Lyndsay: What this movie can boast is the worst hairdo I have ever, and I mean EVER seen. It even beats Javier Bardem's character in No Country for Old Men (2007 winner- post to come!). Yancey Cravat, the love to hate 'em main character of the movie is sporting the "side part sweep and curl" as I'm going to call it. Luckily the hair was so distracting that at times I forgot how much I hated him and didn't slap Jon in retaliation for how pig-headed and disrespectful men were back then. Which brings me around to my thoughts of the movie as a whole- my hate for this character, in my mind, is a good thing. Considering this was 1931 and the technology is appallingly bad (it was a struggle to see and hear anything going on), I was surprisingly into this movie. I got into the story and even laughed at some of the jokes that were made. The movie makes an attempt at liberalism, showing the struggle for equality for blacks, Native Americans, and women- but also manages to land each of those characters directly into their respective stereotype. Although the acting left a lot to be desired (as Jon I'm sure will describe in more detail), it probably did give a marginally accurate glimpse into frontier life to a 21st century city girl- and boy am I glad to be one. Grade: C+.
Jon: I don't use a typewriter to compose documents, and I don't use oil lamps to light my house at night, so I am not ashamed to say that this movie did not entertain me due to its technological short-comings. I'm not looking forward to any of the movies before the 1950s for exactly this reason. The sound is atrociously bad to the point where you can barely understand any of the dialogue. The acting may have been adequate at the time, but I will take it out of context and state that none of these characters were realistic for the time period portrayed in the movie, or any time period, for that matter. Yancy Cravat's character is that of a pioneer in the 19th century who sets out to tame the wilderness in Oklahoma with his wife and children, but he's the kind of guy who craves chaos and soon rambles on and abandons his family. This is a pretty dishonorable trait, yet his wife clings to his memory and cherishes him when he periodically returns without notice and then disappears again. His character is over the top and his manner of speaking is excessively deliberate, which is what ruins old movies for me. People didn't act like people, they were not believable - they continued the Vaudevillian traditions of the early 20th century. This may have been the best Hollywood had to offer at the time, but I'm not about to start cherishing old relics for the sake of historical value. This movie does not entertain. Grade: F
Monday, March 22, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
1981 - Chariots of Fire
Lyndsay: Ohhhhh where do I begin. Well, I guess I begin by saying we didn't actually finish this movie. I had such high expectations for it because people talk it up all of the time and the duhn duhn duhn music is everywhere, but, much like every "most hilarious movie of the year," it failed to live up to the hype. How boring. Everyone likes the idea of an underdog who triumphs, but the drama should have stayed in the 1924 newspapers when the characters were, in real life, competing for spots in the Olympic games. Otherwise, I think there is probably a similar story, if not 5, for every games.... we've all seen the UPS commercials where the employee is a struggling Olympic athlete.. Best thing about this movie was the original score. Grade: D.
Jon: In Al Pacino voice from Scent of a Woman - "What a crock of shiiittttt!!!" I seriously cannot waste any more time typing words related to this terrible movie. Grade: F-
Jon: In Al Pacino voice from Scent of a Woman - "What a crock of shiiittttt!!!" I seriously cannot waste any more time typing words related to this terrible movie. Grade: F-
Monday, March 15, 2010
1992 - Unforgiven
Lyndsay: Well, every ounce of me always wants to love Clint Eastwood because he is such an icon, but personally I just do not think he is a good actor. I think what others see as gruff manliness and stoicism is just a lack of personality because it is so flat and boring and never changes, no matter what the movie. On top of that, I also did not think Gene Hackman deserved the praise he received for this movie. Although yes, by the end I hated his character as much as I was supposed to, in no way do I see Western-badass in him. If the movie was set in modern day he would have acted it exactly the same- in addition his wardrobe was too modern and when the camera was on just him I forgot this was set in the 1890's. Aside from the acting, I thought the story line was interesting- definitely a new take on Western as it was all about the psychology of the time. At the end, I looked it up to see if it was based on a novel, because all signs pointed to a really fabulous book and a not so fabulous movie. Grade: C.
Jon: I have to whole-heartedly disagree with Lyndsay on this one. Unforgiven is a true psychological masterpiece and possibly the best western ever made. It might be one of the only movies that realistically portrays the mind of a contract killer. Most Hollywood ventures portray a serial killer as someone who functions like a robot, but that is not always the case as there is remorse and guilt among killers. As William Munny (Eastwood) and Ned Logan (Freeman) travel up to Wyoming, you watch Munny transform from an inadequate farmer and father to a cold killer who acts like he doesn't have a family at all. Whiskey certainly helped Munny, but his character transformation is so extreme that you wouldn't recognize him if you had a split-frame of his silhouette at the beginning and the end of the film. The western landscapes add the majestic cinematography that I enjoy, but I think the best part is the fundamental message that contract killers are not always the people you expect, they might be people with families who need the money and also need to be drunk to complete the job. The climax scene at the end of the movie between Eastwood and Hackman is pretty extreme and pretty awesome, with Hackman fulfilling his own prophecy by drawing his gun first. However, like any Eastwood movie, there are MAJOR problems with editing and attention to detail. His rain scenes look ridiculous - it is obvious that water is being blown on a set. His child actors, as always, are terrible (see Mystic River, Gran Torino, and every other movie he has made with child actors). Eastwood is not a good director, never has been, never will be, but he is an unbelievable storyteller. Even with these flaws, it's still a great movie. Grade: A-
Jon: I have to whole-heartedly disagree with Lyndsay on this one. Unforgiven is a true psychological masterpiece and possibly the best western ever made. It might be one of the only movies that realistically portrays the mind of a contract killer. Most Hollywood ventures portray a serial killer as someone who functions like a robot, but that is not always the case as there is remorse and guilt among killers. As William Munny (Eastwood) and Ned Logan (Freeman) travel up to Wyoming, you watch Munny transform from an inadequate farmer and father to a cold killer who acts like he doesn't have a family at all. Whiskey certainly helped Munny, but his character transformation is so extreme that you wouldn't recognize him if you had a split-frame of his silhouette at the beginning and the end of the film. The western landscapes add the majestic cinematography that I enjoy, but I think the best part is the fundamental message that contract killers are not always the people you expect, they might be people with families who need the money and also need to be drunk to complete the job. The climax scene at the end of the movie between Eastwood and Hackman is pretty extreme and pretty awesome, with Hackman fulfilling his own prophecy by drawing his gun first. However, like any Eastwood movie, there are MAJOR problems with editing and attention to detail. His rain scenes look ridiculous - it is obvious that water is being blown on a set. His child actors, as always, are terrible (see Mystic River, Gran Torino, and every other movie he has made with child actors). Eastwood is not a good director, never has been, never will be, but he is an unbelievable storyteller. Even with these flaws, it's still a great movie. Grade: A-
Monday, February 8, 2010
1994 - Forrest Gump
Lyndsay: It really doesn't get any better than Forrest Gump. It's not just a story of a man's life- it's essentially the American story for the second half of the 20th century all set to a fantastic American soundtrack. The thing I like most about this movie is how all of the pieces come together- the story rolls along so smoothly that you are immersed in every frame and never lose site of the point, which, in my opinion, is summed up by the bumper sticker man: "shit happens." As MY momma always said, it isn't what happens to you in your life, but how you handle it that shows true character. Grade: A+
Jon: In my opinion, this is one of the top 5 films of all time, and it is by far the most complete film ever made. There's war, love, death, family, rock and roll, comedy, and just about every aspect of life that a person needs to experience before taking a dirt nap. The entire world thought Tom Hanks was incredible, and he was. He embodies the rare American ideal that if you work methodically, follow the rules, and be kind to others, you will be successful, regardless of your mental capacity. Although the plot is far-fetched, a lot of people could learn a few things from the simpleton who says "stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump's formula works. Hanks is so good that he overshadows the fact that Gary Sinise was outstanding as Lt. Dan. There were also great performances from Sally Field, Robin Wright, and Mykelti Williamson. It's extremely difficult to get any better than this movie, and only few like this are made in a lifetime. It must hold the record for most quotes that are used in everyday language, although it's pretty difficult to measure something like that. I've seen it about 500 times and can recite every word (and sound). Grade: A+
Jon: In my opinion, this is one of the top 5 films of all time, and it is by far the most complete film ever made. There's war, love, death, family, rock and roll, comedy, and just about every aspect of life that a person needs to experience before taking a dirt nap. The entire world thought Tom Hanks was incredible, and he was. He embodies the rare American ideal that if you work methodically, follow the rules, and be kind to others, you will be successful, regardless of your mental capacity. Although the plot is far-fetched, a lot of people could learn a few things from the simpleton who says "stupid is as stupid does." Forrest Gump's formula works. Hanks is so good that he overshadows the fact that Gary Sinise was outstanding as Lt. Dan. There were also great performances from Sally Field, Robin Wright, and Mykelti Williamson. It's extremely difficult to get any better than this movie, and only few like this are made in a lifetime. It must hold the record for most quotes that are used in everyday language, although it's pretty difficult to measure something like that. I've seen it about 500 times and can recite every word (and sound). Grade: A+
1989 - Driving Miss Daisy
Jon: In the history of the Oscars, Driving Miss Daisy is possibly the least worthy victory. Dead Poets Society, My Left Foot, and Born On the Fourth of July were all much better movies that year. This crime is reminiscent of the 1976 Oscars when perennial goon Sly Stallone won with Rocky. Anyway, the movie had a few moments where my pulse went above repose mode. Jessica Tandy is adequate as a miserable old bird, but in 1989 she was a miserable old bird, so I'm not sure how much acting was involved. Dan Aykroyd is laughably bad. Morgan Freeman shows his inexperience in the film world by trying too hard to be a lovable character. The story of an unlikely friendship between Tandy and Freeman is just not very interesting and extremely predictable. A crazy old woman is bound to make a racist comment at some point, and eventually she will wear down over time and become more approachable. I think the only redeeming quality in the movie is the score by Hans Zimmer, but that's about the only thing that would take your attention away from passing traffic. Grade: D
Lyndsay: I'm torn on this movie. I can see why it won this award in 1989 as the story is a significant one. Race relations are still an issue today, but 20 years ago this message of equality and friendship between a Jewish white woman and black man (in the South none-the-less) was an important one to share. On the other hand, however, it was kind of boring and the acting was over-done at times. Jessica Tandy was fabulous (nothing beats her in Fried Green Tomatoes, but this performance was up there), but Dan Aykroyd and Morgan Freeman were not so fabulous. Dan Aykroyd was just bad- not very believable as his character. Knowing that this was Morgan Freeman's break-out role, I give him a bit more credit, however his performance of a poor, illiterate black man seemed very cliche to me, especially his manner of speaking. Who knows though, it could have really been like that. Over all, a lovely message, but by today's standards, not very captivating. Grade: C+
Lyndsay: I'm torn on this movie. I can see why it won this award in 1989 as the story is a significant one. Race relations are still an issue today, but 20 years ago this message of equality and friendship between a Jewish white woman and black man (in the South none-the-less) was an important one to share. On the other hand, however, it was kind of boring and the acting was over-done at times. Jessica Tandy was fabulous (nothing beats her in Fried Green Tomatoes, but this performance was up there), but Dan Aykroyd and Morgan Freeman were not so fabulous. Dan Aykroyd was just bad- not very believable as his character. Knowing that this was Morgan Freeman's break-out role, I give him a bit more credit, however his performance of a poor, illiterate black man seemed very cliche to me, especially his manner of speaking. Who knows though, it could have really been like that. Over all, a lovely message, but by today's standards, not very captivating. Grade: C+
Saturday, February 6, 2010
1979 - Kramer Vs. Kramer
Jon: This is easily the saddest movie I've ever seen - it was the closest I've come to crying during a flick, but since I'm a man, I did not. Dustin Hoffman and Meryl Streep are both outstanding. The story is very consuming and like any good movie, you don't realize you're actually watching a movie. I can identify with Hoffman's character Ted Kramer since he's addicted to work, but it's amazing to see him transform throughout the movie from an absentee father to the only presence in Billy's life. Streep is great playing a crazy chick. The movie is very rich in emotion and some of the scenes are unforgettable, like the main courtroom scene where Hoffman mouths to Streep that she's not a failure and the scene where Hoffman has to explain to his son that he's not going to see him every day anymore. Overall an awesome flick. Grade A
Lyndsay: My man is not a crier. Although no actual tears were shed (his reputation as a man is still in tact), I think it is the closest I have ever seen him come. This movie would tug on the heart strings of anyone because of its sincerity. The story of a woman supressed and the love between family members is about as real as it gets- especially, I'm sure, for women of previous generations. You also can't get much better then Meryl and Dustin who played their parts perfectly. Save it for a time when you're looking to cry, but do not skip this movie. Well deserving of the Oscar win. Grade: A
Lyndsay: My man is not a crier. Although no actual tears were shed (his reputation as a man is still in tact), I think it is the closest I have ever seen him come. This movie would tug on the heart strings of anyone because of its sincerity. The story of a woman supressed and the love between family members is about as real as it gets- especially, I'm sure, for women of previous generations. You also can't get much better then Meryl and Dustin who played their parts perfectly. Save it for a time when you're looking to cry, but do not skip this movie. Well deserving of the Oscar win. Grade: A
1982 - Gandhi
Jon: I don't like historical profiles - readers need to know this up front. However, it was pretty unbelievable how much Ben Kingsley actually resembled Gandhi. A white guy playing an Indian has to be extremely difficult (CORRECTION - He is 50% Indian). His accent and his delivery were outstanding, but for all his mastery of the technical aspects, he seemed to be lacking charisma. Perhaps Gandhi himself was not very charismatic, but parts of the movie dragged and I dozed off a few times. Overall, the movie did a great job of telling his incredible story, but it just was not as captivating as I expected. Grade B-
Lyndsay: Jon doesn't like history, so he is biased. I thought the movie was a slow, brooding one, but excellent. The representation of events was well portrayed and didn't seem dramatized for cinematic effect. I will say, Gandhi's movement and Indian independence had such worldy significance that was not given such in the movie. It leaves you feeling informed on the subject but not aching to go out and share what you learned. Grade B
Lyndsay: Jon doesn't like history, so he is biased. I thought the movie was a slow, brooding one, but excellent. The representation of events was well portrayed and didn't seem dramatized for cinematic effect. I will say, Gandhi's movement and Indian independence had such worldy significance that was not given such in the movie. It leaves you feeling informed on the subject but not aching to go out and share what you learned. Grade B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)