Blonde Venus (1932)

I thought this was a touching film and signature film. Marlene Dietrich is able to combine feminine sensuality and masculine coldness (geez, could I be more narrow with my gender descriptions). In essence she’s mesmerizing; her stage presence is magnificent, no wonder so many female actresses hold her in high regard.
Blonde Venus also stars Cary Grant. And if you are in any way familiar with how I judge a Cary Grant picture you’d think, oh boy here she goes again raving about Mr CG, but you’re in for a twist. While Cary Grant was fabulous in the role he depicted, this film is not about him, it is rather about Marlene’s character. It was also a bit of an obstacle for me to watch Cary Grant because Marlene is someone who locks all eyes on herself, but Cary made for some great “two shots”, as I paid a couple grand at school to learn, haha. As I just looked up, Blonde Venus came out the year Cary Grant was first in the pictures. From my observations he does not have that knack yet that won me over as a fan for life. In other words, he’s only a boy in this film. His character is noble, but he didn’t have the flare and pizzazz that his characters in Notorious or His Girl Friday. He’s too gentle in Blonde Venus, but it’s a good start.
The film itself is moving because of its subject matter. The scenes when Marlene is torn up because of her child, you can’t help but want to help her out.
The scene with Marlene in the white suit and top hat is awesome, she has a great voice. I recommend this film as one to definitely see for general film knowledge. The story, without giving anything away, is also strong; if only they were still made that way.

Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)

This was a fairly good film; it was not extraordinary in my opinion because westerns are on the lower end of genres I’m interested in. The performances of Paul Newman and Robert Redford were good. I kept thinking about “Brokeback Mountain” when there were scenes of intense chemistry between Paul and Robert; one scene in particular when they jump off a cliff into river rapids and are carried quickly down, while they are badgering each other about how they hate how the other drags them into crazy messes (oh brokeback).

This movie also reminded me a bit of Bonnie and Clyde because it is about a band of outlaws who rob banks. The difference is that Butch is about male companion and Bonnie and Clyde is about a heterosexual romance gone awry. Butch Cassidy the film is also not witty the same way B & C was. I shouldn’t judge these two completely side by side, but the fact that Butch Cassidy was released two years after B&C speaks a lot to me.

It was neat seeing Katherine Ross as Robert Redford’s main squeeze, the most notable film I know her from is The Graduate, so it was neat to see her in something else (note her character does not range far from her character in The Graduate).

Director George Roy Hill has done other mentionable films, none of which I’ve seen and actually don’t have a stinging desire to run out and request from the library.

Butch Cassidy is worth seeing because it’s a contemporary classic. There are a number of humourous scenes when Butch and Sundance are trying to rob Spanish banks, but of course they don’t know how to speak Spanish and experience miscommunication with their hostages while they are trying to collect their booty (yar, a pirate’s life, it is). And the famous scene where Butch and Sundance’s main squeeze go for a ride bike with Burt Bacharach’s “Rain Drops Keep Falling on my Head” as the soundtrack is definitely worth watching.

The Philadelphia Story (1940)

I thought this was a great film; it’s definitely one of those classic Hollywood films that define and make you respect films made prior to CGI crazy effects and too much press hoopla surround the film (no research done here).

I loved this film for the crazy love triangle that goes on, and I especially love this film because Cary Grant is the leading man; he’s only ever more dashing the more films I watch in which he stars (and don’t you worry I have half a dozen other Grant films on request at the library, *wink).

I can see this film almost as a sequel to “Bringing up Baby” which I reviewed a few weeks ago. The film starts off with Katherine Hepburn kicking Cary Grant out of the house for whatever reason, she seems upset with him. Then two years later she’s set to be hitched to another fine lad (of course not as fine as Cary), and the film revolves around a sweet plot he cooks up to win her back (you can probably anticipate how it will end).

What was cool about this film was that Jimmy Stewart was also there!! Crazy, eh! Crazy ol Jimmy was doing his signature routine, looking confused and raising his eyebrows, getting his bumbling-self into compromising situations and running casual amuck to people around him.

Katherine didn’t irritate me in this film, which was a relief; I also reconsidered watching this film after being so annoyed by her in Bringing up Baby. Her character was rich because she was able to show a range in her scenes. In one scene she plays a conniving socialite who plays mind games with unknowing reporters, in a few she is being told by other characters that she is a cold un-giving woman who will never love anyone, then in one show stopping scene she’s a drunken lush who befriends one of the reporters and goes gallivanting during all hours of the night before she is to be hitched to her second husband.

George Cukor directed this picture and it has now come to by attention that he has many other films that I also hold in high regard. His filmography includes “Gone with the Wind”, “My Fair Lady”, and “Holiday” and there are many more noteworthy films.

This is definitely a film worth checking out; Hollywood films haven’t got much better than this!

The Dears – Ottawa Tulip Festival – May 22, 2006

So this was an awesome show, again one of my favourites all year. I have so much I want to say about this show because there are so many elements that struck my attention.

For one, the band looked great. Murray was wearing a smart white suit with signature black neck tie. Bassist Martin Pelland is still soo, soo hot; wearing an awesomely tailor’s suit jacket and jeans, he’s hot property. Everyone else in the band looked good, but I wasn’t paying super close attention to them. Side note on romance in the band, Pelland and keyboardist (I don’t know her name) seem to be involved, they were smooching.

The stage arrangement was also altered from their own get up. The two keyboardist used to play side by side on the right, but this time, the keyboardist Pelland is involved with was on the opposite side of the stage (probably to be closer to him).

The performance was pretty good. They played a lot of new songs, which seems appropriate for their upcoming CD. The set list’s first 5 songs were new (the 3^rd and 5^th were hot in my opinion). The third song had a hot bass line also, if I remember correctly.

This was followed by a number of songs from their own album, which was awesomely orgasmic to hear. The opening riff for “lost in the plot” turns me on every time I see them live; I have it playing now, it’s one of my favourite songs of all time.

This was the 6^th time I have seen The Dears in concert, I can’t say it was as awesome of an experience as the 2^nd, and best time I saw them, at the Hard Rock back 3 years ago, but it was still enjoyable. I had a play at the gates, so I had a great view. Unfortunately the crowd did not have as many years under their belt as I, in terms of being Dears’ fanatics. An example of the conversation beside me: “The Dears? Have you heard much of their stuff’ ‘nah, not really, have you?’ ‘I haven’t, I hope they’re good”. Puh-lease, I was patient though, I knew The Dears would rock their world, and sure enough the same people half way through the show were saying: “Wow, this is really good!”; point made. Also because there weren’t Dears’ fanatics in the crowd there wasn’t much crowd participation, not many people yelled obnoxious comments during and between songs. I’ll always remember when some goof yelled out “good this time” during Murray’s pause during “The Second Part” haha! I really wanted to yell “play warm and sunny days because we need some warm and sunny days” but I didn’t have the balls to go through with it, mostly because I went to the show by myself, and didn’t want to feel like a retard.

I ended up singing along with a few of the songs, which was cool. It was a friggin’ cold night for the last week of May, fuckin’ late spring sucks ass; I wanna wear the summer dress I bought 3 weeks back, bastard.

Who knows when the next chance I will have to see The Dears, I have to take every opportunity I can. I hope I like the new album, it seems to be a move away from their “Smiths” sounds that I’ve grown so much attached too, but the songs are pretty rockin, nevertheless.

The Bishop's Wife (1947)

As of date, this is my favourite Cary Grant movie. He’s so charming and genuine who couldn’t love him. I thought this was a great movie also because the Bishop’s Wife’s name was Julia, so every time Cary Grant said her name, I swooned. Such comments as “I have an interest in Julia” and “you are beautiful, Julia” make it hard to resist Grant’s charm. As I’ve said probably countless times in other reviews, the man has class!

Cary Grant can sweep any girl of her feet. What I liked especially in this film was that Cary Grant’s character was not meant to be with Julia because he was an angel and Julia was already married to the Bishop. Cary Grant gracefully walked away from his love for Julia because he has integrity and he does not want to get messed up in someone else’s marriage.

This film had so many great lines. One of the best was from the cab driver that went skating with Julia and Cary Grant “So many people don’t know where they’re going, but they’re in a rush to get there”; people need to have this mentality; life goes by too quickly to get wrapped up in tunnel vision.

Cary Grant’s character was promoting living life with arm’s wide open. So many people have trouble accepting new ideas, or letting themselves open up to others (that does not include getting drunk and blah, blah, blahing your life story).

This film was also redone not too, too long ago with Denzel Washington playing the Cary Grant role in “The Preacher’s Wife” I believe. Denzel is definitely up for the challenge, that man also has class!

What I liked about this film also is that Cary Grant is still young in 1947; by 60s he was looking more like a father figure, and even though he remained charming and genuine until the end, it seemed that he lost some of his enthusiasm when he did Charade with Audrey Hepburn.

The actress who played Julia was good too. She wasn’t a stick in the mud like Lauren Bacall, and she wasn’t irritating like Ginger Rogers, she played it just right with excitement. The actor playing the Bishop played a good bitter misguided husband, who learns what’s important by the end.

Side note, this is a “Christmas film”, it’s a great one to watch wrapped up in a warm blanket with some hot cocoa!

A Shot in the Dark (1964)

This film is just annoying. A Shot in the Dark is the 2^nd of the series of 5 Pink Panther movies staring Peter Sellers. I love Peter Sellers in Dr. Strangelove, but gah, in the Pink Panther movies I can’t stand him. Sellers plays a bumbling detective but his bumbling nature is so unnatural it’s freakishly annoying to watch it. It’s the kind of bumbling where you know what’s going to happen because it’s so predictable. After I watched the first one I did not think I should watch any of films from the series because it was also irritating, but some reviews had said that the film A Shot in the Dark was a better film than the original Pink Panther movie.

Realistically someone with Detective Clouseau’s manner would not have any responsibilities. The guys a friggin’ retard and I’m not sorry to say that. He’s clumsy, irrational and oblivious to anything relevant.

I did find it funny whenever Sellers would dress up as something that required a licence, then he would be caught by the police and taken to jail.

Overall, I personally can’t stand these films; I’m writing this review as I am watching the film. I don’t want to bother finishing the film before I write the review.

I sympathize with Clouseau's employer, gah, I would want to tear my hair out if I was in that situation.

Nights of Cambiria (1957)

This was a very sweet, but sadly depressing film about a middle-age woman looking for love, in all the wrong places. The film shows her going out at night meeting men who only want to take advantage or her, or rob her by making her think he loves her. The ending for me was ambiguous; I wasn’t sure if she had made a resolution with herself, or if she was only setting herself up to fall into the same cycle again.

What I loved about this film is that the main character is played by Giulietta Masina. She was fabulous in this role; special nod to the scene where she busts a move in the dance club. I wish I had rhythm like her, hehe.

The style of the film, to me, was typically Fellini. Some of the scenes did not seem to have a motive because he seemed to be capturing the mood and feelings of the characters, rather than create a tight causality with each scene.

This film did not win me over at first because I did not understand the motive that Fellini was trying to create. Throughout the last part of the film the audience is lead to believe that Masina’s character will end up happy with her new beau, but not to ruin it, but the results are not positive with their relationship.

I say this film is worth checking out, just be wary that it is not light. Also because of it’s loose narrative structure, the first half of the film may seem dull, but trust me, it is an interesting fair.

La Strada (1954) and a couple references to other films I love

You know the times when you come across a movie by chance, a movie you have no prior knowledge of, but you know something about the director, or you heard of one of the actors in the films and you’re completely floored afterwards because you’re so surprised that a movie could have such an impact on how you look at life. I can say that this film is one of them. Films that have such an effect on me, after first viewing, need time to get under my skin. I Heart Huckabees, my favourite film of all time, wasn’t my favourite film after the first time I watched it. I have to let my thoughts evolve over time, until I can acknowledge that, wow that film was special to me. I’m also writing this review almost a week after I watched the film. Just thinking about it over the past 5 days has made me adore the film so much more. Therefore, as you may have already suspected, this blog is not so much a review/critique of this film, than a peek into the personal connection I felt (hint: I’m a huge film geek, and this blog is very self-indulgent).

Well, if I still have your attention, La Strada was really good because I loved Giulietta Masina’s character. She plays a young woman who is taken away by a traveling performer who treats her like shit for the whole time that they are together. What I loved loved loved about Giulietta’s character is she plays this kind of feminine version of Charlie Chaplin’s Tramp character; it’s awesome. Her facial expression is priceless throughout the film (She was even my msn pic for a few days, I might change is back again!). She is so hopeful when it looks like Anthony Quinn's character is going to show her some attention, and then she looks so heartbroken everytime he lets her down. I wanted to cry out of empathy at least half a dozen times. I feel the same about the main character in I Heart Huckabees. I loved the Jason Schwartzman character. He's so devastated with the Open Space's charter, that he started, kicks him out and then all the times Jude Law's character leads him to believe that he is on Schwartzman's side. I feel that both of these characters are capable of having both virtues and vices. Characters who are able to show both sides of the coin are definitely strong characters. Raging Bull’s main character Jake La Mota also portrays strong virtues and vices. I feel like these types of characters are real, and that they are more identifiable because they are at a natural level of human nature, that some films butcher off by creating “stereotype” characters for “so-called” audience identification (I think stereotypes are entertaining, for what they’re worth, but in the end they’re like eating a full box of Kraft Dinner, so decadent at the time, but after 20 minutes reality hits, and I have indigestion)

La Strada has great chemistry between the two main characters. Even though the chemistry is meant to be a constant love/hate relationship, the way it is presented on screen makes you want them to stay together, so you can experience the struggles and obstacles that present themselves during their close relationship.

What makes the chemistry so strong between Masina and Quinn is that they want and can only handle something particular from their relationship. Masina’s character wants to be close with Quinn, and she bends over backwards to please him. She likes the attention he gives her, when he occasionally gives it to her. Quinn wants to have Masina as a companion, but can’t handle having her as an intimately close companion. He often times holds her out at arm’s length and beret’s her when she is close to breaking the glass between them.

For me, this was the strongest trait in the film. While cinematography, music, dialogue and editing were also well done in this film, I have to say from a personal stand point the chemistry between the two characters carries the film from start to finish. The ending was sad, but very poignant. I was touched by it without question.

Match Point (2005)

This was a great movie. There were so many heavy elements involved; Jealous, lust, mystery, and murder. For anyone who loves The Talented Mr. Ripley, this is a movie for you; not to give away the story line (it’s not identical to Ripley either). I really enjoyed this film, particularly because my loyalties during the film changed characters. At first I was sympathetic toward Scarlett Johansson, but then I change my mind to Rhys-Meyers, then to Emily Mortimer and it didn’t stop there. I like movies that challenge me to question which character is being victimized, and which character is evil in the end. At the end of the film there is not question who the evil character is, ya gotta watch it to find out though!

Johansson’s character reminded me of the character Christina Ricci played in a previous Woody Allen film, Anything Else. She’s an obnoxiously, self-righteous person, who is able to capture the attention of any man weak enough to succumb to her will. For the supporting characters, they did a good job at creating an ensemble-cast atmosphere. Scenes with the characters in a group had great chemistry, the audience feels as if they have a natural good rapport together, rather than a fabricated performative attachment to one another.

The cinematography was also good. It is like all other Woody Allen films I have seen. That’s a good thing.

What I liked about the film overall, is that it was not self-consciously neurotic like other films sorry. Sorry that I am constantly comparing this film to previous Woody Allen films, but it seems appropriate since Match Point proves to divert in some ways away from most of his other films.

For the general movie enjoyer, this is a movie definitely worth checking it. It does not fail to keep your attention.

Stardust Memories (1980)

This is the most narcissistic film by Woody Allen I’ve seen to date. It’s pretty much a 90 minute self-indulgent fair of how Allen saw his career as of 1980. Cinematically and all that mumbo-jumbo this is a good film; it has a lot going for it including script, visuals and cast. At times the film is way too busy. That was probably Allen’s intention because he was depicting how he is always being bombarded by people talking at him, not to him. A line in particular I liked that was repeated: “we enjoy your films, in particular the early funny ones”. The scenes with one of his love interests having a meltdown was well done, consisting of jump-cuts of an extreme-close-up of her face.

Like always it’s not believable that all his love interests would actually be interested in Allen, physically. He’s an awkward guy, and he obviously exaggerates it in his films, as a gimmick. Not to say that a lot of people don’t act the same way in their head, it’s just sometimes too much to see it in a film.

Overall, like the DVDs leaflet says, this film is misunderstood. The narrative is non-linear making it easily confusing; you pretty much need to watch it knowing that the next scene will probably not link directly to the current scene. Watching Stardust Memories, I was reminded of La Dolce Vita, maybe it’s an homage to the critically recognized Fellini film? I haven’t checked any sources yet so I’ll find out soon; I just didn’t want other people’s opinions to taint my thoughts on the film.

Stardust Memories is worth checking out if you want to get a hyperbole of Allen’s psychologically deconstructive style. It just occurred to me that perhaps the non-linear narrative is a representation of Allen depicting how a person’s thoughts tend to be scattered, until organized and presented through an outlet. From this, it can be taken that Stardust Memories stands out from his other films because it takes a more literal approach to Allen’s egoism. It’s sure to not disappoint.

Mission: Impossible 1 & 3

I’m writing this review because I had recently seen M:I:3, but didn’t feel like commenting on it immediately. Today I picked up M:I:1 from the library and man I gotta get some things off my chest. I’m not going to criticize this franchise; I think it’s great, the theme song really gets me going.

So this M:I:1 is good. What I find interesting about this franchise is that Cruise picks a different director to take on each film, therefore making it harder to denounce any specific director for ruining the films, if one does not go over well. To compare #1 to #3, there are probably an equal amount of similarities and differences. For similarities, there is intrigue (Tom Cruise wearing the awesome fake faces), there are ex-plo-si-ons! (cars crashing and setting on fire, can’t beat that), and there are disloyalties (I’m getting better at not being fooled, haha).

The differences I found were more on the technical side. The cinematography in #1 is more straightforward with baker's dozens of dutch tilts (you’d think De Palma gets off to these angles there are so many). The cinematography in #3 was a lot cooler. J.J. Abrams takes the cake with his lighting, colouring, and composition (no competition). De Palma’s style in comparison seems one dimensional, if I can say that, probably because the guy idolizes the stark, yet efficient stylings of the one and only Howard Hawks and A. Hitchcock (a.k.a. rip-off artist). Another difference is the story. I have to like #1 for the story because it is so much more intricate and detailed than #3. There’s not much mystery in #3 because audiences have been through the same whodunnit twice with M:I.

Side rant, the gadgets used on the film deserve to be singled out. In M:I it’s hilarious how sending e-mails was given such attention. Being released in ’96 when the internet was just breaking into the mainstream made it seem so high tech to connect to other computers through a modem (looky there ma, it’s going at 24.4 kps). The cell phone in #1 is also pretty ancient too, it’s pretty funny watching in now. M:I:3 technology was what ever it wanted to be. I can’t remember anything specific, but it was pretty much anything your eye could imagine.

So, not to ignore M:I:2, because it did happen between these two films, I can’t really comment on it much. I should watch it again, but like I said I needed to say my piece pour numèro un et numèro trois. Les deux sont les bons films, et je crois que la majorité des gens vont l’aimer.

À Bientôt!

The Strokes – Ricoh Coliseum – May 6, 2006

Wow! This was a great show. I’m writing this 2 days after the show, so I feel like I may have lost some of the essence of how I felt before, during, and right after the show, but I will try to be as accurate as I can. I already read a favorable review in the paper, but that won’t change my opinion; of course it was a good show, anyone who didn’t enjoy themselves is crazy, or they don’t know how to enjoy themselves.

First off, before the show I noticed there were many teenagers, a.k.a. kids. Now normally I would have been ticked that so many lil ones might wretch my Strokes experience, but I was proved wrong. Before the show, as I’m standing around near the stage, they’re all in front of me, being obnoxious, but I wasn’t irritated, I was calm because I knew I’d be seeing The Strokes soon, woo. Also, very important, it took 2 seconds for me to realize, hey these kids probably have been to 2 maybe 3 concerts before, at the most, therefore they don’t have any concert etiquette, and I’m totally going to be able to use this to my advantage. By mid-show I was twice as close to the stage as I started, those kids have no idea how to stand on their own ground, literally!

The opening band, Most Serene Republic, was pretty good, I enjoyed their performance. They seemed very excited to be opening for The Strokes, so excited that they mentioned The Strokes 3 or 4 times during their set, and then blurting out their name finally, at the very end (way to self-promote, haha). Special attention to the bassist; from the very beginning he was the most excited to be playing on stage. I immediately dubbed him
“Arigato Bassist” because he was seemed literally thankful to be on stage by jamming really hard and dancing around. Toward the end, the band leader said the bassist name was Simon and he had just joined them yesterday (not a bad place to start with a band).

The Strokes set was awesome. I’m going to break their set into three chronological sections, I enjoyed each differently. The first part I was so excited to see them on stage (like everyone else). I must have sung along with at least 3 songs. The first song was the new single “Heart in Cage”, and I know Juicebox was in there somewhere; point being, I was having a concert high off the first bat. The view at this time wasn’t great, it could have been better, but it was fair. Toward the end of the first part, Tall Boys (a.k.a. guys that are over 6 feet) were getting in my way and I was actually so bold for the first time ever and tapped them on the shoulder and said very pleasantly “Hey I’m shorter than you, can I stand in front of you”. This ended up making the concert for me (If I didn’t see Julian whaling away, or study Nic’s steady, straight-forward bass, I would have been pissed). Guitarist: Nicholas was definitely a show stopped for me, I never gave him much attention, but seeing how he was doing all the cool parts, and that he was the closest to where I was standing, I couldn’t look past him.

The second section was probably my favourite. I’m going to say that I started off with “Ize of the World”. Seeing how that’s my favourite song off the album, it has to represent a landmark of the set. This section was really energetic I had had a great time, because I had a really good spot to stand. I should note that where I was standing for the first part had the best sound because I was off to the side so I was getting all the side amps right at me (but of course, not the best view). My memory is failing me, I really can’t remember completely what songs were playing here and then I the last section.

The majority of the set, to be honest, consisted of their singles. They did do a Lou Reed cover of “Take a Walk on The Wild Side” which was pretty cool. And they did a few mellow songs to break up their electric power-punch rocker rock! Oh yeah!

They ended with a 3 song encore, which was cool (the concert would have been less than 90 minutes if they didn’t, good thing they kept going); New York City Cops, Hawaii, and Is This It.

They ended up playing all the songs I wanted to hear which was very satisfying. Seeing them 4 years later, they played a lot better (in terms of crowd appreciation); first time around, at the Skydome, Julian barely acknowledged the crowd, even though it was a good show, he also seemed more conscious this time around, also. However, Julian did mess up the set list like 5 times, throughout the show he’d say “Ok, now we’re going to play…” then the band would be confused, and Julian would be all cute and say “oops, ok, we’re playing this now”, Silly boy.

I ended up not buying a shirt at the show and I’m glad I didn’t. The designs were nothing special, and I would have felt really uncool wearing it at the same time that dozens and dozens of kids decided to wear their freshly pressed shirts during the concert.

I can’t think of anything else from the show. Afterward, my friend Nicole and I were exhausted because we had been on our feet for 6 hours, but it was soo worth it! This concert was definitely one of the two best shows I’ve seen so far this year (the other being Stars at Winterlude, wooo!)

Bring on The Dears at Tulip Festival, word.

United 93 (2006)

Wow!
This movie was intense; I highly, highly recommend seeing this film because it's extremely engaging. I think the reason why I was so captured by this film is because it did not require very much back story explaination. Unless you've been living under a rock, (and you're probably dead if you are) you know the story behind Flight 93.
Another reason why I found this movie incredible is because there were no celebrities in the film that would draw attention away with their star personas. Having all unknowns playing the self-sacrificing heros on the plane increased my relatability to the characters; I felt myself almost crying sometimes.
The pacing was also very good. It moved along quite fast, but was able to respect moments of emotion between the passengers and their loved ones.
The cinematography was also well done (I know I could probably justify saying 'well done' about any aspect of the film).
So I shouldn't say anything else because it might ruin the experience of watching this film.
Point Blank: don't pass it over.