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
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)
