Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 43

Tarkin The Ewok · 08-03-2006, 05:36 PM

8/2: Live and Let Die

/

As Bond debuts go, this is my least favorite. It's a great movie until the main titles are over; it's all downhill from there. Roger Moore would go on to do great things with the role, but he was not in top form here. The action is almost exclusively in the second half of the movie, and none of the set pieces were that interesting. Sheriff Pepper was a horrible idea, and he is horribly out of place in this movie. The biggest weakness, however, is the story. The events do not flow in a logical fashion, and the villains seem to lose all common sense at the end of the story. For example, why take Bond to the croc farm instead of shooting him dead? Other Bond villains have suffered from the syndrome of the "drawn-out, overly elaborate death" depicted in the first Austin Powers movie, but Kananga was set up to be ruthless and pragmatic. Another problem is the inclusion of a fight with a minor villain after the climax of the picture. This is almost never a good idea, and it comes off as corny rather than threatening in this movie.

Although it wasn't much compared to OHMSS, the love story is the strongest part of the movie. Moore and Seymour had some definite chemistry in their scenes. The characters and atmosphere of the movie were memorable, and it's a shame that they weren't given more interesting things to do.

Michael Elliott · 08-03-2006, 10:46 PM

08/03/06

Silent Command, The (1923)

A Naval officer (Edmond Lowe) must stop a terrorist (Bela Lugosi) from blowing up the Panama Canal, which would cut the U.S. Navy in half. Directed by J. Gordon Edwards, this is a pretty good little thriller with a terrific start and nice ending, both of which pack some nice suspense. The middle drags a little bit as Lugosi pays a blonde to try and seduce the Naval officer into giving away his secrets. Lowe is very good in his role but it's Lugosi who really steals the picture with his wonderful performance. This is certainly the best I've seen from his silent pictures, which I believe this was the last remaining one for me to see. I think the rest are lost.

Scoop (2006)

Woody Allen's latest is a delightful, charming and sweet little film that once again shows his back on track after a few years of mediocre films. Woody plays a magician who teams up with a college journalist (Scarlett Johansson) to track down a possible serial killer (Hugh Jackman). As I said, this film has a lot of charm and sweetness and I'd be willing to bet even non-Woody fans would enjoy it. This isn't anything groundbreaking from the director but his talent is certainly back on the screen. His comic timing as an actor is also back in form. I think his timing was off in previous films and that's what really hurt them. Johansson steals the show as she perfectly captures Allen's dialogue making it all her own. I don't think too many actors can nail what his dialogue calls for but she does so perfectly. This was my first time seeing Jackman and I was impressed with him as well. The final joke of the film is classic Woody all the way.

george kaplan · 08-03-2006, 10:51 PM

Breakfast at Tiffany's

At it's heart, this is the kind of film I usually don't like. A drama, with a lead female character with a lot of irritating, irrational and bizarre behaviors. Yet, somehow this film rises above that. The acting, the music, and frankly the fact that, like Paul, I find Audrey Hepburn's character in her more lucid and charming moments to more than make up for her foibles.

There's also the issue of the Mickey Rooney character, but I've always separated things that were products of their time and not intentionally racist, versus those promoting racist messages. In other words, one could argue that the racism inherent in Birth of a Nation was a product of it's time, but it's still a film with a racist message that makes it unacceptable. On the other hand, 30s films with blackface characters are not necessarily promoting a racist message. This film may have had casting that was a product of it's time, but the film is certainly not racist or mean-spirited in any way.

I know some people reject this film because of the Mickey Rooney character, and that's their perogative, but if, (and I think it's the case), some of those same people have no problem with the outright racist message of films like The Searchers and Do The Right Thing, then I'm just left shaking my head.

Adam_S · 08-04-2006, 02:35 AM

Lady in the Water -

Call me crazy but I liked it. It's a very funny and goofy sweet film with a handful of scares to it. It's beautifully shot and has a wonderful score. Paul Giamatti is awesome in the film. It's over the top silly bed time stuff but I guess that's all right.

there are dozens of reasons the film shouldn't work and in some ways it doesn't but it really is just simple and charming in its own little world.

Adam

Michael Elliott · 08-04-2006, 03:07 PM

I'm not going to start another debate on that certain film but do a little research on the promotion before and after that film and you'll see that no where was there EVER any intent on being a message. Whoever you heard these "facts" from were probably the same one's who said INTOLLERANCE was an apology or that it cost over $1 million to make.

Quote:

On the other hand, 30s films with blackface characters are not necessarily promoting a racist message.

The reason for blackface is early movie makers went to theatrical groups to get actors. These theatrical groups, a "product of their time", didn't employ black actors. With that in mind, the whites had to play whatever roles a film/stage play needed because directors didn't want to take the time and train a black actor. You'll notice that in most of these films, a white actor playing black is in the "acting" scenes while real blacks are used in the background. This effect, I've read, was used by DeMille who started hiring blacks as extras because it was cheaper than painting several white actors to just stand in the background. Time was certainly money back then and that's why you had professional white actors who sole job was to pretend to be black, Asian or any other race that weren't allowed in theatrical groups. The racism is in the fact that they weren't allowed to act moreso than the image on screen. The funny thing to me is that the likes of Oland and Chaney played Asian characters to make racists "understand" them. Yet, when a whites as blacks or blacks were used, there wasn't any understanding involved. It was simply a matter of trying to get laughs. I'm not sure if you've seen the film but BAADASSSSS! has an interesting take on this and how blacks at the time felt about this humor.

Quote:

I find Audrey Hepburn's character in her more lucid and charming moments to more than make up for her foibles.

I've always been curious about this but why do you put down characters who aren't (in your opinion) morally good? I know you've attacked a few Scorsese films for showing ugly characters and you questions rock bios that only show the ugly sides of these people. I believe you're review of BELLE DE JOUR was also pretty brutal because the woman was a prostitute.

For some damn reason I was thinking about what you said re: BIRD while at work today. You asked why the "good" side of these people aren't ever shown and I think it's perhaps because they really didn't have any good side. It would be rather hard to show the good side of a gangster because the ugly side is always going to be there. I guess you could say the same with THE SEARCHERS and John Wayne's character. I know you don't like his racism and to you, this overshadows anything good his character might do. Jim Morrison was a brilliant musician but as a person, he was pretty ugly and we could probably same the same about Hendrix and even Joplin. If these three did great music but were bad people, wouldn't that ugliness be a big part of their life?

Haggai · 08-04-2006, 04:57 PM

The Pirate (1948) 7/10
Vincente Minnelli's musical that starred Judy Garland and Gene Kelly wasn't very successful, and in some sense I can see why, since it's not one of the best showcases for Kelly, and the supporting characters aren't that interesting. In particular, the first musical number Kelly has is fairly weak. But overall, I thought it was OK, since Garland is fantastically entertaining. Her number "Mack the Black" is a highlight, and her shifts between anger and sarcasm are hilarious.

Dark Passage (1947) 6/10
The least widely seen of the four Bogart-Bacall movies is hampered by the plot being held together by a lot of very transparent coincidences, although there are some good suspense scenes, and some effective use of the first-person camera technique in the early parts. The fact that the romantic leads have only one or two scenes where they're fully on-screen together (since Bogart is either "behind the camera" or taped up by post-plastic-surgery bandages for more than half the movie) is a bit of a handicap as well.

A Slight Case of Murder (1938) 6/10
Gangster spoof about a bootlegger and his cronies going straight, with his wife being especially eager to join "respectable" society. Edward G. Robinson is great in the lead role, but too much of the humor falls flat for it to work in the end. In particular, Ruth Donnelly as his wife doesn't get much to work with, although she's very capable in other movies when the script is up to par.

Miami Vice (2006) 7/10
The terrific last-act shoot-out and the nicely resolved relationship between Gong Li and Colin Farrell are the highlights for me in this one. The relationships between the various characters are all pretty shallow and overshadowed by a lot of technical crime-fighting jargon, with a lot of the dialogue being too serious for its own good. Still, the action and the locations make for involving viewing, and I do love me some Gong Li.

Each Dawn I Die (1939) 8/10
Cagney stars as a muckraking reporter railroaded into the big house by the corrupt city bosses, with George Raft as a hardened con who's his only real hope on the inside. A few over-the-top scenes aside, the high-energy pacing and the personalities are very entertaining. Cagney is reliably intense in the lead, and although Raft's limited range is apparent in their scenes together, I thought it was a solidly crafted role that suited him very well.

Ted Lee · 08-04-2006, 05:50 PM

July Summary
total movies: 15
average gpa: 2.4 (36/15)
comments: an okay movie month. standouts would probably be city of lost children, shopgirl and syriana. cache was a huge miss for me. for a summer blockbuster month, it didn't really float my boat as both pirates and superman returns were just okay.

title: the city of lost children
rating: b
comments: first viewing. one of the most visually innovative movies i've seen in a while. in terms of just plain ol' creativity it definitely kept up pace (and maybe even surpassed) delicatessan. some really nice performance from the children, especially the girl lead.

title: cache
rating: d
comments: heck, i almost gave this an f, but it did keep me somewhat interested until the end. now i know i'm not the most "deep thinker" when it comes to movies, but i must have clearly missed the boat on this. i cannot understand where all the praise for this movie came from. uninteresting characters, and a story with a neat setup, but no payoff ... not even an inferred one.

title: shopgirl
rating: b
comments: a interesting, if somewhat uneven movie. good performances by all three leads save the movie. martin (a personal fave) plays it even and schwartzman surprised me. it had a nice melancholy feel that i liked.

title: elizabethtown
rating: b
comments: enjoyable, but definitely sappy ... almost to the point of overbearing. however, if anyone like dunst's character existed in this world, i'd seek her out in a heartbeat.

title: the matrix
rating: a
comments: previously viewed (many times). watching it still reminds me of just how groundbreaking this movie really was.

title: superman returns
rating: b
comments: a nice rehash of the superman series, with some nice "nods" towards the original movies. i was originally very ambivalent towards the casting choices, and while they didn't blow me away, i didn't walk away disgusted either. i would have liked a little more action, especially for a 2.5 hour movie. overall, a decent popcorn flick, but not much more.

title: aeon flux
rating: d
comments: so much for this possible franchise. did the director even watch the original animated series? this movie could have been branded as any standard sci-fi action flick ... there was little to none of the appeal that made aeon flux (the animated series) so much fun to watch. some nice visuals and decent production value saves this from getting an f.

title: pirates of the caribean: dead man's chest
rating: c
comments: a decent popcorn flick, but not much else. it seemed like the actors were simply going through the paces on this one. for some shots, stellar fx, for other shots they were cheesy. a bit long too ...

title: strangers with candy
rating: c
comments: even though i watched the series, i'd say i was only a casual fan. but this one had enough quirks and funny moments to make it worthwhile. a great performance by the lead inspires the crowd.

title: the matador
rating: b
comments: heard good things about this, was slightly disappointed. besides a nice tongue-in-cheek performance by brosnan, there wasn't really much else to this. but brosnan's performance was good enough to give this a b instead of a c.

title: syriana
rating: b
comments: even though i had a hard time following the story-line, the great performances all around made this very enjoyable to watch. this movie just seemed so realistic.

title: the ice harvest
rating: c
comments: not a horrible movie, just not a great movie. it wasn't quite dark enough, wasn't quite quirky enough ... it didn't take risks. i like cusack a lot, so i probably cut this more slack then i normally would have. a nice side performance by platt helped.

title: travellers & magicians
rating: c
comments: not sure where i heard about this, but it was okay. the sub story was predictable, but the actors likeable. not one i would probably rewatch though.

title: silent running
rating: b
comments: i've seen this many times since i was a kid. everytime it comes on tv, i watch it (this time in hd). i have no clue why i enjoy this movie so much. but honestly, those little robots have more personality then anything lucas can dream up. the ending shot with dewey watering the plants gets me every time.

title: the benchwarmers
rating: c
comments: pretty silly (and sometimes stupid) humor ... but i appreciated the movies attempt at sending a positive message.

Ted Lee · 08-04-2006, 05:53 PM

title: the aristocrats
rating: b
comments: watching this film, you felt like you were sitting with the cool crowd. some of those guys are hilarious and it was just neat to watch the comedians and see what they were like "off-stage".

george kaplan · 08-04-2006, 06:40 PM

I'm not going to start another debate on that certain film but do a little research

Sorry, but I don't need to do any research. I don't see BOAN as a film with a racist message because I read it somewhere or someone told me to think that. I watched the film. I saw that it had a racist message. Nothing anyone says, in writing or not, is going to change my mind on that fact.

The reason for blackface

You clearly missed my point, but that may have been my fault for not being clear enough. I said

0s films with blackface characters are not necessarily promoting a racist message.

I've added the emphasis, cause what I was saying was that at least in some cases, such as Fred Astaire doing a tribute in blackface to a certain black performer, it clearly wasn't mean-spirited or racist.

I've always been curious about this but why do you put down characters who aren't (in your opinion) morally good?

Again, I think you miss the point. First of all, I'm not interested in passing judgment on film characters except in trying to explain why I don't like certain films. I certainly don't dislike a film just because a character isn't "morally good". Just as a couple of examples of films where the lead characters are certainly not morally good, but I love the film - The Godfather, High Sierra & Citizen Kane.

On the other hand, many of the films I hate, are filled with character, not that are necessarily "morally bad", but are just irritating as hell. The point of my bringing this up with Breakfast at Tiffany's, was that Holly was sometimes that way, but was overall not that way enough that she didn't ruin the film for me. Not so in many other films.

As to the music biopics, I disagree that there weren't good sides to those guys, but even if we accept that, it doesn't change the fact that listening to their music is fun and enjoyable, and watching a film about their dark sides (whether the only side or not), is not.

So, to use Bird as an example, I don't think he's a bad person, and I'm not going to pass judgment on him, but I don't enjoy watching him going through the things that happen in that film.