7 posts tagged “films”

Sean adds...

Here is a list of what I think are the best of Oscar's Best Pictures and the worst.  Now this does not mean that what was left off was not good or bad. This does not mean that I don't like some of the worst listed. This is to indicate taht the films here either desereve the title now that time has passed or not.

The Best

1. Casablanca

2. Lawrence of Arabia

3. The Bridge on The River Kwai

4. Unforgiven

5. West Side Story

6. Annie Hall

7. All Quiet On The Western Front

 

The Worst

1. The Greatest Show On Earth

2. Around The World in 80 Days

3. My Fair Lady

4. Rain Man

5. Forrest Gump

Sean opines...

Paul Thomas Anderson is a director I rarely find fault with. His films Boogie Nights (one of my top 100 of all time) and Magnolia are two that I regularly visit and many of this flawed attempts like Hard Eight and Punch Drunk Love still are full of great moments.  That is why his attempt at the great American epic is painful to call a failure.

There Will Be Blood is an attempt to emulate Citizen Kane and The Godfather in so many ways. A strong male figure of notable success is the center of the film. Most of the man's life is taken on during the course of the film.  All have strained relationships with their sons.  Family does not necessarily mean kin. A preoccupation with greed over family is paramount to the direction of the man's life.  Citizen Kane succeeded because it truly was the first grand attempt and it has been emulated by all that followed. The Godfather, although not a favorite of mine, is a sage that led to devotion of billions around the world. There Will Be Blood collapses under the maniacal nature of its main character Daniel Plainview and the absurdity of the script's attempt to parallel the rise of Daniel and that of Eli Sunday (Paul Dano).  It is the battle of absolute corruption that noone wants to watch. You feel no sympathy for the character Daniel Day-Lewis commits to absolutely here.  Daniel's pure evil and insanity ultimately leaves the audience unenthused for the character's progression.  The famous scene of Lewis screaming about drinking Eli's milkshake just becomes laughable and puzzling - which is what a viewer walks away with. I would rather hear Kelis sing her famous song instead!

The film also is flawed in its pacing and attempts to move the story forward even in frame. I basically felt that I was watching the a documentary on how oil is drilled. The move begins with Daniel Plainview mining. No narrative hook, just a boring view of how to mine. This continues throughout. Sometimes it catches your interest but editing should have focused more on story and not on the how to. The score is a total failure. The score just made the film plod even in scenes! the cinematographer tried so hard to make this film visually stunning, but the score, script and director basically framed a scope that was dull.  I found myself leaving the theatre wondering why my director went wrong?

This is not a fun or interesting film to watch in my review. Daniel Day-Lewis' (a phenomenal actor) performance will be the Rain Man of our age if he wins the Oscar... lampooned more for its absurdity then his talent.  All and all 2 and 1/2 hours I wish I had back.

Sean opines...

Joel and Ethan Coen are one of the best director/writer teams ever. Their films have become ones that everyone remembers even though not always universally celebrated. Raising Arizona caught my attention first. "Son, you got a panty on your head." and "Now you take that diaper off your head and you put it back on your sister!" are quotes I regularly have walk through my mind on occasion because of that fun trip the bizarre mind of these two brothers created. Fargo was the next. Frances McDormand (Joel's wife) captured the attention of America in the bloody yet quirky film. Her "Thanks a bunch" is a staple in my day to day life. And I just caught O' Brother Where Art Thou? the other night, which was a pleasant surprise. Always the right amount of dark humor and brilliant cinematography from mainly Roger Deakins.  So why did I not like No Country For Old Men as much?

No Country For Old Men is a simple story about a man (Josh Brolin, in a great performance) who finds money in the desert and the clean up man who wants it back on principle. A modern western that pulls no punches when its time to kill and attempts to work off the addage that times have changed and with it the way and vigiliance of crime.  In a mixture of spaghetti and Sam Peckinpah westerns and Igmar Bergman reflection, No Country For Old Men pays homage to the Coen brothers inspiration.  They personify evil in Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem).  Bardem quietly and methodically walks and murders through this film with perfection. A villain for the ages, down from heaven almost to wreak God's vegeance or Hell reclaiming its lost souls. The first coin flip scene is a classic. No conscience only signs from God as to who deseves mercy and who deserves death are his leading indicators.  A performance worthy of honor. But does the movie deliver the entire goods? No.

The weakness of the film is the ruminations of the Tommy Lee Jones character, the sheriff of the county that all the violence began.  He stands back and observes the action from afar, relating his sage maturity and in the end abandoning the fight because it is too intense for his old sensibilities. Granted the expectation at a much more interesting ending led to the disappointment; but, the ending given just is unitelligible.  The film plugs along though only to be killed in the last 4 minutes that caused the audience I saw it with to audibly say "WHAT???"  It might deserve a second viewing but the mystery is gone and from what I can gather I am not alone in my anger with the chosen finish. In addition, the editing of the film allows for drama to unfold but in some areas it seems to linger to long and bore the viewer.  Am I being to critical? Sure!  Did I have expectations? Of course! But what I received was a film that is 4/5ths great with the last 1/5th spoiling the whole barrel.

Ultimately, this is a flawed film that just can't get me to like it.

Sean opines...

The legal thriller is something that has always intrigued us as movie goers. Since the 1970s legal thrillers have since added the threat of something larger than just an unknown killer after our villain. The villain now is the multi-national corporation, the government, or a criminal/lawyer network.  George Clooney's thriller places morally neutral lawyer Michael Clayton in a position where he has to look into his soul for a solution. One of his dear friends (an incredible and Oscar-nominated Tom Wilkinson) is going crazy so he can feel his own humanity. Clayton (Clooney) is realizing that his safety net of a side business and his victory over his own addiction to gambling are lost or being lost. His relationship with his son is deteriorating because of his own disinterest. It is this moment in time that fate has given him the choice to make it all go right. However, he is an anti-hero because his own self-preservation is what motivates him finally to take on the windmill and attempt to slay his dragons. But is this an original film worthy of celebration or a repeat of similar plots and situations?

Although a quality production technically, the story suffers again from deja vu. Haven't we seen this film in say The Firm and other screen adaptations of John Grisham novels?  Isn't this The Parallax View, The Star Chamber, and most recently A Civil Action? The film does not make the villain everyone around him or at least culpable accomplices like in most thrillers. The symbolic villain in Tilda Swinton's character is a flawed one to say the least, unworthy of past corporate villains.  In the end the film is quite predictable and not as suspenseful as others.

Worthy of a view, but one for the ages.

Sean opines...

Juno is one of those quirky teen comedies that has the sharp quotable dialog but also respects the decisions teenagers must make as they realize adulthood is around the corner. Juno MacGuff (Ellen Page) is a mature girl who in her race for it ends up getting pregnant after a one time sexual exploration with her friend and crush Paulie Bleeker (Michael Cera). She decides to have the baby and offer it up for adoption. Mark and Vanessa Loring (Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner) look like the best balance of a couple for her child so she arranges a contract with them. As the movie progresses she learns that life is hard and that love is not always possible, but in the end belief in yourself (no matter what the situation or judgment of others) trumps perfection. At least that is what I got out of it. 

 

Juno is a film that I could see my self watching over and over. It is the only one of the 2008 Best Picture nominees that I personally will be waiting for on DVD.  Sure the dialogue is fun but the heart of the film as well as the acting is top notch. The chemistry between Page and Cera really made me enjoy this film most of all. Like Atonement, this couple has a restrained romance. But this one works and is enjoyable because no matter what the hurdles these two remain hopeful in themselves. You know that they may not make it as a couple once the film is over but they will always have a fondness that is everlasting.  The two films that best sit side by side with this film are Say Anything..., Dazed and Confused, and Fast Times At Ridgemont High. The comparison here is that although quotable and visually memorable films, these teen comedies took note of the maturation of teens and their attempts at obtaining love with failure a likely result. But what does result are films that are entirely watchable.

The ensemble behind Page and Cera do add to the strength of this film as well. Allison Janney is the most quotable of them all. Garner and Bateman both give three dimensional performances that keep you on your toes when trying to figure out what the twist of the plot will be. J.K. Simmons does a great job as Juno's Dad. All the adults show Juno that life is complicated in their own way and nothing is perfect no matter how you make it. To a humorous degree the scene that best explains that to me at least is the exchange between Janney and Page on why they don't have a dog even though Janney's character is obsessed with them.  

Stefan and I encourage you heartily to check out this enjoyable little film that could and let us know what you think!  

Sean says...

As many of my long time friends and family know, I am a film addict.  And maybe foolishly I am doubly an Academy Awards addict.  Some hate the pageantry and the idea of choosing a "winner," but I enjoy it for what it is supposed to be - a celebration of film. They don't always get the "winners" correct, but in the long run people debate and find their favorites when they might not have found one before. Sure the whole process is getting old and the distribution of film in theatres is quickly being surpassed (or has been surpassed for a while) by home DVD viewing, on demand services on-line, or on your cable provider, and download. But to me the power of watching a film in a theatre is an amazing experience...cue creepy clip from Sunset Boulevard!

 

Now, five films have been selected from 2007 for the coveted and infamous Best Picture prize. I am not going to make a prediction here like I usually do because predictions this year for me have pretty much gone down in flames. And many of you will read this way after the prize is announced so why not focus on the film rather than the prize. So here is my take on all five (YES! I did get to see all five this year!) and a few samples of what each one has to offer. The next subsequent blog entries will capture my thoughts on each. Believe it or not I managed to personally see all five during the week of Feb 17 - 23, 2008!  Stefan saw two - Juno and Michael Clayton with me, the others just didn't catch his interest. Separate entries have been made to brake up my opinions so it is easier to read and manage by you.

The nominees are...

Atonement

Juno

Michael Clayton

No Country For Old Men

There Will Be Blood

Sean says...

The year is coming to a close soon and I realized that I have not really seen a lot a movies at the theatre multiplex that were new releases! I know you all are shocked since many of you know me as "movie man" and refuse to play Scene It with me even though you bought for me as a gift!  What only got me to the movies so far this year were some old movie revivals that Stefan and I made as date nights, The Bourne Ultimatum (awesome!), and Eastern Promises (which I saw an early screening of thanks to a friend).  So the importance of me seeing this movie, Into The Wild, this year takes on a new meaning. That new meaning is that plunked down money to see a new film in 2007. So here is my review. Please note that I have also sprinkled links to reviews of other outlets for your perusal so as not to make mine the last opinion... although its should (raised eyebrow and smirk).

Into The Wild was a book about Christopher McCandless, a disallusioned college student from Annandale, VA (near my own "home town") with a bright future. Somehow or in some way Christopher became so angry at

what he had experienced in life with his dysfuntional careerist parents that he decided to abandon it all and head out on the road in 1990 with a changed name and his own wits.  As he journeyed, the newly christened Alexander Supertramp journalled his adventures.  This became the inspiration for the best selling novel Into The Wild assembled by Jon Krakauer (expanded from his intial article in Outside magazine). The film by director (not actor) Sean Penn expands on this novel and creates a mesmerizing film that seemingly christens Alexander Supertramp as a doomed sage who inspired those he met, accomplished things most of us would never try, but foolishly thought he could beat nature and escape civilization just by willing it. 

As crazy as it sounds, the novel and the book are seemingly a tome on our own journeys and how we manage to survive the pretension of society. I found myself questioning my own being as I watched and exited the film. Why do we have to perpetuate a society surrounded by capitalism and acquisiton of wealth?  Why do we have to limit what we accomplish in this life to what society expects?  For me I think in the end it comes down to how we each choose to survive in the world and no way is bad as long as you are true to yourself and your beliefs.  I know I am guilty of hurting someone, causing others distrest, gluttony, and ambition.  But I also attempting to find solace, enthusiasm, and carniverous curiosity in my own idea of how God is watching over me, the reverence to Him, protecting my new and building life and eventual family with Stefan, and my passion for finding out more about what is out there in the world. "Oh the places you'll go" Dr Seuss said is certainly something that is always in my mind. I think though that as always I, and for that matter we, are a work in progress with a lot of baggage and clutter still sticking to us like lint. Now I just have to figure how to get rid of it myself!  I know that is why I have taken two great journeys in my life, to Montana in 1996 and French Polynesia in 2006.  

Wow this movie really did cling to me!  Sorry folks for the self-searching moment there!  I will try and return to my normal pretension in later blog entries!  Now back to the film review...

I am not giving anything away by saying that Christopher McCandless, aka Alexander Supertramp, is found dead in the Alaskan wilderness after 4 months of surviving alone.  Knowing this detail just adds to the motion of the film and the effect he has on people as he travels the roads, mainly in the western part of the USA. It is this road less travelled thought and my remembrance of another novel, Blue Highways: A Journey Into America by William Least Heat-Moon, that kept me captivated to Alexander Supertramp's experience.  What went wrong? How did he get there? Who touched him? Was he insane? Was he set on self-destruction? We will never know the answers to some of these but isn't that what a story should do to us - think? 

I won't give all what happens away here but Penn does a brilliant job with his perspective as a director and his somewhat socialist screenplay quill. The best way I can explain the use of "socialist" here is to only point to Penn's personal opinions about government and society.  There is a thumbing of a nose somewhere in here but it is truly subtle but you can't really encaspulate it in one example. Adding to the experience of this film is the talents of Eric Gautier's cinematography.  Gautier adds the visual story to Penn, original novelist Krakauer, and Alexander Supertramp here.  This is cinema vertie style in a way we haven't seen since the emerging thought pieces of the early 1970s.  The visuals though are added by Eddie Vedder's brilliant audio.  It is as if  Vedder mined the thoughts of our "hero" and projected a strained anger on screen as we watched the Supertramp journey. If any thing the film should be watched for its blending of these truly great artists together. But we have to have actors acting out our actions and we have some subtly amazing ones here.

Our Alexander Supertramp is brought back from the dead in Emile Hirsch. If you don't beleive him as the angered 20-something who wants to escape the film wouldn't be great in its movement. Hirsch makes a great splash. You can see his anger underneath as he expels advice and counsel to others on his journey. There is a subtle boil in Hirsch that has you understand perhaps why McCandless made the choices he did. And that is why the film in totality is making my top 5 for the year.  The scene that points this out most to me was his determination to kayak the Colorado River. He is told he has to pay in order to experience somethign that he feels should be free, so he figure out a way to do it and escape the USA to Mexico. The ferocity of Hirsch's presence in that kayak here is truly some great acting since its only stunt work the actor did himself. You see his anger, you see his release, you see his escape here with the aid of Penn's vision and Gautier's visual capture.

Of the actors that pop up in roles along the way, I must mention the most affecting.  I can attest that I am not a big crier at films, but Hal Holbrook made me. His role as a widowed leather maker, although small and late in the film, made me drip real tears down these rosey cheeks in public.  I will be rooting for him most of all at Oscar time.  Catherine Keener is the other soul that moved me. Her hippie haunted by life's baggage and her own detachment from the character's own son allows Hirsch's Supertramp to find a mother to comfort that he fines worthy of love unlike his own anger about his.  Keener is always a fun subtle performer who sneaks up on you in movies. Her talent is worth your time here.

Whew! Well I don't think there is much else I can say here. I think you can tell I loved the film Into The Wild and recommend it highly. I hope you will too. But also allow it to be a moment of escape for you own mind so you too can find someway of finding yourself as Chris McCandless did.