to this thread
I'll start with some non mainstream fare and work my way to better known things.
Three Colors: Blue
During the Fall semester of my Senior year, I had the opportunity to take an Introductory Film class. It would be my very first foray into taking film as an extremely serious hobby.
I got to watch some old favorites such as
Se7en,
The Matrix,
Psycho, and
Forrest Gump. I was also exposed to new and delightful films such as
Madadayo,
Cinema Paradiso, and
Rio Bravo. On my own free time, I took it upon myself to watch Frederico Fellini's
8 1/2, three Kurosawa classics
Yojimbo,
Sanjuro, and
The Hidden Fortress. I also got to see
Andrei Rublev a really, really slow-moving but nevertheless compelling look at a Russian icon painter's observations of life. I also got to see two great Ingmar Bergman films
Wild Strawberries and
The Seventh Seal.
Which brings me to
Three Colors: Blue. I bring this film up because I researched much of its history to find that many film critics hold it in very high regard. I can't say I was excited to watch this because I've always heard how pretentious and boring French films can be. But nonetheless I wanted to see my first French film ever and overcoming my prejudices.
I should've stuck to my instincts. Blue was quite possibly one of the worst movies I've ever seen. The last time I'd
this hard was
Batman and Robin. It isn't until
Amelie and
The Vanishing that I thought French films had redeemed themselves in my eyes.
There are several things I thought were plenty stupid with Blue. The first one is Julie's character. I don't think I've ever seen somebody so stupid as she is, no wait, that Joe guy from
Midnight Cowboy comes pretty close. Needless to say, stupid people piss me off in movies.
Second, the movie is god-awful boring. It seemed like it took forever for the narrative to advance. Every character seemed utterly devoid of life. Everybody's distraught. Everybody's having an affair. Blah blah blah.....
Third, and the biggest strike, the pretentious nature of the blue fadeouts among other things. Our whole class spent three good class periods trying to the whole deal behind it. We all came to the conclusion it was simply artsy fartsy crap that added no dramatic weight or narrative revelance to the already boring story at hand. Let's not forget the whole fishtank sex at the end of the movie. So much for Julie's freedom.
Overall Score: D
Federico Fellini's 8 1/2
The college library received a copy of Criterion's edition of one of Fellini's masterpieces.
I'll get straight to the point with no setup: I liked this film quite a bit.
Everything positive that's been said about this film is true. It's a film within a film, it's a reflection of Fellini's own struggles, it's just huge a smorgashborg of things so confusing that somehow it all makes sense towards the end.
I thought the way the sequences played out were wonderful. You really couldn't tell whether you're watching the actual film, or the film within a film, Guido's own imagination, or simply flashbacks to an earlier time. The transitions are extraordinarily seamless which adds to the overall confusion in the audience. Is he imagining this? Or is he playing out the characters in his mind whom he wishes to audition? It's amazing the amount of discussion this film can ellicit.
I highly recommend this film to anybody interested in their first exposure to Fellini.
Movie Score: B
Film Score: A-
Overall Score: B+
I'll chime in with more thoughts on other firsts.
