2 Week Review

Movies that have Made Me Cry: Never Let Me Go
Favorite Movie so far: Pulp Fiction
Worst Movie so far: Pirates of the Caribbean On Stranger Tides
20th Century : 21st Century: 6 : 4
Movies I have Fallen Asleep in because I am Stupid and Watch Them Late at Night: Camelot, Vertigo
Movies I have Seen in Theaters: Bridesmaids, Pirates of the Caribbean on Stranger Tides
Netflix DVDs: 2
Netflix Instant: 0
Owned/Borrowed DVDs: 6

tbc.

Charade (1963)

directed by Stanley Donen

starring Audrey Hepburn, Carey Grant

It's not a Hitchcock movie, but it certainly feels like one. Here Carey Grant and Audrey Hepburn use a spy plot as an excuse to wittily banter and have espionage-related fun. It's quite good: the writing is quick, the murders keep things interesting, and the leads are lovely to watch. I can even overlook my Audrey Hepburn grudge to enjoy her performance; her Cloud Cuckoo Lander is quite fun. (It was also quite fun to try to explain that term to my mother as we were watching.) And, of course, I can never get enough of my dear cousin Archie Leach.

I'm not dying to watch it again, but it's certainly a romp that knows what it's doing and does it well. It's a good thing to see all of these classic movies and the combinations of leads that result - Carey Grant, Grace Kelly, James Stewart, Katharine and/or Audrey Hepburn - rinse and repeat. It makes you wonder which names will be saved and revered from our generations.

I'm afraid I can't think of a great deal more to say - and no, it's not because I have half an hour until my self-imposed deadline and I've already written two of these today. (Does it count as procrastination if it's not an assignment?) Charade is a light movie, and my review will be the same. It's good fun - not much to think about, but a great deal to watch and enjoy.

Coming Soon: The Godfather Part II, Dial M for Murder, Hamlet, Saving Private Ryan

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (2011)

directed by Rob Marshall

starring Johnny Depp, Penelope Cruz, Geoffrey Rush

It wasn't as bad as it could have been, I guess. Still, I couldn't help but feel that some of the life was missing from this one. The writers were the same, but the writing was inferior. The pacing wasn't as tight and the plot wasn't as convincing. The returning characters felt somehow dishonest; it was like the actors were imitating their former performances, not playing the characters. The new characters, meanwhile, simply didn't sell.

Penelope Cruz's character redeemed herself by not being desperately in love with Sparrow, but the love was still there, so that was somewhat annoying. At least his 'stirrings' remained mostly out-of-focus, lest she derail into full Mary Sue. Her she-pirate persona was...well, I was going to say interesting, but it wasn't. Cruz is a good actress, and she did a fine job, but there just wasn't much there. By the time she revealed her double-lie about being Blackbeard's daughter I didn't really care enough to keep track. (Not to mention, Jack's amazement at her 'lying by telling the truth' trick would have been better suited for a prequel, considering his masterfully entertaining execution of the same strategy in the first film.) I kind of liked that she was a former-almost-nun, at any rate. It was kind of amusing.

There were times that I laughed, and there were times that I was entertained, but most of these moments involved members of the original cast playing off relationships developed long ago. I kept expecting Will to appear in an alleyway or Norrington to wash up from some Royal ship. Mostly, I was wishing I was watching the first movie, or even the third.

I liked the pretty missionary boy as much as I needed to, I guess, but I was still overly amused by the ambiguity of his fate. His character was a sorry substitute for Orlando Bloom's. Also, the Jack-Sparrow-rejects-eternal-life plot was recycled from the most recent film (which itself borrowed a similar theme from the first,) and the final words of the movie were particularly grating. ("It's a pirate's life for me!" Really?) Oh, and while I'm venting, the Spanish dragged down the plot without introducing any substantial characters. Then again, maybe it was for the best that they kept the new characters to a minimum. Then again, I doubt they could have been worse than the missionary-mermaid couple.

Anyway - the film wasn't all bad, but the moments that were good just reminded me of earlier films. Angelica and Jack's swordfight? Will and Jack's from CotBP. Jack/Gibbs/Barbossa banter? Any of the first three, take your pick. Epic ship-to-ship/pirate-vs.-pirate combat? Oh, there wasn't really any. Sigh.

I tried to avoid being the They Changed It Now It Sucks person, but it's not that it sucked - it just wasn't nearly as good as the earlier films. It didn't even anger me or disappoint me. I'm pretty sure I'll just forget about it and go watch the original again - even if Disney won't forget the franchise, as long as Johnny Depp is around to insure those opening weekend totals.

Coming Soon: Charade, The Godfather Part II, Dial M for Murder, Hamlet

Vertigo (1958)

directed by Alfred Hitckcock

starring James Stewart, Kim Novak, Barbara Bel Geddes

Hitchcock's Masterpiece!, the DVD box proclaims. I've always heard that this film was the director's best, if not one of the best movies of all time. But while Vertigo was good, I can't say I enjoyed it more than North by Northwest or even Rear Window.

The most interesting aspect of the movie is the disturbing undercurrent - unlike many other Hitchcocks, there isn't a happy ending. The protagonist's motivations and actions grow more and more questionable as the film progresses. The poor character of Midge appears only, apparently, to further the theme that nobody gets their happy ending.

I hadn't been spoiled for this movie, so the twist was a genuine surprise. I loved it; maybe because it caught me off guard, maybe because embraced the female character's perspective. Speaking of which - the abusive undercurrent provided the most disturbing moments in a movie that felt entirely off-kilter. "If I let you change me, will that do it? If I do what you tell me, will you love me?" And his recurring cry, as he demanded that she change everything about herself: "It can't possibly matter to you." That, more than any murder, made me sick.

I almost expected the film to follow the violent conclusion it hinted at in the final moments - but alas, the movie is not quite as brave as the book. Still, it is a memorable tragedy, even if it remains less engrossing or iconic than other Hitchcock films.

Next up: Pirates of the Caribbean - On Stranger Tides, Charade, Dial M for Murder, Hamlet

Pulp Fiction (1994)

directed by Quentin Tarantino

starring John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson, Uma Thurman

I'm a bit behind, due to a pair of tornado threats. Oh well - as I warned before, life happens. I'll catch up this weekend.

In the spirit of not-getting-more-behind, I started Pulp Fiction just before midnight last night. That was an interesting decision.

Quentin Tarantino had always been built up as a master of violence and gore, and this was supposedly nowhere more apparent than in Pulp Fiction. I had seen Inglorious Basterds in theaters without suffering any damage, so I shouldn't have been as anxious as I was going into this movie. Nevertheless, I could feel myself winding up with the tension in each scene, expecting this to be the one with the exploding head, or something, or whatever everyone was getting so worked up about. Chalk it up to sleep deprivation.

I was pleasantly surprised when I finally realized that this movie was not the ridiculous gore-fest the moral guardians had made it out to be. That, or Hollywood has thoroughly desensitized me. I guess I don't really mind, either way.

Anyway: it's not that this movie isn't violent. It clearly is. Yet its violence is part of a continuing balance between tension and humor, one that is all the more absurd and riveting for the vast quantities of blood shed. The title itself reveals its irreverence; the movie is quite aware of its sensational plot. This film is less about reality or society, and more about fiction itself. So no, the language and the violence aren't Solemn Indicators of Our Time or Something. They're tools turned up to eleven.

The nonlinear timeline is fun, the characters are developed, memorable and brilliantly acted, and the writing is just good. Roger Ebert pointed out that the dialogue has its own agenda, establishing characters and asking questions and enjoying language - not the slave to plot it usually is. "The characters in 'Pulp Fiction' are always talking, and always interesting, funny, scary, or audacious," he writes. "This movie would work as an audio book."(As it almost did for me, nervous and looking away at 1 in the morning.)

Now that I've faced the prospect of exploding heads and have come up empty, I long to watch this movie again. The more I read reviews and analysis - as I usually do after seeing a new movie - the more I think of specific scenes and specific dialogue that I already miss.

Oh, and before we go, did anyone else notice that in this massive ensemble cast, the only significant female roles were wives or girlfriends of main characters? Anyone? No? I should just shut up about this already?

Sigh.

Coming Up: Vertigo, Dial M for Murder, Pirates of the Caribbean 4, Hamlet

Camelot (1967)

directed by Joshua Logan
starring Richard Harris, Vanessa Radgrave, Franco Nero

My first thought watching this was: I hope this was recognized for art direction.

Spoilers: it was.

If there's one thing this movie gets right, it's the design, costumes, and general scenery. This is one of the classic, big-budget, massive-multiplayer Hollywood musicals of the 1960s, and it does the genre well. From the first shot of the icy branches of the forest during Guenevre (Redgrave) and Arthur's (Harris) first meeting, to their final parting beneath the same darkened trees, this film is just plain pretty.

Well, there's one exception. You know how movies always parody the backlit, overly orange, vaguely smokey, excessively and unrealistically windy moments where a woman enters a room to find her love waiting?

The good stuff starts at about 0:45.

My poor grandparents. They love this movie, and I loved watching it with them, but I burst out laughing when that happened.

Clearly, cheese is something this film exercises, too. Richard Harris himself complained about the unnecessary amounts of eye make-up he was required to endure. (I was so thrilled to hear this. His eye shadow and eyeliner were legitimately distracting. It wasn't like that with the other actors, either. Did the make-up person have a vendetta against Harris, or something?) Still, Harris carries the film with his acting and provides a strong center for the mythic tale.

The real strength of the movie, however, remains the spectacle. The music is enchanting, though definitely inferior to the original production. Props to Vanessa Redgrave for providing her own vocals, unlike her costar Franco Nero. (Poor Nero can't really act, either. Was he just chosen for his looks? Certainly Hollywood could have dug someone up both capable and attractive.) Redgrave can't hold a candle to Julie Andrews, of course, but who can? At least she performed adequately for the role, unlike another actress who took one of Andrews' Broadway roles and did not do her own singing.

Okay, I'll go take my Julie Andrews fangirlism elsewhere. In closing: fun movie, probably would be a bit more fun on stage, and a good example of the 1960s Hollywood musical.

(Though I'd really recommend The Sound of Music, myself.)

(...okay. I'm done.)

Coming Soon: Pulp Fiction, Vertigo, Hamlet, Dial M for Murder

Notorious (1946)

directed by Alfred Hitchcock
starring Ingrid Bergman, Cary Grant

I'd been looking forward to watching this one for a long time. Anything with Cary Grant and Alfred Hitchcock is on my must-see list, and we'd already seen a few clips from Notorious in my film history class. I was hooked.

(Caution: Spoilers)

Notorious lives up to that enticing premise: Ingrid Bergman as a reluctant female spy, doing what female spies do best in Hitchcock films - sleeping with the enemy. (How many times does Cary Grant need to save an undercover agent from being offed by her suspecting lover?) Oh, and she and Cary Grant are in love, of course. He is in the film, after all. How silly of her husband to think he had a chance.

I was very impressed with Bergman's presence in the film. Though Grant rushes in to do the saving at the end, Bergman's Alicia is quite the protagonist. The story centers around her life and her decisions; there are more scenes featuring her without Grant than Grant without her.

While this film is hardly Hitchcock's best - it faces some pretty steep competition in that category - it bears the marks of his directorial style, both in off-kilter visual shots and the suspense/sex plot formulas. Don't be turned off by the word 'formula' - Hitchcock's recipe is one that results in solid entertainment. The two stars don't hurt matters, either.

My one complaint was how quickly it all wrapped up - but as a lover of North by Northwest, I suppose I shouldn't be protesting an abrupt ending.

Notorious is thrilling and fun, and features Bergman as a interesting, complex female center. I'm glad to add it to a growing list of Hitchcock favorites.

Coming soon: Out of Sight, Vertigo, Pulp Fiction, Hamlet

Bridesmaids (2011)

directed by Paul Feig

starring Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, Rose Byrne

I was really excited to see this movie. It was written by Kristen Wiig, getting glowing reviews, and had started a discussion about women in comedy. In fact, I read quite a bit of feminist analysis of Bridesmaids before seeing it - including one or two articles that weren't quite so ecstatic. I was anxious to weigh in on the debate, and see what was happening for myself.

But honestly, I don't feel like talking about feminism after watching this. I wasn't thinking 'What a Great Movie About Women' while watching Bridesmaids. I was thinking: What a Great Movie. Period. It hardly crossed my mind that this movie was somehow different or special because the main characters were all female. It was just...funny. They were just people.

But I know women aren't 'just people' in Hollywood yet - they're a vast minority among protagonists and, even as supporting characters, often only serve as accessories in the men's lives. The Bechdel Test shows that much. (Caution: TV Tropes ahead.) But for once, I'd like to talk about a movie outside of the context of gender - because that's how Bridesmaids presented itself. And that is a great accomplishment.

Okay, we're going to try out bullets again:

• I already mentioned how funny and well-written this movie was. Kristen Wiig and Annie Mumolo (writers) did an excellent job of developing the relationships between the main characters. All of them were clearly thought out - I found myself wanting more time with Rita and Becca, two supporting bridesmaids who didn't get the same screen time but who remained developed and hilarious. Rhodes was adorable and slightly awkward as the love interest, and they nailed the chemistry.
• Annie was thoroughly messed up and had a messed up life to match; her decisions didn't make any more sense than the way her world crumbled around her. I loved that she did stupid things, confused by her past experiences and trained not to trust anything that appeared genuine. It was interesting and honest in a movie also populated by diarrhea jokes.
• The story of new friend/old friend drama might be labeled stereotypically feminine, but it also ached of reality. I'm probably appreciating theme way more than I should in this movie, but its exploration of change and growth in adult life - both toward unfamiliar privelege and unexpected brokenness - won't hurt its appeal.

This movie probably isn't in the running for Instant Classic, but it's an excellent entry of R-rated Apatow-brand comedy. The fact that I saw this movie in a packed theater on a Thursday night is a testament to that.

I can't end before mentioning: The Break-Every-Driving-Law-Possible scene is my personal submission for Crowning Moment of Funny. Still laughing.

Coming Soon: Hamlet, Notorious, Vertigo, Pulp Fiction

Never Let Me Go (2010)

directed by Mark Romanek
starring Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield, Keira Knightley

This movie ripped out my heart. Really, I don't think there's a more eloquent way to put it. I have no excuse for the slobbering mess I am right now. I knew what this movie was about going in. Love triangle between three clones destined to give their organs and their lives - this movie was practically manufactured from tears.

I decided to sympathize with Keira Knightley's character the moment she started acting questionably - I guess I like to side with the character set against the main protagonist. (Not the antagonist, necessarily, but the one who's just sitting to the side poking them with a stick.) It's like I feel like there must be narrator bias involved, or something. I don't know. It was difficult, admittedly, to enjoy her perspective, but Keira Knightley did an outstanding job. It was fun to see her in the role of the atoner - flipped around, a bit, from another one of her prominent roles.

But this story belonged to Kathy (Carey Mulligan). Her loneliness was overwhelming - even in the brief happy segments, she seemed almost out of place in another's embrace. It's this feature that draws me to her - not that she was wronged, or that she was thoroughly good throughout it all - but that she bore a tragic destiny while looking out of windows and into books, uncomforted by thoughts of requition. (Apparently that's not a word. I'm using it anyway.)

Then again, it is this same fear that haunts Ruth, and it is what motivates her desperate grasps at love. While Kathy bore her fate quietly for the majority of the movie, Ruth embraced it in her final surrender. In some ways I'm still more fascinated by her.

But if I'm fascinated by Ruth, I'm still stuck firmly in Kathy's shoes.

I realize I haven't quite mentioned Tommy yet. Poor Tommy. He was beautifully played by Andrew Garfield, a lovely mess of confusion and longing and frustration. The moment when he explores the beached ship with childlike enthusiasm, only to be distracted by a nagging pain in his side, is the perfect illustration of their short lives. In some ways he is an accessory to the two girls, controlled largely by their actions; yet he has his own share of perspective and emotion.

This story has less to say about the ethics of cloning and more on the nature of humanity. (The ethics of raising fully human children and then harvesting their organs is never really up for serious discussion, in my experience.) You are so caught up in the complications of love and jealousy amidst childhood and youth that you forget about the rest. As Kathy points at out the end, we are all completed someday. We are all living under death sentences, spending limited time with those around us. Their situation merely magnifies ours.

The tragedy of the title is the last thing that lingers on me. Since childhood, they are taught to let each other go; it is this art that Kathy has mastered by the film's end. But are we all not, to an extent? Our shared fate is both to let go and be let go. The echoed love songs may tell us otherwise, but life, like Hailsham, takes no exceptions.

Giant (1956)

directed by George Stevens

starring Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, James Dean

I watched Giant over the course of two nights with my grandparents, whose love for this movie was no doubt mingled with memories of the Texas their parents knew - a Texas torn between the old and the modern. But as much as this film captures a specific time, it also displays themes that are timeless: outsider vs. the establishment, old money vs. new money, parent vs. child, sexism, racism, growth and loss.

In some ways the film is outspokenly progressive - the main protagonist gets into a fistfight over the honor of a family of Hispanic strangers at the climax, something that must have been a little less than expected a decade before the Civil Rights movement truly got rolling. Elizabeth Taylor's headstrong wife gets quite a few words in edgewise about the unfair perspective these traditional cattle ranchers have towards women. (These words are, of course, ineffective, laughed at, apologized for, and forgotten in the bedroom, but I digress.) 

More than anything, though, this is a movie about people, and the slow road life takes them on from Virginia to West Texas and from ranching to oil. This is the film's strength: excellent characters portrayed by excellent actors, living their lives within breathtaking cinematography, courtesy of the Texan (well, mostly Arizonan and Californian) landscape.

I didn't even mind the 3:20 running time, even if it is north of an hour longer than today's standards. Movies that tell sweeping stories probably aren't meant for one sitting, anyway. Novels are read over days.

My one complaint? More James Dean. The posters are distressingly misleading.

Coming Soon: Hamlet, Never Let Me Go, Notorious, Vertigo

Megamind (2010)

Oh yes, we're starting this in most epic fashion.

directed Tom McGrath

starring Will Farrell, Tina Fey, Jonah Hill, Brad Pitt

I just saw Megamind for the first time. Unlike Despicable Me, which was brought to me by my elementary age cousins, this animated supervillian-centric tale was suggested by three of my college age friends. Who I almost never see in person. Naturally, we'd spend our time watching children's movies. You wish you were this cool.

There's a reason this film made top priority for us - it's really good. I liked it a great deal more than Despicable Me, or many other movies marketed at the sub-13 sector of society.

Spoilers ahead.

In the spirit of brevity, I'm going to make a list of why I was pleasantly surprised by this movie:

1) Originality In a genre where almost every spoof has already been spoofed itself, this movie twisted in unpredictable ways from the beginning and didn't stop. The main antagonist, featured heavily in the advertising and voiced by Brad Pitt, was dead at the end of the film's opening battle. (Well, dead enough for our purposes.) The movie then moved to a contemplation of a villain's life post-world takeover. What happens next? He falls for the girl and starts inching toward the good side, training up a new hero - it seems like we're veering for a showdown where he'll realize that he doesn't really want to fight anymore. Unless the new hero decides to go evil himself - then, suddenly, this battle is Megamind's heroic moment itself, not the lead-up to one. Predictably, the first hero turns up not-so-dead - but surprisingly, his refusal to assist the protagonist holds firm, even when it seems otherwise. Each new development doesn't just play out - it arrives ahead of schedule and changes the game. I never set back and put my viewing-mode on autopilot. This is how light, entertaining movies should be made. 

2) Tina Fey and her awesome character. Initially lost between the two boys in the marketing, it became clear that this stereotypical romantic character was going to be much more involved than your average Team Chick. In addition to delivering the sarcastic comebacks featured in the trailer, this reporter was involved, self-assured, informed, and displayed plenty of agency. She felt like an actual character, not the Required Strong(ish) But Mostly Pretty Female Role Model required in PG-rated movies.

3) Oops That about sums it up. I'll have to work on avoiding this brevity thing in the future.

This is not the standard movie I'll be reviewing, but it provided a nice warm-up. In the meantime, bear with me as I figure out the format of these reviews.

Preview of upcoming attractions: Never Let Me Go, Giant, Vertigo, Notorious

let's get started

One week from Monday, I'll be starting this.

Here's how it goes:

Watch one movie per week day (M-T-W-Th-F)
Write a review of each movie and post each day (5/week)
I can use the weekends to catch up, because life happens
BUT all five posts will be accounted for by Sunday at 12:00 midnight
...I give you permission to be mad at me if this does not happen.

Not every movie I review will be one I haven't seen before,
but most of them will be.
And obviously, I won't review the same movie twice.

This is me building a foundation for a future in filmmaking.
Let's go.