Showing posts with label Classic Movie Monday. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Classic Movie Monday. Show all posts

Monday, October 5, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The French Connection

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The French Connection
Released: October 9, 1971
Directed by: William Friedkin
Starring: Gene Hackman, Fernando Rey, & Roy Scheider

Plot in a Nutshell:
New York Narcotics Detectives Doyle (Hackman) and Russo (Scheider) stumble onto a large trafficking scheme known as the French Connection.

What I thought:
This film is an unending cat & mouse chase. From the moment the film starts to the gripping climax, the film never stops showing the tug between police and criminals. For the majority of the run time the chase is slow and methodical, consisting of tense scenes of tailing the suspect. Then there are the explosive moments of frenetic, determined pursuit. The French Connection easily balances the tension between methodical and maniacal and never becomes boring.

The main plot revolves around a large-scale drug smuggling operation from France to New York. Involving many shady characters, and a hierarchy that I never could quite grasp, the villains of the picture didn't bring much to the table. In fact, nothing about the operation or the players involved is strong enough to support the film. It's not the focus, and it doesn't need to be.

Gene Hackman, as Detective "Popeye" Doyle, is the clear star of the picture. His foul-mouthed, determined, rules-be-damned attitude cuts through the bull. His actions as a police officer are considered reckless and foolish by his peers, but the man gets results. Today, this type of cop character has become cliche, but back in the early 70s, it was still fresh. Hackman plays it as though he is constantly restraining himself, keeping Doyle in check. It isn't until he is 'challenged' by a criminal foe that the gloves come off. Doyle has the potential to explode and in the final scene you see how far he is willing to go. The scariest part isn't how far that happens to be, but how little it affects him. This was a tremendous performance.

The film was made in a slight documentarian style. The camera never seems to be stationary: constantly struggling to keep up with the characters. Under-saturated, the film is grainy and filled with deep contrast. The night scenes in downtown New York lend the city a gritty, criminal quality. Friedkin paints the film as though behind every corner, down every street, and in every ally, nefarious characters lurk. It builds up a great, seedy mood for the characters to inhabit. I wouldn't want to visit the places shown on screen, but it fits the story and the people in it.

Highlighting the French Connection is a mother of a chase sequence. I have seen it billed as the best in all of cinematic history. While I won't quite go that far, I will admit that it's pretty damn impressive. One of the greatest pieces to it, is how it starts. Beginning innocently, with a tired groggy Doyle walking home with a sack of groceries, greeting the passerbys on a sunny day. Then suddenly, he is shot at by a distant sniper, who inadvertently hits a nearby pedestrian. Then it takes off, starting as a simple foot chase down the road, it peaks with Doyle in a car on a crowded street chasing down an elevated train. I'm not going to detail every moment of it because that would ruin the fun. But it was a terrific piece of cinema where the pursuit and the stakes increase in every suspenseful minute. It is a lot of fun to see unfold, and it is genuinely nail-biting.

The French Connection is a terrific film. Hackman livens up the film with his hard-edge detective who stops at nothing in his job to fight crime. Bringing us some great suspenseful moments and pursuits, director Friedkin tells the story with a terrific muddy style. And though the actually plot revolving around "The French Connection," isn't very strong or meaningful, the film has plenty to offer.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 28, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Carrie

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Carrie
Released: Novemebr 3, 1976
Directed by: Brian De Palma
Starring: Sissy Spacek, Piper Laurie, & Betty Buckley

Plot in a Nutshell:
Carrie White has telekinetic abilities. Suffering humiliation and ridicule from her class mates and scornful admonishments from her mother at home, Carrie is about to snap on them all.

What I thought:
I'm having a difficult time deciding whether or not casting Sissy Spacek in this part was a good thing or bad. Carrie is constantly berated by her peers and harsh-fully scorned at by her mother. She is pushed down by all those around her. I express confusion because I don't know how anybody could possibly hate her.

The character, Carrie, is drenched in revulsion and disgust by virtually everyone she comes across. The students laugh at her when she speaks, ridicule her when she is in pain, and curse her when she makes a mistake. I know this takes place in high school, and kids, especially teens can be particularly cruel, but give me a break. The abuse she gets is beyond ridiculous, bordering on absurdity.

Carrie White is nothing but sweet. Horribly misguided by her domineering mother, she has been raised to be very subservient and passive. School kids love to verbally beat on her. They laugh at her when she doesn't know what menstruation is, pelting her with tampons and pads. The characters make Carrie feel like scum, and it is completely undeserving. There is good reason for this cruelty though. Not on a basic story level but on a structural one. You need the audience to see her put down, you need to see her in the lowest moments. After an hours of mistreatment, the final half hour of payback and payoff is much more earned, and as an audience, you feel much more vindicated.

Brian De Palma expertly crafts this story, dragging us on an emotional coaster. Even though every person in the movie hates this poor girl, he makes you fall in love with her. A large part is Spacek's subdued performance, but it is De Palma that seals the deal. Pulling no punches, he'll figuratively drag Carrie through the dirt, then later give her some happy moments of pride and joy. Just before all hell breaks loose in the finale, he allows Carrie to be in the spotlight in the best sequence of the film. She walks so smooth and gracefully, the camera slowly moving with her: she is radiant with happiness. Taking her place on stage, in front of everyone, the crowd cheers for her. She looks out at the crowd smiling, laughing: she is accepted. Then, when the rug is ripped from underneath her, she becomes emotionally devastated and mentally unstable. The most beautiful moment in her life is stolen from her in a cruel prank.

This film demonstrates an exceptional ability to play with the audience. It's a great compliment to the film that I was able to experience all the emotions Carrie was feeling. However, I still have a hard time seeing the hatred the other characters see. I don't get why they feel the need to go to such elaborate lengths simply to humiliate someone. I don't understand in films like this, where the bullies are beyond reality. In film-land, all a bully cares about is making others feel bad and it is usually only one person. They fixate and do everything they can to make that person miserable. Concocting schemes and plots to bring about humiliation. It is unrealistic and I hate it. It's this point that knocks the film down for me.

Carrie is described as a horror film. If you see this film, don't expect a slasher, a gore fest, or even a violent film. This isn't a horror film in the way the term means today. It is a different type of scary feeling. This is about the horror of being exposed, being publicly disgraced, ridiculed amongst the people you are trying to impress. These are fears people feel every day, it's nice to see them explored in a film.

It's taken me some time to appreciate this film. Immediately after finishing it, I felt disappointment. I was expecting a lot more on the creepy/spooky/scary front. Instead what I got was a great film about the fears of high school and of acceptance. Carrie's horror doesn't involve chainsaws, ghouls, marionettes, or masked killers, rather, genuine fears of being disliked, public ridicule, and peer acceptance. I really enjoyed it.

Bottom Line:
Made with great craftsmanship by Brian De Palma, performed excellently by Sissy Spacek, the film is a great tale about our personal horrors.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 21, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Animal House

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Animal House
Released: July 28, 1978
Directed by: John Landis
Starring: John Belushi, Tom Hulce, & Karen Allen

Plot in a Nutshell:
At Faber College, 1962, a determined Dean is intent on removing the rowdy and mischievous Delta house fraternity, but they have other plans.

What I thought:
What is it that makes a classic film? Memorable Lines? Fantastic Characters? Stay-ability? I don't think you can pin the concept of a classic on any one of those, rather it is how a film impacts and sticks, long after you've seen it. Animal House is a movie that dares you to not find its charm, vulgarity, and goofy antics hilarious and worth every, repeated viewing.

I found myself while watching, that I've seen this movie before. No, I had never seen the film, but the impact that it has had on our pop culture is noticeable. Even to someone like me who had never seen it, it is hard not to see the appeal and impact the film has had. Many of the scenes, the lines, the jokes, and antics, I have heard before. Every song on the soundtrack has been pounded into my head during my adolescence. It is a movie that is so entrenched into our pop culture, that those who are not even aware of it, have felt its repercussions.

It's hard to judge this film based on filmmaking style or technique. Comedies don't need to be slick, stylish, or artistic. Their ultimate goal, is to make you laugh, and maybe be a bit reminiscent. The set ups here are hilarious, and the payoffs equally terrific. On more than a few occasions I found myself laughing hysterically at the situations, circumstances, and insane characters, but mainly Belushi.

John Belushi IS this movie. He is a cartoon come to life. His expressions and mannerisms are always a laugh. When he sits in a corner and does nothing but look side to side, you can't help but giggle at him. His peeping-tom scene is probably the greatest moment in the entire film. Peeking in through the widow at a very undressed college girl, he turns to the camera and gives a flash of his expressive brows. He says, to THE AUDIENCE, "Look at me, isn't this awesome!" Between this, Blues Brothers, and his stint on SNL, Belushi left us some great comedy moments. It's only a shame he wasn't around longer.

Animal House is a terrific comedy, that isn't particular impressive for its style, but more for how outlandish and hilarious it ultimately is. If you have never seen this film, I can't recommend it enough. I'm already looking forward to watching it again, and if you know me and comedies, that's no small task.

Bottom Line:
A hysterical college Frat picture, filled with classic lines and some terrific comic moments, and Belushi is always great.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, September 14, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The Human Condition Review

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Human Condition
Release Dates:
Part I: No Greater Love: January 15, 1959
Part II: Road to Eternity: November 20, 1959
Part III: A Soldier's Prayer: January 28, 1961
Directed by: Masaki Kobayashi
Starring: Tatsuya Nakadai, Michiyo Aratama, & Keiji Sada

Plot in a Nutshell:
An epic trilogy of releases, spanning one Japanese man's journey during WWII. Beginning as a labor camp supervisor, becoming drafted into the Japanese army, and finally ending captured in a Soviet POW Camp, this story defines epic cinema.

What I thought:
What a film.

After watching the Human Condition, I am left floating in a wake of mixed emotions. On one hand it is very difficult not to admire the extraordinary work that was accomplished. In the other hand, I am left stirred and shaken, and maybe a little underwhelmed. But after completing the film, I can't be disappointed by its faults, but only marvel at it successes. This film is every bit a triumph of cinema. It really is, but I'm feeling mixed.

The story follows one character on a long journey. Kaji, played by Tatsuya Nakadai, is in virtually every scene and his odyssey is the focal point for the entire film. The great advantage to having a picture of this length is the great changes you can perform to your characters. Where some films will tighten their stories, and shorten their lengths, a film like the Human Condition can detail every moment, every point of significance, showing to the audience why somebody has become who they are. It makes for a terrifically fascinating character study. Its amazing seeing the main character, Kaji, transition from a very liberal, anti-war, naive, young man in the beginning, to then transition and become a leader of men and a seasoned war veteran who doesn't hesitate to kill those who are a threat. When you watch the film, you see every moment in that long transition, and never once do you think "He wouldn't do that," "That's not Kaji." You are with his character constantly and you feel his every emotion. By the end you have invested what in cinematic terms, equates to a lifetime, into this one singular character.

Played with near perfection by a then newcomer, Tatsuya Nakadai pours everything into the portrayal of Kaji. Requiring an enormous effort on his part, it is incredibly impressive that he is able to bring so much life into his character for so long a time. Performing the gamut from longing lover, misunderstood prisoner, idealistic youth, impassioned humanitarian, oppressed junior soldier, and vengeful friend, Nakadai effortlessly moves between them all, and brings great presence to this fantastic character. He inhabits every frame with a strength and conviction that is rare in today's film performances. As the single consistent role throughout the picture, he deserves all the credit for the success of this character, and in turn, the success of the film.

The film was adapted from a lengthy six-part novel. Each of the films three releases are split into two parts, totaling the six parts of the book. Believe me when I say, it is DENSE. Characters often transition into lengthy speeches about humanity, war, oppression, socialism, and democracy. The film makes dozens of statements about many ideas present in a tumultuous post-war Japan. But I found the greatest impact came from two key ideals. First is the futility of war; it's effects on society, cultures, and people's beliefs. Second is the treatment of people and races different than your own.

The absurdity of war is a topic that has been discussed ad nauseam in countless books & films over the years. The thing that makes this film so relevant in that discussion, again comes down to the length and depth into which the film is willing to go. Also in American war films of the 40s and 50s, it was all about the heroics and idealism. A very interesting point was brought up by Japanese filmmaker Masahiro Shinoda in the Human Condition's extra features. He said that the victors never can see the whole picture in the aftermath of a large scale war. It is only the defeated who can look at everything objectively and with clarity. In that statement, you realize that to obtain the truth of history, you need not look at what the winners write, but what the losers feel. Its an incredible thing to think about. And the Human Condition shows emotions and feelings about war that American films are only just now starting to explore.

The second major theme to the Human Condition focuses on is supremacism. The first two parts to the six part film focus on the mistreatment of the Chinese by the Japanese. In exchange for a military draft exemption, Kaji betrayed his beliefs by taking a position heading up a labor camp. He figures he can try to change the way laborers are treated. But superior Imperialism has become too entrenched in the minds of every Japanese citizen, and Kaji realizes it is very difficult to change their minds about humane treatment.

The consensus of opinion is that the Chinese are dogs. Nobody can match the supremacy of the Japanese race. Kaji fights this dog-headedness throughout the entirety of the film, it becomes one of the mainstays to his character. It is only towards the end, when everything is falling apart, that the Japanese characters begin to see how wrong they are. Defeated and broken by years of battle and fatigue, then are they only able to see who the real dogs are: themselves. Interestingly enough, Kaji begins as a humanist, but by the end, he has become desensitized by battles and his internal trials. As the general culture changes around him, he degrades into mindlessness. He never once turns from helping the weak, never turns his back on the helpless, yet he loses a little bit of his humanity every time he is forced to kill. It is a sad thing to see happen to a once proud and idealized individual.

Another great strength to the piece is the love shared between Kaji and his wife, Michiko, played by Michiyo Aratama. In the very first scene of the film, Kaji is followed by this sweet woman, Michiko. She wants to be with him and marry, but Kaji has doubts, as any man would at his young age. But when he makes the fateful decision to go work at the labor camp, he takes the plunge into marriage. Michiko isn't around for much in the grand scheme of the overall narrative, but she becomes an ever present point in Kaji's life. It was incredible to see his reluctance to marry, then his devotion develops, and ultimately she becomes all he has. *SPOILER* And if it had turned out ok for this couple, this would be one of the greatest love stories ever told. It felt very much like Cold Mountain, only much more depressing. Down though it may be, the drive captured in Kaji's eyes, speaks to his devotion, and that alone is worth it. I do wish it would have ended better though. *END SPOILER*

The production on this thing is beyond impressive. The sheer logistics that come with crafting a near 10 hour film can only be staggering in the least. To his credit, director Masaki Kobayashi is able to maintain great consistency across the entire film. The first minute of the film feels in line with the final crushing moment. Shots are incredibly simple yet completely effective. Kobayashi is able to evoke fantastic emotions, utilizing little more than a simple tilt or a slight push in. I was deeply impressed at the level of sophistication in the shots and editing. A scene towards the end involving Kaji's interrogation by the Soviets, exemplifies Kobayashi's skill as a cinematic craftsman. The use of silence, music, lighting, camera placement demonstrates he is a master of film technique, working well before his time. The level that he is working at in 1958-60, is better than many films I have seen in the past few years.

As impressive as the film ultimately is, there were still things I wish could have been done differently. The first 5 hours to the film are tedious and slow. There are more than a few great moments within that time (including an incredibly powerful execution scene), but it isn't until Kaji gets involved with the war that the film begins to glide right along at great pace. The final three hours are by far the best to the entire film. Kaji is leading a group of survivors back to safer territory, and is maneuvering around Soviet forces and meeting up with Chinese and Japanese all struggling to deal with the effects the war has wrought. But for roughly the first half of the near ten hour length, it was a real chore.

I also did not enjoy seeing how the Japanese army was. Director, Kobayahi was in the Army, as was the original book's author, so you know Japanese Army life is accurately depicted. I simply found it difficult to watch. The senior enlisted members routinely beat and thrash the new soldiers for minor grievances. It is not only common, but expected! It may have been authentic to the way things were in the Japanese Army, but after the 10th beating, I began to get fatigued. This could be what Kobayashi was going for, the discomfort, the angst that comes with mistreatment. In that regard, it is a success, but still tiring to watch.

When looking at the complete film as a whole, these grievances seem completely minor and inconsequential. The Human Condition is a massive undertaking that is just as equally impressive and awe inspiring as it is long and tedious. I don't know what Kobayashi was thinking when he set out to tell this story in this manner. All I can say is that it is an experience I will not soon be forgetting. It lingers on, occupies your thinking, and ultimately challenges you. I can think of nothing better to say about this epic film.

Bottom Line:
A massive film that is simultaneously riveting, slow, revealing, uplifting, sad, and altogether impressive. A landmark film achievement that should be seen by every film buff, but only if you can stomach 10 hours of Japanese in subtitles.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 8, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: A Night to Remember

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

A Night to Remember
Released: July 1, 1958
Directed by: Roy Ward Baker
Starring: Kenneth More, Ronald Allen, & Robert Ayres

Plot in a Nutshell:
The Titanic was considered unsinkable, until she sank. This is the story of that horrific night when she went down.

What I thought:
You can't make a bad film about the Titanic. Her sinking is filled with so many remarkable stories. These are the things that are ingrained into the Titanic legacy. An unsinkable ship, not enough boats, steerage being locked up, how the band played on, etc. There are so many heart-wrenching moments to be told, that I think it is not possible to tell this story without jerking at your heart strings. That said, give me a little more than this.

This book adaptation is a fantastic telling of Titanic's sinking. It is obvious that a great amount of attention was given to make this film authentic. Hell, there were still living survivors with plenty of stories to tell when the film was made. This film is stuffed to the brim with stories, moments, and anecdotes. But I began to want a center, a focus point. At times it felt all over the place with no core to the story other than the feeling of "this actually happened." I feel very similar to this film as I did with the Longest Day. After watching that film, I felt that while it had been made with a great attention to detail and the facts, it never felt as though there were a through line. Things just happened. Events took place, but weren't set up. Characters introduced, then forgotten.

A Night to Remember has all the moments of the Titanic story, but it doesn't really explore the whys. It documents, rather vividly, the last few hours of the fated voyage. It isn't bad that it chooses to only focus on the sinking, I just felt like there was more to be said. When the lifeboats were rescued, I wanted to know about the survivors, the backlash, the crew of the Californian. What about these people? Filling a film with 40 or so supporting speaking roles, and no real lead performer, doesn't make for a very grounded story.

I enjoyed this film. It is chock full of details on the sinking, and me being a huge history buff, I ate it all up. I love the little moments; White star employees yelling at steerage for damaging a gate; Molly Brown demanding to return to help those in the water; Mr. Andrews going over minute details while the ship lists precariously. The stories here are legendary. But that's all there is here. I want more than a simple retelling of a story. It is a very powerful and emotional story to tell, but give us a little bit more to grab onto. Craft characters with intros, conflict, and resolution, don't just show a true life instance just for accuracy's sake. Set things up properly, and I guarantee they will pay off more effectively in the end. Regardless, A Night to Remember is still a great film that manages to adequately tell what happened. But why?

Bottom Line:
The gripping story of Titanic's last hours are told vividly and with great attention to detail, if not a little too respectful and dry.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Porky's

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Porky's
Released: March 19, 1982
Directed by: Bob Clark
Starring: Dan Monahan, Mark Herrier, & Wyatt Knight

Plot in a Nutshell:
A group of teenagers in 1954, must deal with high school, raging hormones, and a malicious bar owner, all while trying to lose their virginity.

What I thought:
I find it difficult to review this film. Not because it is bad, but because there really isn't much to say. This is probably one of the first true teenage sex comedies to be made. Angsty Teenagers have to fight against evil adults, throw in a healthy dose of sex and nudity and you have Porky's in a nutshell.

I didn't hate the film, but I can't like it. There were more than a few memorable moments, that I'm sure many people will fondly reminisce about, but it just doesn't do much for me. I could go into about how the characters suck, the story is simplistic, and how enough random bits of funny can't elevate a movie out of garbage.

This movie isn't pure out trash, but it comes close. I did enjoy the main antagonist Porky. I loved how he treated the boys like a bunch of stupid horny teenagers. And I also liked the character Pee Wee. A guy who is so awkward but still manages to have a good time and make his friends laugh. There are some good dynamics amongst the kids, but it's not anything you haven't seen before.

I'm not going in depth with this one, mostly because there is no point. Either you like this kind of movie or you don't. I think once you've seen a teen sex comedy, you've seen them all. The only real distinction of Porky's, is that it was one of the first to be made so raunchy. And yes, it is raunchy.

Bottom Line:
A crude teenage sex comedy that is a fun watch, but ultimately forgettable and not very meaningful, but that's kind of the point.

C-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 24, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Strangers on a Train

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Strangers on a Train
Released: June 30, 1951
Directed by: Alfred Hitchcock
Starring: Farley Granger, Ruth Roman, & Robert Walker

Plot in a Nutshell:
Two strangers meet on a train. Both are having problems with somebody that they wish could just disappear. Bruno (Walker) has a father who rules over his life, and Guy (Granger) has a wife he'd like to divorce so he can move on but she refuses to agree. Bruno suggests they murder the other's problem, that way, they'd both have no motive and they could have realistic alibis. Guy turns him down and shrugs it off, but Bruno goes through with it killing Guy's wife. Does Guy go through with it, and if he doesn't, what ends will Bruno go to make sure he doesn't take the blame?

What I thought:
I really enjoy Alfred Hitchcock presents. It was an old TV show back in the early days of the format, where Hitchcock would present a short 30 minute story filled with his usual staples: murder, mystery, suspense, contained within a clever yarn. They are great bite-sized pieces of a master storyteller at work. About halfway through Strangers on a Train I began to feel that it was a story that was better suited to that 30 minute limitation of television. But my mind quickly changed by the conclusion of the film.

This is a very simple set-up, Two men meet, a scheme is hatched, and over the course of the film, the cards come crashing down. It seemed very cut and dry. That's why I felt it shouldn't have been a feature length film. The things it was reaching for seemed very rudimentary. There really was no sense of suspense or great build up. The characters just seemed to be, and not do. But then something happened. The film twisted and ceased to be about whether or not a man was going to commit to murder and morphed into a story where a man was desperately trying to keep from being framed for a murder he didn't commit. By all accounts, Guy should have been the one to kill his wife, he had a motive, a shoddy alibi, and no real credible story. He couldn't tell the police, Bruno would have denied the whole thing. So about 2/3rds of the way through you realize the picture is much more dangerous than initially thought.

The two leads are not very good, but I don't think it is the fault of the actors. Both Granger and Walker perform fine, but they don't seem to bring anything with them. It is the fault of the screenwriter that the characters are not very detailed or deep. There are no layers to their conflicts or circumstances. Guy is an upstanding citizen tennis player who tries to do things right. Bruno is a man suckling from his parents' teat too long and wishes daddy could just go away. Those may sound like interesting characters, but believe me they aren't, and there is very little beyond that. I wish more could have been made out of them, and I never really cared for either one.

But let's be honest, this isn't a Robert Walker movie or a Farley Granger picture. This is Hitchcock, and he more than brings his skill to play here. I have no idea how he is so able to effectively create such great moods and chilly vibes with just simple understated shots and slow deliberate pacing. It is amazing. The finale literally had me on the edge of my seat. Even though it was absolutely preposterous and very unnatural, Hitch had me glued. And there is no greater testament to the man, than his ability to turn around such an unexciting premise into something very watchable.

Anybody who can take a mediocre story, with bland characters, and infuse it with as much tension as he does, is a true master storyteller. This is a Hitchcock film that doesn't disappoint, even though it seems that it might. I was more than ready to give up on this flick, but it was able to squeak up a notch or two by the end, all thanks to Alfred Hitchcock.

(And yes, that is a spinning out of control merry-go-round pictured above that our two characters are fighting on. It gets THAT silly.)

Bottom Line:
Dull characters inhabit a simple and sometimes silly story, but under the direction of Hitchcock, it manages to make up for it's deficits.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 17, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Wall Street

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old (or there abouts) that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Wall Street
Released: December 11, 1987
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Starring: Michael Douglas, Charlie Sheen, & Martin Sheen

Plot in a Nutshell:
A young stockbroker gets into leagues with a corrupt corporate investor, and finds his morality questioned as his success pays off.

What I thought:
I know nothing about big financial investing, absolutely nothing. I start thinking about investing, and stocks and I give myself a headache. But there are plenty of people who play in these waters every day. These people either perform very well, and see their investments multiply exponentially, or they drown. This film is a great depiction of absolute greed, what it does to people, and how it doesn't always pay to play dirty.

As I stated, I know nothing of wall street and investing. So it is a great compliment to the film that I was able to always follow what was happening and who was doing what, when I should have been completely lost in the numbers. Oliver Stone is able to portray this world and its inhabitants effortlessly. The world of finance and investing really does come to light in a way you never have seen it before.

Gordon Gekko (Douglas) is the money hungry corporate investor who takes the young inexperienced stockbroker, Bud Fox (C. Sheen), under his wing. He teaches him how things really work, and how to get "information" from people who are covering their financial tracks. It takes Bud a few scenes to get under Gekko's good graces, but eventually he does when an insider tip procured from his union-leader father (M. Sheen) leads to quite a lucrative stock buy.

Gordon Gekko is a pure sleazeball depiction of power and greed. He paces his office, making deals over the phone and through his investors, firing his mouth at 500 rounds a minute. He never slows down, never backs away, and is ruthless in his decisions. It is all about money and how to manipulate the system to get it. Michael Douglas does a great job at bringing this powerful figure to life. He is charming when he needs to be and a total blood hungry shark when crossed. But always he is portrayed as a man who cares about only one thing: Money.

The film revolves around greed. Everybody is touched by it. Bud Fox is greedy for success and once the money starts rolling, he finds his moral decisions becoming more and more compromised. It isn't until Gekko betrays his trust that he begins to see the corruption. Gekko on the other hand is a pure 100% homegrown powerful greedy incarnation. He even speaks to a group of investors in a company that he plans to take over, that "Greed is good." In this speech, he is justifying his incredibly destructive acts as something that is necessary, and dammit if he doesn't convince you, "Greed is Good," or at least vital. But then the next second you find yourself asking, "What just happened?"

I found myself enjoying the film as it played on, if not for anything else than to just see a world I never really saw before. My entire experience with investing and the New York Stock Exchange is entirely derived from what I see on CNN and what I've learned in class. So I found it incredibly fascinating to see this financial environment explored in film. And from what I've read, they nailed the feel and tone of that business, and that is no small task. Everything else about the film is executed with great skill. It is a very well made film, with strong performances from the leads. Some of the other minor characters can however be a bit of a wash.

Bottom Line:
An interesting look at the world of big business investing, and the dangers of getting too greedy.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 10, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Kramer vs. Kramer

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Kramer vs. Kramer
Released: December 17, 1979 
Directed by: Robert Benton
Starring: Dustin Hoffman, Meryl Streep, & Justin Henry  

Plot in a Nutshell:
A housewife abruptly leaves her husband and son in an act of desperation. The workaholic father must then cope with having to raise his son alone and also maintain his career. A year and a half later his wife comes back, wanting to take custody of their son.

What I thought:
I am a child of divorce. I have seen first hand, the effects that are wrought on all those involved. I have been forever changed by the repercussions of such a horrible thing (not always bad). Believe me when I say: Kramer vs. Kramer is an absolutely FLAWLESS representation of a failed marriage and what it does to Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Mothers, and the children caught between. 

The most powerful part of this film is not that it merely enacts the terrible time at the end of a marriage, but does so with absolute sincerity and utter realism. I have NEVER seen a film so well acted before in my entire life. Dustin Hoffman is amazing in his subtlety and equally powerful in his ability to restrain himself at just the right moments. There are eruptions of emotion throughout, but the strongest parts in the film are the simple understated nods, gestures, or slight smiles. He doesn't so much perform as he just lives and breaths this character and his trials. It's no wonder he won an Oscar here.

Meryl Streep doesn't have a large part, but she more than makes up for her little screen-time by bringing in an enormous presence. She does a despicable thing at the very beginning of the movie: she abandons her family. But Meryl is so good that you never hate her for it. You never once see that character as anything but tragic. That is the real magic to her portrayal. Playing a woman who is on the edge of a full and complete breakdown, it is no wonder that she also won an Oscar.

And rounding out the trio of great performances is that of Justin Henry, the son caught between two loving parents. I have no idea how a child of his age was able to pull off probably one of the greatest child performances in the history of cinema. It seriously is that good. The way in which he responds to a desperate father's attempts to connect, it is heartbreaking. When he asks so innocently of his mother, your heart crumbles as his father tries to explain the truth of divorce and separation. His reactions are some of the most gut wrenching I've seen.

The thing I want to iterate with this film is how extraordinarily real and authentic this film feels. It is not over played and it is not overly dramatized. It simply is. This is due in large part to the fact that both Dustin and Meryl were both going through similar problems that their characters were experiencing. Dustin was on the other side of a divorce, and Meryl had just separated from a long-term, close relationship. Their real world experience only elevated their presence and performance in the film, and you can see it in every frame.

Aside from the performances, the film succeeds on every level as a demonstration of the anguish of divorce. The courtroom scenes stand out in particular. Both parties fight passionately for the custody of their son, but both begin to see the other's side to a degree that they never had before. Dustin was confused as to what Meryl was going through when she left. It wasn't until the end that he truly understood what strong emotions she was dealing with. Also Meryl never seemed to get an appreciation for what her husband had been dealing with since she left. He lost his job because he was so devoted to his kid, and unfortunately at a crucial time for the custody hearing. This man, when his son fell off a jungle gym, ran three blocks, across traffic, to a hospital. They really give you a sense of the love and the hurt throughout the film.

I cannot gush enough about this extraordinary piece of work. Not only does it represent a pinnacle of acting talent, but it tackles a subject matter that is very difficult, very powerful, and emotionally charged. There is so much that I haven't even mentioned, the great juxtaposing, the idea that the Mother is almost always favored in child custody, the themes of rejection, love, loss. It is a great, great film. I cannot recommend this film enough. An absolute must see.

Bottom Line:
Realistic, powerful performances detail the anguish of a failed marriage and the hard repercussions people face in it's wake.  And it's a Best Picture winner.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, August 3, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Pale Rider

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old (or there abouts) that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Pale Rider
Released: June 28, 1985
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Michael Moriarty, & Carrie Snodgress

Plot in a Nutshell:
A mysterious stranger, known as the "Preacher" comes to the aid of a small mining camp that is being terrorized by their big money neighbors.

What I thought:
Unforgiven is easily one of my most favorite movies of all time. The themes that it presents about violence and the carelessness of youth are some of the best. The regret and remorse of Clint's character is so skillfully and meticulously constructed throughout the film, that when it is completely and brutally destroyed in the final reel, it carries all the more meaning. I mention Unforgiven because Pale Rider so closely resembles it in its relaxed tone, at least for a western. You can clearly see the efforts of Eastwood, in trying to create something different here.

Much as Unforgiven was not your typical western, neither is Pale Rider. Your main character is essentially viewed as a preacher, a spiritual man of God that only acts when forced to. In the last act, he literally trades his collar for a gun belt. But more than the main character's attitude, the general feel and look of the film is much mellower than I was expecting.

There are no broad and colorful characters, rather we get very real characters. The protagonists are simple miners, just wishing to be left alone to do what they do. The villain is not boisterous or conniving, he wants his land, and he'll do anything to get it. And Clint.., is well Clint. Very sparse in performance he doesn't need to act, he just is. Effortlessly, he manages to inhabit his characters time after time.

The only thing I didn't really enjoy about the film, was that their wasn't a big idea. There was no major theme that the story could carry through the film. There was an element of a group of people refusing to run away from bullies, and wanting to "grow roots" as it were. And a little bit of spiritualism to the Preacher, but beyond that, there was little of substance to Pale Rider. I would say that it doesn't need substance as long as other elements pick up the slack. However, the serious manner in which it was told was never supported by the plot. Parts of it wanted to be heavy, and others wanted to be enthralling, but it never seemed to gel.

I think it all boils down to a still-learning director. At this time in his career, Eastwood had directed many films, and I have to imagine that with each he got better and better (look at the ones he has recently churned out). Some of the choices here, as far as the other performances, the camerawork, and editing, it all sits just on the edge of good. It isn't great, nor is it awful.

You can see in every frame that this is a spiritual precursor to the far superior Unforgiven. That doesn't mean that on its own, Pale Rider is not a good film. No, Pale Rider is a serviceable western that more than anything, never fully conveys it's message. Instead it is a realistic and interesting take on the classic western that looks as though its trying to bite for something meaty, yet gets nothing. I'm just glad Clint pulled it all together for Unforgiven. God, I love that movie.

Bottom Line:
A western that falls somewhere between a meaningful piece of film-making and an action packed western extravaganza, but with not much of either.

B-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Thursday, July 30, 2009

Classic Movie BONUS: Midnight Express

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday, BONUS edition. Every Monday (and random days like today), I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Midnight Express
Released: October 6, 1978
Directed by: Alan Parker
Starring: Brad Davis, Randy Quaid, & John Hurt

Plot in a Nutshell:
A Student from America is caught trying to smuggle drugs out of Turkey. After he is thrown in prison for at first only a few years but eventually the sentence is expanded to 30, does he attempt escape or go insane?

What I thought:
I enjoy films in similar veins to Midnight Express. It's always good to see somebody break out of jail, right? I love movies like the Great Escape, Escape from Alcatraz, or even Shawshank Redemption. With Midnight Express, the tone becomes far darker and more dangerous. The character here, Billy (Davis), is incarcerated in a strange and hostile country, the punishment is harsher than it should be, and the prison is a place where madmen are born. What a tough movie to watch.

This is a cautionary tale about how to respect a foreign country's rigid rules. I remember going to Singapore where the laws there are very strict and the punishments even harsher. God forbid, I look at a woman wrong or chew gum. In this story the danger is there with a Muslim government, but Billy actually tries to smuggle hash. Because terrorist concerns are running high at the time, he is searched more thoroughly than to be expected, and of course he gets busted. The opening sequences detailing this attempt and failure, are probably the best moments in the entire film.

What happens when he gets into the system is often scary, but is it unjustified? The man had two kilos of hash on him in a nation that strictly forbids drugs. So while I think getting sentenced to prison for a few years fits the crime, it is the subsequent re-sentencing that really boils the blood. He was doing his time, he was waiting his sentence, as I think he should. But then to be told they're throwing the book at you and you won't see freedom for 30 years, that's absurd.

It was at this point that things went sour for our character (as if they weren't sour enough). Constantly being oppressed by the guards, and seeing his friends brutally beaten for the pettiest of crimes, he slowly begins to lose his mind. Brad Davis plays this character very well. He has just enough boyish naivete and American confidence, that it begins to burn when you see him dealing with the pains of the harsh prison. A scene, early in the third act, where he completely goes crazy on a snitch, is a real highlight for Davis.

I'm on the fence with this film. I think it has excellent moments in it and does present a great cautionary tale, yet it is so unbelievably depressing. I can only guess that that was the intent of the film, but it is so dour, so harsh that I can't say it is an easy film to watch. I found myself about 2/3rds of the way through, just wanting it to be over, needing this poor guy to just get out. It really brought me down. So I'm not sure what to think of it. I can't say it didn't have an impact on me. The performances are strong, and the film as a whole is well made. I just don't think I'll ever watch it again, simply because it is so depressing.

As an afterthought, the films I mentioned earlier; Shawshank, Alcatraz, and Escape, all have one thing Midnight doesn't: hope. There is no source of hope, no moment of inspiration, not one uplifting moment that makes it all worthwhile. While I think a filmmaker could make a good argument for hitting an audience square in the nuts by presenting a hard, unforgiving film like this, I ultimately feel you do your audience a great disservice by not providing a source of hope. Films are a roller-coaster, You have your highs, and you have your lows, they should be balanced. But when a film lingers in despair for so long, it becomes a bit of a discouraging and upsetting mess.

Bottom Line:
While the film itself is strong, it is unforgiving, and relentless in its own hopelessness. I'm very tired after this.

B-

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Classic Movie BONUS: This Is Spıinal Tap

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday, BONUS edition. Every Monday (and random days like today), I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

This Is Spinal Tap
Released: March 2, 1984
Directed by: Rob Reiner
Starring: Michael McKean, Christopher Guest, & Harry Shearer

Plot in a Nutshell:
This mockumentary examines the "complicated" and drama infested lives of rock stars on a tour. Hilarity ensues.

What I thought:
I've heard many things about this fake documentary for years. So many people reference so many times when talking about trumped up ego-filled rock stars. Made in an interesting style, the fake documentary, this film manages to capture the absurdity of modern day rock stars so effortlessly. And it is at times, very funny.

I'm not sure what the back-story to this project is, how it got made, why they chose who they did, how things came together. The reason I don't know is that it seems everyone involved apparently wants to maintain the illusion that this is in fact a real British rock band called Spinal Tap. And they really were the subject of a documentary. So all you have to go on with this film is the film itself (funny how that works).

Mostly ad-libbed by the three primary band members, and the documentary director (Reiner), the film contains the spontaneity of a documentary shot on the cuff. But hidden within the sometimes incoherent mumbling and the dopey eyed stares of an aging rock band, is some genuine comedy. The part that is probably most well known is the talk about how their amps have dials that go to 11. So they can leave it at 10, but if they need just that little extra bit of power, they can take it up to 11.

The film is filled with interesting little moments like that. They first make you laugh with their arrogant incompetence, then you find yourself thinking, are they REALLY like that? Did the actors, really capture the essence of rock stars? Without having any friends who travel or perform on tour, I can't really say. But I can't imagine the Steven Tylers or the Ozzy Osbournes are really that far off from these crazy characters.

The thing that made it so enjoyable was just how lost these guys really are. There's a real duality to them in that they are supreme, confident, and so sure of themselves. Yet they are vacant-headed enough that they can't find their way to a stage, they can't tell feet from inches, and they can't use pieces of tiny bread to make a sandwich. They are complete airheads, that so believe in themselves and their lifestyle. You almost wonder what they are like when the tour ends, and they go home.

Bottom Line:
Cocky, dim-witted rock stars are hilarious.

B+

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, July 28, 2009

Classic Movie BONUS: Sudden Impact

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday, BONUS edition. Every Monday (and random days like today), I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Sudden Impact
Released: December 9, 1983
Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Sondra Locke, & Pat Hingle

Plot in a Nutshell:
San Francisco Police Inspector Harry Callahan returns in this fourth film of the Dirty Harry series. In it Harry is forced to take a "vacation" due to his unusual approach to fighting crime, meanwhile bodies are stacking up, killed in unusual circumstances from a single killer.

What I thought:
I haven't seen all the entries in this 5-film series. Up until this, I've only seen the original, Dirty Harry. But everything I have read or heard says this is one of the better ones. And while it managed to stick on me more than the first, I still found it to be a bit lacking. Don't get me wrong, Eastwood's character of Callahan is unmatched by anyone in any other film, yet everything else, doesn't quite hold up.

Clint Eastwood's personification of Inspector Callahan is probably one of his best creations. He is a man comprised of simple black and white, crime and the law. There isn't much in the way of compromise when it comes to Harry and Justice. Preferring to take his own route, he almost seems to take satisfaction out of crooks who dare pull a gun on him. He is an extraordinarily proficient killing machine who so happens to be moonlighting as an actual lawman. Well, he's not really moonlighting, he IS a policeman at heart, and he believes in justice. But in these days, the system is failing to catch the baddies. Bogged down in bureaucracy and politics, the cogs of Law don't work in Callahan's eyes.

I could go on forever about this amazing character, but other things must be discussed. Not only is the set up of character so well done, the accompanying performance is simply void of a single flaw. Eastwood commands the screen in every scene. But as with every great thing, there is a downside.

This story is so bleh. Basically it goes like this: A young woman who was brutally attacked and raped by a group of reckless kids, comes back years later to hunt down each of her attackers. She seduces them, gets them vulnerable, then BAM, shoots em in the crotch, and once in the head. That sounds interesting, and it almost becomes a compelling character. I just find that it was handled very poorly in the film. The actress, Sondra Locke, never really captures the emotional weight involved with her character's brutal gang rape. Yeah they show some scenes here and there trying to illustrate her turmoil, i.e. she breaks mirrors. But it just never came across as anything realistic at any point.

It's a shame, because her story is pretty much THE story of the entire film. The only point that I thought it became interesting was in the end. Harry, a sort of vigilante with a badge, had to decide whether he'd let this girl go. According to his very defined code of ethics, she is a criminal, she has killed many men, brutally. But she is in essence doing the very thing he does, dispatching the scum of the city. It was an interesting moment in the film, and as far as story is concerned I think it was the real highlight of the piece. But it was one of only a few good plot points.

This movie exists because of the character Eastwood has created. For this simple reason this movie is more than worth watching. Dirty Harry Callahan is a film icon that needs to be seen. His lines, his mannerisms, his unbending view on crime and punishment, all of it makes for a fantastic character. Unfortunately, I wish the film could keep up with him.

Bottom Line:
This movie is about one thing and one thing only: Eastwood's unyielding and flawless performance of a iconic character. Everything else is secondary.

B

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 27, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: The Graduate

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

The Graduate
Released: December 21, 1967
Directed by: Mike Nichols
Starring: Anna Bancroft, Dustin Hoffman, & Katharine Ross

Plot in a Nutshell:
A timid university graduate is seduced by an older woman, but falls for her daughter.

What I thought:
The Graduate is an unusual comedy. It is a much more subtle humor than slapstick or jokey styles, but it still manages to be quite hilarious in its awkward moments. The concept is simple enough, the idea of an older woman having a sexual affair with a young man is something I find unique to this film at this time period. What makes it great is the change in tonality that carries through the initial awkward moments of the film all the way to the emotional and satisfying climax.

The strongest portion of film is the uneasy performance by Dustin Hoffman. His character at the start is so unsure of himself, of life, and of sexuality. It is no challenge for a woman of extraordinary confidence and stature like Mrs. Robinson, to easily take control of him. So when the ending comes, you see the significant change in him and his actions. The uncertainty is now confidence. The awkward demeanor has now transformed into assured fearlessness. What does this character owe to such a change in personality? Almost certainly he owes it to his assorted affair with the infamous Mrs. Robinson, and the subsequent whirlwind romance with her daughter Elaine.

I found that by the end of the film I was questioning how his character made such the dramatic change. I still don't think I can quite understand how his relationship with Elaine seemed so strong. It just was. I suppose it could simply be a matter of kindred spirits. Both are caught up in doing what their parents think is right, or what they feel they should do. So i imagine it is out of this mutual hatred of control that they are able to bond so quickly, and then cause the awesome ending at the church. But I have to say honestly, I'm not sure. The film doesn't really explore why these two hit it off, but if you don't pay it much mind, the conclusion is more than fulfilling.

One of the things I admired about this film is the almost voyeuristic approach to its perspective. Shots are taken across rooms, scenes are played in the dark, and conversations are silenced by loud music. It's almost as if the events were happening and the crew was there to capture it. The purpose to doing it like this is to make things seem real. The characters pop to life in ways that you don't normally see.

The Graduate is a film that marks a time in history. It is a young man's comedy, akin to the likes of today's American Pies or Risky Businesses. The thing that makes this stand out as a genuine classic, is the performances by Hoffman and Bancroft. Their unusual chemistry is surprising, especially considering the circumstances their characters are in. I wish that that strength sustained itself throughout the film, but it successfully manages to switch gears towards the final act. Just wish there was more Mrs. Robinson. Always, there must be more Mrs. Robinson.

"Dee dee de deee ...and here's to you Mrs. Robinson."

Bottom Line:
A unique story (at the time), humorous performances, and Simon and Garfunkel highlight this comedy classic.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, July 6, 2009

Classic Movie Monday: Baraka

Welcome to Classic Movie Monday. Every Monday, I watch a film at least 25 years old (exception in this post) that I have never seen before. I will then write my comments on the film, telling you what I thought of it. This is an attempt to beef up my classic film knowledge as well as highlight some forgotten gems of Hollywood's heyday. So without further ado...

Baraka
Released: September 15, 1992
Directed by: Ron Fricke

Plot in a Nutshell:
A collection of evocative imagery telling the story of humanity and the planet on which it resides.

What I thought:
I'm going to point out that this film does not meet the criteria I've set for my Classic Movie Monday Column. But I think rather than sticking to my hard rule of a classic film definition (more than 25 years old), I'm going to highlight this fantastic film, simply because it deserves it. And in my mind it has already achieved a classic status based on its renown and following.

So what is this film? That's a hard question. There is no narrative, no plot or story structure. There is no voice over, no interviews, and no interruptions. This is simply a collection of imagery that speaks to the human spirit, condition and I daresay the soul in all of us.

Shot in 65 mm film (more than double the size of your standard run-of-the-mill film), the film is shot with such detail and care for its subjects, that even without a story, you find yourself becoming immersed in the power of it all. The shots presented here are far beyond complex. Some of the time lapse photography just boggles my mind at how long it had to have taken to create. In fact the accompanying documentary reveals that many night time time lapse shots ran for the entire night, and only a third of the tries came out exceptional or even usable. And some of these shots simply cannot be described by words alone.

I am a bit of a film junkie. I love the technical aspects of creating film, the cinematography mostly; lighting, shot placement, framing, subject positioning, etc. In Baraka all of those aspects shine bold and bright. But what I think is the real strength of the picture is it's subjects. The filmmaker's selection of where to shoot, who to shoot, is impeccable. They have no problem showing you the natural beauty of a mountain top village in the warm and crisp morning light, and then later they show you the machinations of thousands of factory workers rolling cigarettes like robots.

Often times my jaw would drop at the juxtaposition of certain elements. One scene in particular was a monk in Tokyo slowly walking down a sidewalk, one tiny step at a time. With every step he rang a little bell and chanted a prayer. While this monk is doing this meditation the hustle and bustle of the major metropolitan area of Tokyo moving all around him like a river goes around a strong rock. The way in which it was shot and put together was simply breathtaking, and that is only one of many powerful moments in this film.

One of the things I must point out is that I was watching this on blu ray with a hi def TV. Save for going to a full-on 70mm screening on a very big screen, there is no other way you can watch this picture except on blu ray in hi def. Part of the beauty of this film achievement is in its detail. Shot on 65mm film and scanned at an unprecedented 8k resolution (to put that in perspective, most films today are scanned in at a 2k resolution, few at 4k), Baraka is unmatched in crystal clear clarity and detail.

This is an incredibly moving portrait of humanity. It's a fantastic and wondrous portrayal of the planet and its inhabitants that is unmatched in any documentary or series that I have ever seen. If you have a HiDef tv and blu ray, you owe it to yourself to pick this up. If you don't, stop by my place and I'll show it to you, it deserves to be seen.

Bottom Line:
With no definitive story or plot, Baraka succeeds in every possible way as a triumph of humankind in all its varieties.

A

Read more.

Sphere: Related Content