3/8/13
Join us on Facebook
We have closed this blog in favor of our facebook group. Please join us! https://www.facebook.com/cinemacram
4/10/12
Film 45: 8 1/2 (1963)
From Wikipedia: As with most Italian films of this period, the sound was entirely dubbed in afterward; following a technique dear to Fellini, many lines of the dialogue were written only during post production, while the actors on the set mouthed random lines. This film marks the first time that actress Claudia Cardinale was allowed to dub her own dialogue – previously her voice was thought to be too throaty and, coupled with her Tunisian accent, was considered undesirable.
Film Viewing Due Date: 4/20/12
Dr. No Review
girl by locker says: I am ashamed to admit, but Dr. No is the first Bond film I saw starring someone other than Pierce Brosnan or Daniel Craig. I understand why critics view Sean Connery as the ultimate James Bond. Handsome, dashing and witty coupled with a Scottish accent and yet, at times, vulnerable. You can’t go wrong with that combination.
Dr. No is the first of the Bond films to make it to the big screen, and in it we see the Bond formulas we would come to know and love in the years to come – a suave, womanizing spy sent it to get the bad guy and win the girl. He wears a tux, drinks martinis and seduces the women. In comparison to the more explosive Bond films to come (and, as a disclaimer, all the ones I have seen are more modern) Dr. No is sweet and somewhat barebones. Of course, the movie is 50 years old, but the fight scenes lack a punch and the car chase scene is pretty straightforward. They pull behind some trees and the bad guys speed on.
One of the highlights of the movie is the first Bond girl. When Ursula Andress steps out of the ocean as Honey Ryder, it is obvious that every other Bond girl will have to compete with her the way the Bond characters have to compete with Sean Connery. She is smoking hot and combines a damsel in distress with strong character and fight. The modern Bond girls don’t even compare.
Though the movie is dated, I still enjoyed it. It’s a fun diversion and worth spending an afternoon watching, if only to see where all Bond films came from. I give it 4 out of 5 on Netflix.
Juror #3 says: Nothing like some good mindless entertainment. The first in the James Bond series, Dr. No proved riveting, certainly keeping my attention the entire way through. Whether it was a dangerous car chase, a pivotal fist fight, or Ursula Andress' legs, I found myself on the edge of my seat.
Dr. No is the first of the Bond films to make it to the big screen, and in it we see the Bond formulas we would come to know and love in the years to come – a suave, womanizing spy sent it to get the bad guy and win the girl. He wears a tux, drinks martinis and seduces the women. In comparison to the more explosive Bond films to come (and, as a disclaimer, all the ones I have seen are more modern) Dr. No is sweet and somewhat barebones. Of course, the movie is 50 years old, but the fight scenes lack a punch and the car chase scene is pretty straightforward. They pull behind some trees and the bad guys speed on.
One of the highlights of the movie is the first Bond girl. When Ursula Andress steps out of the ocean as Honey Ryder, it is obvious that every other Bond girl will have to compete with her the way the Bond characters have to compete with Sean Connery. She is smoking hot and combines a damsel in distress with strong character and fight. The modern Bond girls don’t even compare.
Though the movie is dated, I still enjoyed it. It’s a fun diversion and worth spending an afternoon watching, if only to see where all Bond films came from. I give it 4 out of 5 on Netflix.
Juror #3 says: Nothing like some good mindless entertainment. The first in the James Bond series, Dr. No proved riveting, certainly keeping my attention the entire way through. Whether it was a dangerous car chase, a pivotal fist fight, or Ursula Andress' legs, I found myself on the edge of my seat.
Sean Connery plays the role of a suave, yet deadly British Agent with the authority it demands. He takes a slightly different approach to Bond from what I've seen previously, which is to have 007 play on the naive side to bait his opponents. I'd love to compliment Ursula Andress on her acting as well, but I can't. However, it's unnecessary, she's clearly playing the role of prop. The villain, Dr. No is so intriguing that I really wanted more of his backstory shown visually.
In the end though that's not what Bond films do, neither is it what a Bond film needs to do. The story begs you to suspend your disbelief several times but whether it's because of the acting, or the way the film is cut, I had no problem letting things go and just enjoying the ride. Typically I bemoan films without a point, without a message. But there is always room for a good James Bond, and Dr. No is one of them. It is what it is, and because I was in the mood for it I'll rate it 4/5.
3/17/12
Film 44: Dr. No (1962)
Summary: James Bond's (Sean Connery) investigation of a missing colleague in Jamaica leads him to the island of the mysterious Dr. No and a scheme to end the US space program.
Film Viewing Due Date: 3/27/12
The Hustler Review
girl by locker says: The Hustler is a great movie. We follow the story of Fast Eddie Felson as he makes his way from Oakland, California to challenge Minnesota Fats (played by Jackie Gleason) in Ames, Iowa. Though the movie is technically a story about a young pool hustler trying to prove himself, the story is really more about character, about love, about money, about psychology, about winning and what it takes to win. Paul Newman, not unsurprisingly, is spectacular. Supposedly, The Hustler is the movie which catapulted him into the A-list Hollywood ranks.
The pool matches are not my favorite part of the movie. In the beginning we see Fast Eddie challenge Minnesota Fats to a game and they play for over a day. At one point, Fast Eddie is up $18,000 over Minnesota, but lack of character, greed and the need to prove what kind of man he is ultimately defeats him. Skill can only take him so far. And this sets the scene for the rest of the movie. This is Fast Eddie’s struggle.
What I really love are the scenes between Fast Eddie and Sarah Packard (played by Piper Laurie). They first meet in the bus station after Eddie’s defeat. A raging alcoholic supported by an absentee father, Sarah goes to school on Tuesday/Thursdays and drinks the other days. She is a sad, broken woman and Eddie, in his downfall, is a perfect match. She even says to him “Eddie, look, I've got troubles... and I think maybe you've got troubles. Maybe it'd be better if we just leave each other alone.” In their depraved way, they love one another. My absolute favorite scene in the movie is when Eddie and Sarah go on a picnic together.
Sarah Packard: I love you, Eddie.
Fast Eddie: You know, someday, Sarah, you're gonna settle down... you're gonna marry a college professor and you're gonna write a great book. Maybe about me. Huh? Fast Eddie Felson... hustler.
Sarah Packard: I love you.
Fast Eddie: You need the words?
You need the words? He says it after a pause, leaving you to wonder if he will say them at all. He knows he loves her yet also knows he may be incapable of it. He knows, somehow, he will be her demise. And he is. You always know that life isn’t going to turn out well for Sarah.
I could go on about Bert, Eddie’s “manager”, how he manipulates Eddie, how he manipulates Sarah. He knows what needs to be done to win and pits people against one another so he can get what he wants, but I will let you watch the movie to see for yourself.
One final note. I say this during every decade, but I am consistently surprised by how we progressively get more blatantly sexual in the movies. In this case, we see Eddie and Sarah after they obviously slept together. At one point, she even says to him “What'ya want me to do - just step out in the alley? Is that it?” It’s fascinating to me.
This is a time-less, must see movie. I give it 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix, deducting a point because it took me a while to get into the movie.
Juror #3 says: The Hustler was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, and I can't see a reason it shouldn't have been. The directing is so good I needed to log onto the IMDB to see what other movies Robert Rossen had directed. All the King's Men, enough said.
The pool matches are not my favorite part of the movie. In the beginning we see Fast Eddie challenge Minnesota Fats to a game and they play for over a day. At one point, Fast Eddie is up $18,000 over Minnesota, but lack of character, greed and the need to prove what kind of man he is ultimately defeats him. Skill can only take him so far. And this sets the scene for the rest of the movie. This is Fast Eddie’s struggle.
What I really love are the scenes between Fast Eddie and Sarah Packard (played by Piper Laurie). They first meet in the bus station after Eddie’s defeat. A raging alcoholic supported by an absentee father, Sarah goes to school on Tuesday/Thursdays and drinks the other days. She is a sad, broken woman and Eddie, in his downfall, is a perfect match. She even says to him “Eddie, look, I've got troubles... and I think maybe you've got troubles. Maybe it'd be better if we just leave each other alone.” In their depraved way, they love one another. My absolute favorite scene in the movie is when Eddie and Sarah go on a picnic together.
Sarah Packard: I love you, Eddie.
Fast Eddie: You know, someday, Sarah, you're gonna settle down... you're gonna marry a college professor and you're gonna write a great book. Maybe about me. Huh? Fast Eddie Felson... hustler.
Sarah Packard: I love you.
Fast Eddie: You need the words?
You need the words? He says it after a pause, leaving you to wonder if he will say them at all. He knows he loves her yet also knows he may be incapable of it. He knows, somehow, he will be her demise. And he is. You always know that life isn’t going to turn out well for Sarah.
I could go on about Bert, Eddie’s “manager”, how he manipulates Eddie, how he manipulates Sarah. He knows what needs to be done to win and pits people against one another so he can get what he wants, but I will let you watch the movie to see for yourself.
One final note. I say this during every decade, but I am consistently surprised by how we progressively get more blatantly sexual in the movies. In this case, we see Eddie and Sarah after they obviously slept together. At one point, she even says to him “What'ya want me to do - just step out in the alley? Is that it?” It’s fascinating to me.
This is a time-less, must see movie. I give it 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix, deducting a point because it took me a while to get into the movie.
Juror #3 says: The Hustler was nominated for 9 Academy Awards, and I can't see a reason it shouldn't have been. The directing is so good I needed to log onto the IMDB to see what other movies Robert Rossen had directed. All the King's Men, enough said.
The Cinematography was clearly imagined well before shooting. The script has some gems that made me laugh with jealousy. But the acting... is so damn good that it covers any of the film's blemishes up. Paul Newman gives a great performance, the kind we've come to expect. And Piper Laurie is fantastic as an insecure, down-on-her-luck cripple who has given up all hope while drinking herself into believing it's just the way things go. To me however, George C Scott gives the best performance of all as the heartless puppeteer of the gambling world. I know it's probably a sin to say someone acted better than Newman in any film, it doesn't happen often, but George C Scott pulls it off here. He just made you feel dirty without showing you the dirt. Not many people can portray a character with nothing other than swagger.
I wanted to give The Hustler 5 stars, I mean I really really wanted to. And when the dark ending appears (my kind of ending) I knew I would forgive a few of the areas I disliked. But the movie continues on, giving me more time to reflect, and ultimately reintroducing me to the one flaw I struggled to overcome. Namely, that this movie has three storylines, and only two really work well together. I felt like the love story aspect was so far removed from the points being made through the pool hall gambling, and the manager relationship that it seemed forced. As if it was written in to please a focus group. Now I'm not saying the love story isn't well done, it is. I could have watched that as a movie all unto itself. But it wasn't well integrated, and for that I rate the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
I wanted to give The Hustler 5 stars, I mean I really really wanted to. And when the dark ending appears (my kind of ending) I knew I would forgive a few of the areas I disliked. But the movie continues on, giving me more time to reflect, and ultimately reintroducing me to the one flaw I struggled to overcome. Namely, that this movie has three storylines, and only two really work well together. I felt like the love story aspect was so far removed from the points being made through the pool hall gambling, and the manager relationship that it seemed forced. As if it was written in to please a focus group. Now I'm not saying the love story isn't well done, it is. I could have watched that as a movie all unto itself. But it wasn't well integrated, and for that I rate the movie 4 out of 5 stars.
3/6/12
Film 43: The Hustler (1961)
Netflix Summary: Paul Newman scores as pool shark "Fast Eddie" Felson, who tours the country hustling games -- even challenging reigning champion Minnesota Fats (Jackie Gleason) -- in this brooding drama that explores the synergies between good and evil, love and desperation. The film won a pair of Oscars for its cinematography and art direction, while Newman and Gleason both earned Academy Award nominations for their performances. Piper Laurie co-stars.
The film was nominated for 9 Academy Awards.
LOVE this trailer
Film Viewing Due Date: 3/16/12
The film was nominated for 9 Academy Awards.
LOVE this trailer
Film Viewing Due Date: 3/16/12
Inherit the Wind Review
girl by locker says: In the first movie of our new decade, we watched Stanley Kramer’s Inherit the Wind. It is a riveting courtroom drama based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial and argues the sides of Darwinism vs. Creationism. One of the main points I walked away with is how the argument about evolution has evolved little over the past 87 years. Meaning, living in Georgia this debate comes up frequently though now Darwinism is the incumbent ideology and people want Creationism included in the school curriculum.
The main characters of the movie are Spencer Tracy (who portrays the real Clarence Darrow and argues in defense of Darwinism) and Matthew Harrison, portraying William Jennings Bryan (a 3-time presidential candidate arguing on behalf of Creationism). They are a dynamic duo and scenes between the two of them are electrifying. They make the movie. There are many monologues sharing ideas and points of view which was likely risky in 1960 and would be even riskier today. Audiences don’t have the attention span to listen to such rhetoric. However, the acting was so well done and eloquently delivered that it works.
My one complaint with the movie is that Stanley Kramer had an obvious agenda and set out to portray the Creationist side as a group of frothy, ignorant and rabid people while the Darwinist side is a group of calm intellectuals. While I support Darwinist ideas, it is my experience that reality is a bit more nuanced and it would have been nice to see it portrayed that way. That being said, I still give the movie 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix. The movie remains relevant and the acting is superb.
Juror #3 says: Over fifty years have passed since the movie Inherit the Wind was filmed. Based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial over the teaching of Darwinism in public schools, the topic is as relevant today as it was in 1960, although I believe the conversation has “evolved” over time – please excuse the pun.
There is one indisputable fact in Inherit the Wind, and that is concerning Spencer Tracy’s performance as the defense attorney Henry Drummond, which is understatedly brilliant. Fredric March plays the prosecuting attorney Matthew Harrison Brady. He does a solid job creating a caricature but next to Spencer Tracy’s performance it leans into the absurd. In my opinion Gene Kelly gives the second-best performance as the biting newspaperman.
The story is as you would expect, with the small-town religious people fearful of evolution dismissing religion, verse the big-city men wanting to open the masses' minds. There is a nice twist at the end, which I thought tied things up nicely without hammering the audience over the head with any further points.
A negative was the directing, which I found uninspired. I actually found myself a bit bored during some of the courtroom scenes, which I’ll blame on the Director seeing as though the script was solid for the most part.
I think watching this movie in 1960 would have probably blown me away, but, again, as I think the conversation on the topic is a bit different today, it lacked the impact I was expecting. I would love to see Spencer Tracy and Fredric March debate scientific fact verse theory verse religious faith verse psychology of human understanding. Hmmm, will that last sentence remain valid in forty years? If history can be used as a guide the answer is yes.
I give Inherit the Wind 3/5 stars, although Spencer Tracy almost forced it into a 4 based on his performance alone.
The main characters of the movie are Spencer Tracy (who portrays the real Clarence Darrow and argues in defense of Darwinism) and Matthew Harrison, portraying William Jennings Bryan (a 3-time presidential candidate arguing on behalf of Creationism). They are a dynamic duo and scenes between the two of them are electrifying. They make the movie. There are many monologues sharing ideas and points of view which was likely risky in 1960 and would be even riskier today. Audiences don’t have the attention span to listen to such rhetoric. However, the acting was so well done and eloquently delivered that it works.
My one complaint with the movie is that Stanley Kramer had an obvious agenda and set out to portray the Creationist side as a group of frothy, ignorant and rabid people while the Darwinist side is a group of calm intellectuals. While I support Darwinist ideas, it is my experience that reality is a bit more nuanced and it would have been nice to see it portrayed that way. That being said, I still give the movie 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix. The movie remains relevant and the acting is superb.
Juror #3 says: Over fifty years have passed since the movie Inherit the Wind was filmed. Based on the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial over the teaching of Darwinism in public schools, the topic is as relevant today as it was in 1960, although I believe the conversation has “evolved” over time – please excuse the pun.
There is one indisputable fact in Inherit the Wind, and that is concerning Spencer Tracy’s performance as the defense attorney Henry Drummond, which is understatedly brilliant. Fredric March plays the prosecuting attorney Matthew Harrison Brady. He does a solid job creating a caricature but next to Spencer Tracy’s performance it leans into the absurd. In my opinion Gene Kelly gives the second-best performance as the biting newspaperman.
The story is as you would expect, with the small-town religious people fearful of evolution dismissing religion, verse the big-city men wanting to open the masses' minds. There is a nice twist at the end, which I thought tied things up nicely without hammering the audience over the head with any further points.
A negative was the directing, which I found uninspired. I actually found myself a bit bored during some of the courtroom scenes, which I’ll blame on the Director seeing as though the script was solid for the most part.
I think watching this movie in 1960 would have probably blown me away, but, again, as I think the conversation on the topic is a bit different today, it lacked the impact I was expecting. I would love to see Spencer Tracy and Fredric March debate scientific fact verse theory verse religious faith verse psychology of human understanding. Hmmm, will that last sentence remain valid in forty years? If history can be used as a guide the answer is yes.
I give Inherit the Wind 3/5 stars, although Spencer Tracy almost forced it into a 4 based on his performance alone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
