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.
2/21/12
Film 42: Inherit the Wind (1960)
Film Viewing Due Date: 3/2/12
400 Blows Review
girl by locker says: Our 1959 movie is The 400 Blows, a French movie by Francois Truffaut. It is his first feature film (at the age of 27) and many hail the movie as a classic masterpiece and the founding film of the French New Wave (whatever that means). We follow a boy in his early teens, Antoine, growing up in Paris with a mother and stepfather who don’t pay much attention to him. Misunderstood and labeled a troublemaker, Antoine is in on the precipice of a life of crime and we follow this throughout the whole movie.
The 400 Blows is a beautiful movie. Incredibly well-shot, touching and poignant. For that it should be watched. However, it isn’t a movie I loved, and I didn’t connect with it. It is my opinion that this is more of a guy’s movie – and not the blow ‘em up, shoot ‘em up, car chase kind of guy’s movie. Rather, the angst, the misunderstanding, the lies, the isolation, though universal, felt more in the spirit of a young boy that I had a hard time relating to. Most of the time, I didn’t understand why he didn’t try to explain the misunderstandings more.
Though not loving the movie, I still give it 4 out of 5 stars on Netflix. Why? Because of how the movie ends. Antoine ends up in the hands of social services because his parents willingly hand him over to the system. There is a scene in which Antoine is speaking with his therapist, talking about how he feels and what has happened to him over the years. It was a gut-wrenching, raw scene that was unbelievably powerful. It made the rest of the movie make sense to me, the skin stand up on my arms and bring tears to my eyes. In the extras on the DVD, I saw that this scene was completely improvisational. Truffaut gave the young actor (Jean-Pierre Leaud) some guidance. That scene made the movie for me.
Juror #3 says: The decision over which movie to watch for 1959 was between Sunset Boulevard and The 400 Blows. I had seen both movie already and liked them equally, although they are very different types of films. girl by locker had seen neither and was unavailable to discuss so I made an executive decision - I chose 400 Blows. Truffault has directed several of my favorite films, Jules and Jim being near the top with 400 Blows just steps behind. He is masterful with the camera, allowing it to act as an extension of his imagination in ways I've seldom recognized in others. 400 Blows is a semi-autobiographical film for Truffault, who co-wrote the film. The story follows Antoine, a twelve year old boy attending school in Paris and dealing with dysfunctional parents. He is led to mischief by a friend and shows a strong lack of concern over consequence. He has used up all his parents patience and is eventually sent to a juvenile facility where he performs a daring escape resulting in one of the most famous, and extremely long tracking shots of all-time. The meaning of the film's end is up for discussion but its profound nature is not. To me the screenplay is average at best. But directing doesn't get any better. Truffault is a true master and anyone wishing to understand the patience associated with the New Wave movement should get their hands on his work. I should mention that the DVD contains some fantastic interviews with Truffault which lend fantastic insight into the mind of a passionate movie lover. A man who watched over 3,000 films by age 35 and was an influential film critic by age 20. There are too many great moments in this film not to rate it highly. I give it 4/5 stars on Netflix.
10/12/11
Film 41: The 400 Blows (1959)
Film Viewing Due Date: 10/22
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof Review
Juror #3 says: Talk about acting! Cat on a Hot Tin Roof has performances to remember. Paul Newman gives, in my opinion, the best performance of his career. Elizabeth Taylor? Amazing in a truly difficult role. Burt Ives as "Big Daddy"? He lit up every scene he was in. The script is adapted from Tennessee Williams stage play of the same name, and what a script it is. Cutting dialogue, realistic characters and relatable content. It's a truly remarkable piece of art that can create such well rounded characters, I mean, you like and dislike all of them. They are as human as it gets. The only reason I'm not giving this movie 5/5 stars is because I can't help but want to watch a play on the stage and a film on TV. I couldn't get out of my head what an amazing theater (stage) experience this would have made. I know, that's not fair but life isn't fair...something I think Tennessee Williams would agree with me on. I rate it a truly enjoyable 4/5 stars.
girl by locker says: I had the pleasure of watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof on the big screen at the historic Fox Theater in Atlanta, GA. It truly knocked my socks off. Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor in their big screen glory is truly a sight to behold. Wow.
The movie is based on Tennessee Williams’ play by the same name and basically centers around a southern family and their dying patriarch, Big Daddy Pollitt. Paul Newman plays Brick, Big Daddy’s favorite son and Elizabeth Taylor plays Maggie, Brick’s wife. The family gathers for Big Daddy’s birthday and the themes revolve around greed (trying to get Big Daddy’s money), lying (no one tells Big Daddy that he is dying), sex (Brick hasn’t been with his wife in a while), and alcoholism (the majority of the movie has Brick with a drink in hand). This is truly an actor’s film and the parts were perfectly cast. I now understand why Newman and Taylor are legends.
In the movie, Brick’s alcoholism revolves around the fact that he can’t stand “mendacity”, all the lying and hypocrisy of society and the suicide of his best friend Skipper. I read that the play focuses a lot more on the homosexual relationship between Skipper and Brick which explains why Brick isn’t interested in a sexual relationship with his wife, Maggie. For a lot of the movie, I was confused as to why there was this tension between Maggie and Brick which was later explained as Brick thinking Maggie slept with Skipper. Knowing what happened in the play made a lot more sense. The homosexuality was edited out due to Hollywood’s moral code and reportedly both Newman and Williams were upset about it.
Without a single reservation, I give this movie 5 out of 5 on Netflix. Part of it definitely had to do with the big screen experience and the energy of the people. How can it not be exciting when the theater cheers upon seeing Paul Newman shirtless? But it also had to do with the script, the story and the cast of actors. Highly recommend this film.
girl by locker says: I had the pleasure of watching Cat on a Hot Tin Roof on the big screen at the historic Fox Theater in Atlanta, GA. It truly knocked my socks off. Paul Newman and Elizabeth Taylor in their big screen glory is truly a sight to behold. Wow.
The movie is based on Tennessee Williams’ play by the same name and basically centers around a southern family and their dying patriarch, Big Daddy Pollitt. Paul Newman plays Brick, Big Daddy’s favorite son and Elizabeth Taylor plays Maggie, Brick’s wife. The family gathers for Big Daddy’s birthday and the themes revolve around greed (trying to get Big Daddy’s money), lying (no one tells Big Daddy that he is dying), sex (Brick hasn’t been with his wife in a while), and alcoholism (the majority of the movie has Brick with a drink in hand). This is truly an actor’s film and the parts were perfectly cast. I now understand why Newman and Taylor are legends.
In the movie, Brick’s alcoholism revolves around the fact that he can’t stand “mendacity”, all the lying and hypocrisy of society and the suicide of his best friend Skipper. I read that the play focuses a lot more on the homosexual relationship between Skipper and Brick which explains why Brick isn’t interested in a sexual relationship with his wife, Maggie. For a lot of the movie, I was confused as to why there was this tension between Maggie and Brick which was later explained as Brick thinking Maggie slept with Skipper. Knowing what happened in the play made a lot more sense. The homosexuality was edited out due to Hollywood’s moral code and reportedly both Newman and Williams were upset about it.
Without a single reservation, I give this movie 5 out of 5 on Netflix. Part of it definitely had to do with the big screen experience and the energy of the people. How can it not be exciting when the theater cheers upon seeing Paul Newman shirtless? But it also had to do with the script, the story and the cast of actors. Highly recommend this film.
9/20/11
Film 40: Cat on a Hot Tin Roof (1958)
Film Viewing Due Date: 9/30
12 Angry Men Review
girl by locker says: I was very interested in watching this movie being that my fellow Cinema Cram partner took his writing name from the film. It was obviously one that was dear to him, and I was curious to see why that was. I was not disappointed though still not sure whether Juror #3 took his name because he relates to the Juror #3 character from the movie or whether he just likes his transformation. Hands down, without a doubt, this movie is 5 out of 5 stars on my Netflix ratings.
What was so good about the movie? First, I loved that it wasn't a typical court room drama. Meaning, the movie starts at the end of the trial and then moves into a single room in which the 12 men must determine that fate of a boy accused of killing his father. We only learn and hear the details of the case via the conversations that the men have. The one hold out juror who votes "not guilty" in the first round isn't necessarily interested in proving innocence or guilt, but rather focuses on the fact that they are about to sentence a man to death and that it deserves a conversation. He begins to explore the notion of "reasonable doubt." In the end, we do not know whether the boy is guilty or innocent, but there is enough reasonable doubt that no one feels confident sending him to his death.
The second aspect that I loved about this movie was the writing. I know the writing was solid because everything happened in a single room and I was riveted by the outcome. The writing helped build tension. But I don't just think it was the writing. I believe the visual aspect of the story helped create emotions in me though perhaps I didn't realize it at the time. I read that Sidney Lumet (the director) did a lot of work with the camera to help tell the story. In his book Making Movies he writes, "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." In the film's last shot, he observes, he used a wide-angle lens "to let us finally breathe."
This movie is definitely a classic and one that all should see. The dialogue, the arguments, the varying personalities treat us to a phenomenal movie but also give us insight into the a man's right to trial and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Juror #3 says: And we finally get to my namesake. Yes, I, Juror #3, took my name from Lee J Cobb's character in the classic film 12 Angry Men. I've seen this movie a half dozen times and I never cease wonderment at the absolutely brilliant script. The movie begins with the end of a trial, and 12 jurors deliberate as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. One juror, played by Henry Fonda, is the lone holdout who just isn't quite convinced and wants simply to talk things over before making his decision. The audience uncovers the facts of the case through the ensuing debate where slowly but surely doubt creeps into the minds of the other jurors and provides a thrilling debate between 12 men holding the life of an 18-year-old boy in their hands. The acting is superb in Sidney Lumet's directorial debut. Again, the script is genius and the dialogue witty, cutting and crisp. There is only one real issue that I had with the movie which is the fact that a man is supposed to be judged BEYOND a reasonable doubt, something that the movie sort of ignores. Then again that would probably ruin the entire premise, and the writing is too good to worry about reality. If you have yet to see this film please consider it the next time you're looking for can't-miss entertainment. Not a surprise I'm sure but I rate 12 Angry Men 5/5 stars on netflix.
What was so good about the movie? First, I loved that it wasn't a typical court room drama. Meaning, the movie starts at the end of the trial and then moves into a single room in which the 12 men must determine that fate of a boy accused of killing his father. We only learn and hear the details of the case via the conversations that the men have. The one hold out juror who votes "not guilty" in the first round isn't necessarily interested in proving innocence or guilt, but rather focuses on the fact that they are about to sentence a man to death and that it deserves a conversation. He begins to explore the notion of "reasonable doubt." In the end, we do not know whether the boy is guilty or innocent, but there is enough reasonable doubt that no one feels confident sending him to his death.
The second aspect that I loved about this movie was the writing. I know the writing was solid because everything happened in a single room and I was riveted by the outcome. The writing helped build tension. But I don't just think it was the writing. I believe the visual aspect of the story helped create emotions in me though perhaps I didn't realize it at the time. I read that Sidney Lumet (the director) did a lot of work with the camera to help tell the story. In his book Making Movies he writes, "I shot the first third of the movie above eye level, shot the second third at eye level and the last third from below eye level. In that way, toward the end the ceiling began to appear. Not only were the walls closing in, the ceiling was as well. The sense of increasing claustrophobia did a lot to raise the tension of the last part of the movie." In the film's last shot, he observes, he used a wide-angle lens "to let us finally breathe."
This movie is definitely a classic and one that all should see. The dialogue, the arguments, the varying personalities treat us to a phenomenal movie but also give us insight into the a man's right to trial and the right to be innocent until proven guilty.
Juror #3 says: And we finally get to my namesake. Yes, I, Juror #3, took my name from Lee J Cobb's character in the classic film 12 Angry Men. I've seen this movie a half dozen times and I never cease wonderment at the absolutely brilliant script. The movie begins with the end of a trial, and 12 jurors deliberate as to the guilt or innocence of the defendant. One juror, played by Henry Fonda, is the lone holdout who just isn't quite convinced and wants simply to talk things over before making his decision. The audience uncovers the facts of the case through the ensuing debate where slowly but surely doubt creeps into the minds of the other jurors and provides a thrilling debate between 12 men holding the life of an 18-year-old boy in their hands. The acting is superb in Sidney Lumet's directorial debut. Again, the script is genius and the dialogue witty, cutting and crisp. There is only one real issue that I had with the movie which is the fact that a man is supposed to be judged BEYOND a reasonable doubt, something that the movie sort of ignores. Then again that would probably ruin the entire premise, and the writing is too good to worry about reality. If you have yet to see this film please consider it the next time you're looking for can't-miss entertainment. Not a surprise I'm sure but I rate 12 Angry Men 5/5 stars on netflix.
7/31/11
Film 39: 12 Angry Men (1957)
From Wikipedia: The film was nominated for Academy Awards in the categories of Best Director, Best Picture, and Best Writing of Adapted Screenplay. It lost to the movie The Bridge on the River Kwai in all three categories.
Film Viewing Due Date: 8/10
Baby Doll Review
Juror #3 says: Well, that was a creepy movie. In a way I wish David Lynch had gotten a chance to take a stab at this screenplay first. I would have enjoyed a more surrealist view of this script I think. Where to begin... well, Baby Doll was originally a one-act play by Tennessee Williams, who then extended the plot into a feature screenplay. The story revolves around a middle-aged man who receives permission from the father of a young woman to marry her, under one condition - he must wait until she is 20 years old to have sex with her. A short time before the woman's 20th birthday we find out the married couple has fallen on hard financial times and its causing a rift between the two. The man will do anything to reach his goal of "having the woman" and commits a crime in order to gain financially and thus keep the young woman happy enough to fulfill her promise. The creepy part of the film isn't necessarily the age discrepancy between the married couple, instead it's in the child-like nature of the woman, who is first seen sucking her thumb as she sleeps in a crib in a nursery of an old house. On one hand the story can be seen as a coming of age for "Baby Doll" as the young woman is affectionately referred to. But in the end you get the feeling that she came of age a long time ago but psychologically prefers to revert back to a more simple state. There is clearly a message here about gender roles and the way men treated women in this period but I'm not sure I completely got it. Overall the movie stuck with me though, and I attribute much of that to the solid acting. My biggest disappointment was that this was basically a stageplay being filmed and reminded me of some of the films we saw in the early forties, not something consistent with the evolution of filmmaking we had scene recently in the fifties. Overall I rate it 3/5 stars on Netflix. I applaud the effort to stretch the boundaries of societal acceptance but somehow it didn't fully work for me.
girl by locker says: Wow…and people thought the love scene between Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr was steamy in From Here to Eternity. In comparison to Baby Doll, From Here to Eternity was child’s play. Baby Doll is a story of a decomposing south at the end of the cotton heyday and a lovers triangle. In one corner we have Baby Doll (Carroll Baker) who is a young, married virgin who agrees to consummate her marriage when she turns 20 years old. In the other two corners, we have her husband Archie Lee (Karl Madden) a failing businessman struggling to keep his wife happy and Silva Vacarro (Eli Wallach) a Sicilian foreigner and current king of cotton in this sleepy southern town.
When Mr. Vacarro’s cotton gin ends burns down in a fire, there is one suspect (Archie Lee) and Vacarro heads to his gin in order to get proof. While Archie Lee spends the day trying to gin out the cotton, Mr. Vacarro seduces his wife Baby Doll. I am talking 30 solid minutes of raw, sexual attraction that must have shocked the viewers of the day. In fact, the Catholic Church banned the movie and probably excommunicated any of its parishioners that saw it.
The reality of the fact is, by today’s standards the movie is relatively mild – no nudity, not swearing, no visual acts of sex. However, I always find the suggestion of sex and romance much more revealing and the scenes between Mr. Vacarro and Baby Dollwere pretty stellar. In the end, you don’t know for sure whether or not they actually did the deed, but I think they did. Baby Doll goes from wearing white to black by the end of the movie and Mr. Vacarro comments on how he sees her different.
I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. Solid acting, solid script, solid directing – and much steamier than Burt and Deborah love scene.
girl by locker says: Wow…and people thought the love scene between Burt Lancaster and Deborah Kerr was steamy in From Here to Eternity. In comparison to Baby Doll, From Here to Eternity was child’s play. Baby Doll is a story of a decomposing south at the end of the cotton heyday and a lovers triangle. In one corner we have Baby Doll (Carroll Baker) who is a young, married virgin who agrees to consummate her marriage when she turns 20 years old. In the other two corners, we have her husband Archie Lee (Karl Madden) a failing businessman struggling to keep his wife happy and Silva Vacarro (Eli Wallach) a Sicilian foreigner and current king of cotton in this sleepy southern town.
When Mr. Vacarro’s cotton gin ends burns down in a fire, there is one suspect (Archie Lee) and Vacarro heads to his gin in order to get proof. While Archie Lee spends the day trying to gin out the cotton, Mr. Vacarro seduces his wife Baby Doll. I am talking 30 solid minutes of raw, sexual attraction that must have shocked the viewers of the day. In fact, the Catholic Church banned the movie and probably excommunicated any of its parishioners that saw it.
The reality of the fact is, by today’s standards the movie is relatively mild – no nudity, not swearing, no visual acts of sex. However, I always find the suggestion of sex and romance much more revealing and the scenes between Mr. Vacarro and Baby Dollwere pretty stellar. In the end, you don’t know for sure whether or not they actually did the deed, but I think they did. Baby Doll goes from wearing white to black by the end of the movie and Mr. Vacarro comments on how he sees her different.
I give this movie 5 out of 5 stars. Solid acting, solid script, solid directing – and much steamier than Burt and Deborah love scene.
7/18/11
Film 38: Baby Doll (1956)
From Wikipedia: The movie was banned in many countries, such as Sweden, due to what was called exaggerated sexual content. The film was also condemned by Time magazine, which called it the "dirtiest American-made motion picture that had ever been legally exhibited". Due in part to the attempts to have it banned or suppressed, the film was not a commercial success. Kazan reported that it never made a profit.
Film Viewing Due Date: 7/28
Rebel Without a Cause Review
girl by locker says: With a movie like Rebel Without a Cause, you really hope you’re not going to be disappointed. It is such a classic movie and one of the few James Dean movies made so you want it to be great, and I can assuredly say that I loved the movie. It had a different feel to movies we had seen prior to this one – different theme and more sophisticated script.
The major themes of the movie are the relationships between adults and their teenage children and the underbelly of 1950’s suburbia. Maybe the golden era of American life wasn’t quite as golden as people wanted it to be.
Jim Stark (James Dean) is the movie version of Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye and he is filled with classic emotions familiar to teens - confusion, angst, alienation, and rebellion. He has zero respect for his father, and there is an interesting scene in which Dean’s father tries to have a man-to-man talk with his son while wearing an apron obviously meant for a woman to wear, thus providing a view into 1950’s gender roles.
In keeping with the underbelly of 1950’s suburbia, we have Judy (Natalie Wood) who has a strange incestuous relationship with her father she desperately tries to please and Plato (Sal Mineo) with an obvious sexual attraction to Jim. Plato has been abandoned by his parents and looks to Jim as his father and friend but it is evident that he is in love with him as well. I have read that Nicholas Ray (the director) has denied the sexual attraction between Jim and Plato, but with modern eyes, I can’t see how that is possible.
Because, as I mentioned earlier, this movie had a different feeling from others in our cinema study, I give it 4 out of 5 on Netflix. I deduct points because the actors were prone to over-acting except for when it was necessary – like when Buzz goes over a cliff and dies. No one seems upset at all and everyone just runs away. Overall, this is definitely a must see for anyone interested in movies.
Juror #3 says: The first time I saw Rebel Without a Cause it was on the big screen at a local theater in NYC. I had never seen a James Dean film and remember my perception being that he was going to be a smooth, calm and cool character that every man would aspire to be. Instead we see a vulnerable, angry and confused teenager that I would have no interest in being. I walked out of the theater thinking how amazing it was to capture THE moment a teenager loses his innocence in a worldly way, and I loved what the film had done. Watching the movie for a second time was no less thrilling. To capture the teenage angst and confusion in a way that transcends time is a goal often sought and seldom achieved in art. If I wanted to be nit-picky I could focus on some flaws in the production, some poor directing and even a few lines of dialogue that seemed almost too generic to be real. But what makes Rebel Without a Cause an undisputed classic is the emotion it captures, and the feeling it portrays. Everything James Dean does in this role perfectly exemplifies the “puzzle with too many pieces” part of growing up. From his sad eyes to his insecure giggle, James Dean reminded me what highschool FELT like. There isn’t much more to say about Rebel Without a Cause except this: If you are looking for a film that anyone who was ever a teenager can relate to, this is the one. For that reason alone I rate it 5/5 stars on Netflix.
The major themes of the movie are the relationships between adults and their teenage children and the underbelly of 1950’s suburbia. Maybe the golden era of American life wasn’t quite as golden as people wanted it to be.
Jim Stark (James Dean) is the movie version of Holden Caulfield from Catcher in the Rye and he is filled with classic emotions familiar to teens - confusion, angst, alienation, and rebellion. He has zero respect for his father, and there is an interesting scene in which Dean’s father tries to have a man-to-man talk with his son while wearing an apron obviously meant for a woman to wear, thus providing a view into 1950’s gender roles.
In keeping with the underbelly of 1950’s suburbia, we have Judy (Natalie Wood) who has a strange incestuous relationship with her father she desperately tries to please and Plato (Sal Mineo) with an obvious sexual attraction to Jim. Plato has been abandoned by his parents and looks to Jim as his father and friend but it is evident that he is in love with him as well. I have read that Nicholas Ray (the director) has denied the sexual attraction between Jim and Plato, but with modern eyes, I can’t see how that is possible.
Because, as I mentioned earlier, this movie had a different feeling from others in our cinema study, I give it 4 out of 5 on Netflix. I deduct points because the actors were prone to over-acting except for when it was necessary – like when Buzz goes over a cliff and dies. No one seems upset at all and everyone just runs away. Overall, this is definitely a must see for anyone interested in movies.
Juror #3 says: The first time I saw Rebel Without a Cause it was on the big screen at a local theater in NYC. I had never seen a James Dean film and remember my perception being that he was going to be a smooth, calm and cool character that every man would aspire to be. Instead we see a vulnerable, angry and confused teenager that I would have no interest in being. I walked out of the theater thinking how amazing it was to capture THE moment a teenager loses his innocence in a worldly way, and I loved what the film had done. Watching the movie for a second time was no less thrilling. To capture the teenage angst and confusion in a way that transcends time is a goal often sought and seldom achieved in art. If I wanted to be nit-picky I could focus on some flaws in the production, some poor directing and even a few lines of dialogue that seemed almost too generic to be real. But what makes Rebel Without a Cause an undisputed classic is the emotion it captures, and the feeling it portrays. Everything James Dean does in this role perfectly exemplifies the “puzzle with too many pieces” part of growing up. From his sad eyes to his insecure giggle, James Dean reminded me what highschool FELT like. There isn’t much more to say about Rebel Without a Cause except this: If you are looking for a film that anyone who was ever a teenager can relate to, this is the one. For that reason alone I rate it 5/5 stars on Netflix.
6/18/11
Film 37: Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
Film Viewing Due Date: 6/30
La Strada Review
girl by locker says: I wanted to like this movie a lot more than I did. It is a Fellini film, after all, and he is one of the masters of cinema. But I didn’t really, if I’m honest with myself. Maybe I was in a bad mood or too tired when I started watching it, but it just kind of rubbed me the wrong way and, at times, I was bored.
La Strada is a journey movie combined with a love story and aside from Gelsomina (Giulietta Masina), the young girl Zampano (Anthony Quinn) buys from her mother to be his sidekick, none of the characters have any redeemable qualities. In fact, Gelsomina was the bright point of the movie for me – not because she was the one likable character but also because of her Chaplinesque performance that brought me back to the 1920’s of Cinema Cram. Masina did a great job with the role and really caught our hearts with her naiveté and innocence.
Anthony Quinn actually did a great job with his performance as well, but I had a hard time relating to his brutish behavior or feeling any emotion for him at the end when he realizes he loved Gelsomina. The final scene is Zampano sitting by the ocean, old, alone and drunk left to reflect on the choices of his life. It was a powerful image, and one of the reasons I see why people call Fellini a master. However, I couldn’t help but think that Zampano had choices and he screwed it all up. He ended up where he was because of his own actions and, movie or not, I have a hard time with that quality in people.
All that being said, I still give the movie 3/5 on Netflix, and I would like to see more Fellini movies. His movie was beautiful and artistic and would like to see more before I officially decide I’m not a fan of his work.
Juror #3 says: This is my second time watching La Strada. I'm glad I watched it again because I enjoyed it more this time. I'm a fan of the "European style" of film and appreciate the method of placing the camera in locations to observe rather than lead the audience or assist with telling the story. In doing so, each scene becomes a canvas and Fellini is masterful at painting gritty, bitter images. I thought Anthony Quinn (Zampano) did a terrific job portraying the hardened traveling strongman. Giulietta Masina (Gelsomina) had the puppy dog eyes that bring sorrow, but at times she annoyed me when apparently channeling her inner Charlie Chaplin. None-the-less, you feel for this quirky character - who I occassionaly wondered whether she was mentally handicapped.
I was completely engaged in this film but two things turned me off: 1) I would have preferred to have seen what happened to Gelsomina as opposed to being told, and, 2) I didn't understand the ending exactly. I enjoy thoughtful and challenging films but I can't say I completely got this one. And if the ending signified an enlightenment for Zampano then I don't buy it. I originally rated the film 3/5 stars on Netflix and although I would raise it half a star if I could, I'll keep my rating as is. 3/5.
6/2/11
Film 36: La Strada (1954)
From Wikipedia: Bob Dylan cites La Strada as an influence for the song "Mr. Tambourine Man"
Kris Kristofferson has said that La Strada was an inspiration for the song "Me and Bobby McGee", which is heard in the road movie Two-Lane Blacktop.
Film Viewing Due Date: 6/14
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
