few dull dialogues that seem to punch the action-expectant audience right in the gut. Thus, my anger was justified...but only because I didn't pay close enough attention.
Remember how I said the film is supremely detailed? I wasn't lying. Ed Tom's opening monologue, scoring pristine shots of the country to be traversed in the film, sets the stage for the true battle, in which Llewelyn Moss (Brolin)
and Chigurh are mere players. The conflict is really one internal, the battle for Ed Tom's soul. See for yourself:
quote:
The crime you see now, it's hard to even take its measure. It's not that I'm afraid of it. I always knew you had to be willing to die to even do this job. But, I don't want to push my chips forward and go out and meet something I don't understand. A man would have to put his soul at hazard. He'd have to say, "O.K., I'll be part of this world."
Stage set. Right there for everyone to see, yet so many miss it. We get swept up in the action, and raise our fists in anger when it's not resolved. Why does Llewelyn die off sceen? Who gets the money? Did Chigurh kill Carla Jean, too? Why does the movie build up to a fantastic show down, only to leave us high and dry?
Here, the Coen's pull off their finest commentary, criticizing both audiences in general, as well as the, shall I say, American spirit, where entitlement to something bigger and better is not just dreamed of, but expected. It's all captured in the film's most powerful quote, from Ed Tom's post-retirement conversation with his uncle, which not only sums up the narrative but also the Coen's attitude:
quote:
Whatcha got ain't nothin new. This country's hard on people, you can't stop what's coming, it ain't all waiting on you. That's vanity
Our perspective is all wrong, the Coen's say. Ed Tom is the focus, not Llewelyn and not Chigurh. It's Ed Tom's soul that is at stake, and while he keeps his life, and maybe his soul (or does he? discuss...), his spirit is crushed by the idea that it's not his battle to win: he can't win it.
Like I said, I could go on and on praising this movie. One, I love the Coen's, and this is their best film, to me. It's more thorough than Fargo, more detailed and smarter. Second, I'm biased, because Cormac McCarthy is one of my favorite contemporary authors, and this film is a nearly perfect adaptation. The only, only minor flaw is a slight disservice to the character of Ed Tom. The book is much more detailed about what makes him tick, and while the movie covers its bases, I think the Coen's, without sacrificing their integrity, could have mixed in a bit more of Ed Tom's pre-Chigurh story so that his ultimate decision to retire and the struggles he has with that decision are better realized.
Please comment. I left so much out that I wanted to say, and I would love some discussion on this film, either below or on the board. I'll be sure to post it on there as well.
Until next week, be good.
Category: Entertainment
Tags: No Country for Old Men, Movie Review, Film
Watching every Oscar movie in a day | by Baloo on Feb 24, 2009 at 9:38 am | | |
Bleary-eyed, I sipped my coffee trying to start my day. My girlfriend looked at me with one of those tender I-hate-you-so-much –right-now looks which I’m sure means I’m going to have to buy her something shiny in the very near future. It was 9 AM on Saturday morning, and we were gearing up for AMC’s full day presentation of every Best Picture nominee.
This day turned out not so much to be about art and movies, but about simply endurance and knowing when to go to the bathroom. We met Chet and Sean (not their real names, but surprisingly close), a gay couple and fellow movie buffs at the door. They were far too perky for Saturday morning, but they were excited to see the first film on the agenda: Milk.
MILK
I had already seen Milk, so for me this was a question of how the movie held up on a second viewing. To be honest, as much as I love Gus Van Sant, I felt the movie was a pretty straight forward biopic (Get it? Straight forward? Yes, these are the jokes which are funny at 10 AM, even before Oscar fatigue set in). A repeat viewing did nothing to shake me of that opinion.
When did mimicry become the highest form of acting? Yes, Sean Penn did a wonderful imitation of Harvey Milk, but it’s not like Harvey Milk is as famous as, say, Richard Nixon. What did strike me on the second viewing was how terrific Josh Brolin was in this movie. Here’s a movie about a murdered gay icon, and Josh Brolin drew the short straw of playing his eventual assassin. Instead of playing him like a villain, like he was no questionably written, Brolin’s Dan White is a person of great pathos. Dare I say it? At the end of the movie, I related far more to the murderer than the martyr.
It’s because Dan White is not some cardboard cutout of a homophobe. His reasons for eventually going off the reservation and killing Milk (not a spoiler, they tell you in the opening scene Milk dies even if you didn’t know walking in) are not simple hatred. White is personally aggrieved by Harvey milk. He doesn’t hate gay people, he hates Harvey Milk. And if you take the time to appreciate his point of view, he’s got a pretty good case. Harvey does screw him over. OK, no one should kill another person, but he’s a far more interesting villain than what I expected. At the end of the movie, my girlfriend and I felt he was by far the best part of a fairly mediocre movie. Sean and Chet thought it was a masterpiece. We promptly went out and protested for gay rights.
THE READER
That’s not true. What we really did was get more popcorn (it’s not just for breakfast anymore… and free with admission!) and stood in a long bathroom line. Then we settled down for the obligatory Nazi movie.
Words cannot express how bored I am with Nazi/Holocaust films. The definitive Holocaust movie’s been made. It’s called Schindler’s List, and we all saw it and cried our eyes out. Is there anyone on the planet, other than Mel Gibson’s dad, who honestly believes that the Holocaust wasn’t a terrible event in human history? Really, what else is there to say?
Kate Winslet squeezes as much as she can from the material, and once again, the audience walks away liking the villain more than anyone else in the movie. While our hero, Michael Berg, is a whiny little twit until becoming Ralph Fiennes as an adult (and what a transition that was), Hanna Schmitz is an engaging character hiding several secret shames. She was far better in Revolutionary Road, and it was a massive stretch to call this a lead role, but you know Oscars and the Holocaust.
Still, by the end of the morning, we were about as depressed as we could be. Neither movie was all that of a pick me up, and both end on a real down note. Not even free popcorn can make up for that. But we bravely trudged through.
But not before getting a round of margaritas. We had all seen Benjamin Button, so we took this time to stretch our legs, get the circulation going, and cheer up a bit. Which means alcohol and chips and salsa. If you think double features are interminable, try a quintuple-feature in which every film goes at least two hours. So, let’s take a break while we down margaritas…
TO BE CONTINUED
Category: Entertainment
Tags: Oscars, movie reivews
Stewie's Movie of the Week - Week 6 - "Waltz With Bashir" | by Stewie Griffin on Feb 15, 2009 at 3:14 pm | | |
a. Review mainstream movies to create further intelligent (and I use this word as loosely as possible) discussion on popular films, both current and past
b. Introduce readers to great films that they may not have heard of otherwise
In week six, I will take the latter approach, because most of my reviews have been on fairly well-known films, either pop-culture classics or cult-classics. This week's movie, " Waltz with Bashir" (Vals Im Bashir), is an Israeli animated documentary feature on the Lebanese War which features several nude scenes, as well as a meta-fictional pornography. Does it get any more obscure than that? I'm talking to you, Harmony Korine.
All kidding aside, I have no reservations in saying that "Bashir" was absolutely the most fascinating film of 2008 that I have seen. The only film that comes close is "Man on Wire," also a documentary, but "Bashir" trumps it with a greater degree of creativity, sobriety, and eloquence.
Directed by Ari Folman, "Waltz with Bashir" is Folman's quest to discover mysteriously absent memories of his experiences in the First Lebanon War. Folman, an Israeli soldier, is spurred to retrieve his past when a friend and former fellow soldier in the army tells him about this recurring dream in which he is chased by 26 dogs. The rest of the movie unfolds with Folman's quest to recall his time in Lebanon, as he interviews friends, generals, reporters, psychologists, and others connected to his plight, and it ultimately takes us to Folman's appalling memory of the Sabra and Shantilla massacre.
I cannot for the life of me find one flaw with this movie. The animation is beyond incredible, and absolutely necessary. You will have to see it to understand, but not only is it an effective and visually stunning narrative tool, it also contributes to the film's grim hypothesis. The color of the film, which is up for Best Foreign Film in the Academy Awards (and has already won/been nominated for countless other awards) is profound and, ironically, it makes the story even more real and alive to the viewer. "Bashir" includes the best soundtrack of 2008, and it is paced with great precision. And, if the ending doesn't threaten to elicit a tear, I wouldn't hesitate to consider you either heartless or ignorant.
If film's role in art is to entertain or inform with an artistic flair, then "Bashir" is the essence of what every movie strives to be. It has blockbuster drama with abstruse direction, and a terribly vital but heartbreaking story. It's a history lesson, a war drama, and an introspection of the self and the way we approach guilt all in one sweeping, stunning piece of cinema.
10/10
Category: Entertainment
Tags: , review, movies, Waltz With Bashir, Folman, Academy Awards
Stewie's Movie of the Week - Week 5 - "Dirty Harry" | by Stewie Griffin on Feb 6, 2009 at 10:24 pm | | |
In all honesty, I should probably stop right there, because anything I have to say will be greatly inferior to this legendary quote. Ah, hell, let's see what I can do.
Clint Eastwood, to many, is Hollywood. No, not the self-loathing, leftist craven Hollywood of our generation. I'm talking about old Hollywood, when actors acted, and made great movies. Sure, he made his name in the sands of the west, but "Dirty Harry" may be Eastwood's biggest film. At face value, it's a kick-ass B-action film that holds up almost 40 years later in the age of CGI. Underneath this initial layer, however, is an intricate statement on the nature of good and evil and the ambiguous line between the two.
Eastwood stars as Harry Callahan, a no-nonsense San Francisco police officer with a maverick's heart. He's known to subvert the traditional praxes of the law by taking matters into his own hands. Shoot first, ask questions later, he would say, for reasons that become clearer and clearer as the script unfolds.
The film's primary antagonist is known only as Scorpio (played by Andy Robinson). Robinson truly plays one of the most disturbing and detestable villains you'll ever see in a movie. Without giving away too much of the plot, Scorpio is a ruthless killer (primarily with a sniper) who becomes the target of 'Dirty' Harry Callahan.
As I said, there's enough action to carry the movie by itself, and Eastwood delivers a truly robust performance. Dirty Harry is one of the most memorable characters of his generation, and the film was complemented by three others in the "Dirty Harry" tetralogy. However, there is a truly disheartening political question that binds the movie together: the role of government in the equivocal struggle between good and evil.
On one hand, you have utter evil in Scorpio. That point is not up for debate. However, Dirty Harry represents what some would consider a quasi-fascist approach to law enforcement: he is concerned less about the rights of citizens and more about their safety. His peers and superiors in the SFPD, however, especially his chief and the D.A, combat his efforts by undermining him and preaching a doctrine of criminal's rights. Caught up in all this is Harry's new partner, Chico Gonzales (Reni Santoni plays the part very solidly), who is somewhat symbolic of the viewing audience. He is the relatable figure, the understated everyman with whom the attentive viewer will most empathize.
In all, the film really allows the audience to make up its own mind, and I wouldn't respect it if it did otherwise. Callahan is almost a Byronic hero, the guy you cheer for but may not agree with. The ending is tragic, but absolutely grounded in a sort of psychological realism that would make Henry James proud. Along with a slew of classic one-liners, unforgettable screenshots, and action-packed sequences set to a perfectly-timed soundtrack, "Dirty Harry" is a huge accomplishment of a film, both fun and affecting.
8.5/10
Category: Entertainment
Tags: review, Movie, Dirty, Harry, Eastwood, Clint, Hammerhead
|
|
RSS Feed