I was really disappointed by this film for a number of reasons.
I don't like it when films bastardizes culture from centuries ago with terms, phrases ways of life from the 20th century. I know it's meant to be a twist on a period piece, but it really takes away from the authenticity of the film and I lose respect when many ideals are not present.
I know Sophia Coppola was trying to be all punk rock with this film, and at times it's really cool hearing bands like The Strokes in the soundtrack of a period piece, but really that takes away any seriousness the film could inhibit.
The party scenes were very well edited in my opinion, but what they were doing at the parties were pretty lame. Playing put-a-famous-name-on-your-forehead-and-guess-who-you-are probably wasn't around in the 18th century, or pot for that matter. I really just think the film is Sophia trying to make Marie Antoinette like any other young girl in the 20th century, but that an unfair representation of their way of life.
Too much of the film was focused of whether or not she was having sex with her husband. I think other elements should have gotten more attention.
The French didn't like this film in Cannes, and I gotta agree with them on this one.
Tuesday, October 31, 2006
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Y tu mama tambien (2001)
This was an impressive film. It was the second time I've seen it and boy it seemed to make a lot more sense this time around.
The cinematography in this film in incredible; I couldn't look away because the composition had me at the edge of my seat. The colours are so bold, and vivid, it felt like I was there.
The characters are also really strong. Their stories are realistic; they have their own goals and vices, I feel like I learned more about human natures from watching it.
The pacing of the film is also really good. I had forgotten that one of the story techniques of the film is that all the natural sound is cut off, and a ominous voice-over shares further information about one of the characters, it was really well done.
The cinematography in this film in incredible; I couldn't look away because the composition had me at the edge of my seat. The colours are so bold, and vivid, it felt like I was there.
The characters are also really strong. Their stories are realistic; they have their own goals and vices, I feel like I learned more about human natures from watching it.
The pacing of the film is also really good. I had forgotten that one of the story techniques of the film is that all the natural sound is cut off, and a ominous voice-over shares further information about one of the characters, it was really well done.
Tuesday, August 22, 2006
The Stepford Wives (1975)
This was a pleasantly eerie film. I say it's pleasant because it was well done and it was subtle rather than over the top. So that no one gets confused this is the original film, the remake from a few years ago pales in comparison.
What I liked about this film is that the politics of 2nd wave women's liberation are fresh in the text of the film. It's very obvious the dominant theme in this film.
What didn't take me as a surprised, and I thought was a good choice was that the film had a bleak ending. This isn't a typical Hollywood film for that reason. It came out in 1975 making it part of the tail end of the New Hollywood Cinema years.
Katharine Ross was alright in this film. It's hard for me to take her very seriously after knowing her as the mousy cute girl in The Graduate, c'est la vie.
What I liked about this film is that the politics of 2nd wave women's liberation are fresh in the text of the film. It's very obvious the dominant theme in this film.
What didn't take me as a surprised, and I thought was a good choice was that the film had a bleak ending. This isn't a typical Hollywood film for that reason. It came out in 1975 making it part of the tail end of the New Hollywood Cinema years.
Katharine Ross was alright in this film. It's hard for me to take her very seriously after knowing her as the mousy cute girl in The Graduate, c'est la vie.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Arsenic and Old Lace (1944)
I thought this was a decent film. It wasn't what I was expecting because I didn't think the film was based on a theater production. I find film adaptations from theatrical plays interesting because they do not require a lot of set design, most of the time the film can take place in just a few areas, sometimes only one room is necessary. I want to examine how there is a huge difference between these 2 room films and epics that use many continents to tell their story.
Arsenic and Old Lace is a typical theatrical production. Most of the film takes place in the living room of the two old ladies that are killing old lonely men as charity.
I initially watched the film because Cary Grant was in it. While he was enjoyable to watch, I have to admit that the magic that I once saw in his films are gone (reading a person's biography, and watching almost 2 dozen of their films can make a person feel bored with an actor).
Arsenic and Old Lace is a typical theatrical production. Most of the film takes place in the living room of the two old ladies that are killing old lonely men as charity.
I initially watched the film because Cary Grant was in it. While he was enjoyable to watch, I have to admit that the magic that I once saw in his films are gone (reading a person's biography, and watching almost 2 dozen of their films can make a person feel bored with an actor).
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
L'homme qui aimait les femmes (1977)
This was a really good film. I really enjoy Truffaut films more now. When I was watching this film I found many elements that make this film the predecessor of the highly recognized film “Adaptation” which is also a great film.
While the immediate subject matter is not identical, there are many thematic devices that make a parallel reading very easy to do.
For one they are both about men who are writing about love and relationships. While Adaptation is about how flowers are symbols of love, L’homme takes a literal stand on the subject.
There is a scene that reflects this. In L’homme, The writer is describing what he likes about each woman specifically. He describes them as having something unique about themselves that he is drawn to. In Adaptation, the writer uses different flowers as metaphors for each woman that he could be attracted to.
Both writers are also obsessed with how they are writing their books. They admit that they are putting their personal sentiments into their writing because each writer has a personal approach to whatever subject they are dealing with. Both writers want to try to overcome being too narrow viewed, and they regard it as a vice, but they don’t realize that it is not a flaw, but rather a strength to have a unique position.
In both films there is a scene toward the end when they are confronted by a former lover. The lover tells them that they have to learn how to like themselves because their problem is they push people away because they have low self-esteem. They don’t allow themselves to love one single woman because they have trouble metaphorically looking at themselves in the mirror.
There is also a scene in the film where there is a conversation over the phone where the woman just wants to hear the man breath, she doesn’t want him to say anything she just wants to have a sign that he is present and giving her his full attention.
Also a minor detail, Meryl Streep, one of the main women in Adaptation looks uncannily like one of the women in L’homme; I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
Once I realized that these films have so much in common in made L’homme even the more interesting to watch. I found myself looking for more similarities, but I think the other observations I made don’t have much foundation.
The films ended very differently. Adaptation ended with the protagonist feeling free and open to new opportunities about his life. He feels he can move on from his former lover, and the death of his brother. While L’homme ended with the protagonist dying from his weakness; he was reaching for the nurses legs and fell off his hospital bed and died.
Both films are very good stories.
While the immediate subject matter is not identical, there are many thematic devices that make a parallel reading very easy to do.
For one they are both about men who are writing about love and relationships. While Adaptation is about how flowers are symbols of love, L’homme takes a literal stand on the subject.
There is a scene that reflects this. In L’homme, The writer is describing what he likes about each woman specifically. He describes them as having something unique about themselves that he is drawn to. In Adaptation, the writer uses different flowers as metaphors for each woman that he could be attracted to.
Both writers are also obsessed with how they are writing their books. They admit that they are putting their personal sentiments into their writing because each writer has a personal approach to whatever subject they are dealing with. Both writers want to try to overcome being too narrow viewed, and they regard it as a vice, but they don’t realize that it is not a flaw, but rather a strength to have a unique position.
In both films there is a scene toward the end when they are confronted by a former lover. The lover tells them that they have to learn how to like themselves because their problem is they push people away because they have low self-esteem. They don’t allow themselves to love one single woman because they have trouble metaphorically looking at themselves in the mirror.
There is also a scene in the film where there is a conversation over the phone where the woman just wants to hear the man breath, she doesn’t want him to say anything she just wants to have a sign that he is present and giving her his full attention.
Also a minor detail, Meryl Streep, one of the main women in Adaptation looks uncannily like one of the women in L’homme; I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
Once I realized that these films have so much in common in made L’homme even the more interesting to watch. I found myself looking for more similarities, but I think the other observations I made don’t have much foundation.
The films ended very differently. Adaptation ended with the protagonist feeling free and open to new opportunities about his life. He feels he can move on from his former lover, and the death of his brother. While L’homme ended with the protagonist dying from his weakness; he was reaching for the nurses legs and fell off his hospital bed and died.
Both films are very good stories.
Monday, July 17, 2006
The New Pornographers – Ottawa Bluesfest – Sunday July 16, 2006
I thought this was a good show. I was unfortunately somewhat disappointed, but it was merely because of aesthetic reasons ie. the band does not look like rock stars, what the giff! The sound was tight (even though the mix was poorly done).
To get back to this aesthetic thing, the members of the band looked ordinary and geeky. I think bands should dress up, or at least try and present some kind of performative image, it makes the whole seeing them live more worth it, instead of the look like you’re watching them jam in some garage. One of the main things that through me off was the bassist was a total doppelganger for my old film professor M. Raymond, so it was funny and kind of weird watching him rocking out wearing a ‘Where’s Waldo” shirt, and I don’t think he was being ironic.
I was feeling kind of gross as well because I had been outside for most of the afternoon and it was so friggin hot out, it was not enjoyable to stand around for a few hours on top of that.
Overall, they played the songs I wanted to hear, so they weren’t a disappointment in terms of that, it was just the presentation that I think needs work. The band members didn’t move around the stage at all making it look like they were part of an awkward junior high band performing in a talent show, hehe.
Controller.Controller played before them and I really enjoyed their set, they rocked hard, it was fun.
To get back to this aesthetic thing, the members of the band looked ordinary and geeky. I think bands should dress up, or at least try and present some kind of performative image, it makes the whole seeing them live more worth it, instead of the look like you’re watching them jam in some garage. One of the main things that through me off was the bassist was a total doppelganger for my old film professor M. Raymond, so it was funny and kind of weird watching him rocking out wearing a ‘Where’s Waldo” shirt, and I don’t think he was being ironic.
I was feeling kind of gross as well because I had been outside for most of the afternoon and it was so friggin hot out, it was not enjoyable to stand around for a few hours on top of that.
Overall, they played the songs I wanted to hear, so they weren’t a disappointment in terms of that, it was just the presentation that I think needs work. The band members didn’t move around the stage at all making it look like they were part of an awkward junior high band performing in a talent show, hehe.
Controller.Controller played before them and I really enjoyed their set, they rocked hard, it was fun.
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
The Pink Panther (2006)
Wow! I really think this movie is underrated, I thought it was hilarious. I’ve seen the first two original Pink Panther movies from the 60s and hated them, in comparison this version is so much better.
The funniest part of the film is that it’s Steve Martin, an American actor with a corny French accent. The accent is so bad he was definitely trying to make it the worse French accent ever, it was hilarious. One of my favourite parts was when Kevin Kline says a word in French to Steve Martin, and Steve has a “what the fuck does that mean” look oh his face, haha the French character doesn’t know French, just a bad accent. It was even funnier when Steve Martin, with a French accent was trying to learn how to speak with an American accent, haha. The whole scene is a lady trying to teach him how to say “I would like to buy a hamburger” to say the least it was not successful. The next scene has Steve Martin in NYC having his first hamburger, he acts like hamburgers are disgusting, but he bites into is and is in friggin’ love
I have so many lines I loved in this movie that Steve delivered. His facial expressions were so funny also. Also surprising there was some impressive cinematography also, I wasn’t expecting any stylization, kudos!
I wasn’t anything out of this film initially because I had hated the original Pink Panther movies (I respect Peter Sellers, I just don’t think there’s anything special about his version of the character, it was lame).
Here is the trainer who trains! hehehe
The funniest part of the film is that it’s Steve Martin, an American actor with a corny French accent. The accent is so bad he was definitely trying to make it the worse French accent ever, it was hilarious. One of my favourite parts was when Kevin Kline says a word in French to Steve Martin, and Steve has a “what the fuck does that mean” look oh his face, haha the French character doesn’t know French, just a bad accent. It was even funnier when Steve Martin, with a French accent was trying to learn how to speak with an American accent, haha. The whole scene is a lady trying to teach him how to say “I would like to buy a hamburger” to say the least it was not successful. The next scene has Steve Martin in NYC having his first hamburger, he acts like hamburgers are disgusting, but he bites into is and is in friggin’ love
I have so many lines I loved in this movie that Steve delivered. His facial expressions were so funny also. Also surprising there was some impressive cinematography also, I wasn’t expecting any stylization, kudos!
I wasn’t anything out of this film initially because I had hated the original Pink Panther movies (I respect Peter Sellers, I just don’t think there’s anything special about his version of the character, it was lame).
Here is the trainer who trains! hehehe
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Short Cuts (1993)
I thought this was an enjoyable film. For those who are not familiar with this film, think the movie that inspired Magnolia?
I like Short Cuts more than Magnolia because it doesn’t have that syrupy orchestral music playing in the background the whole time; it’s more gritty and believable. Julianne Moore is in both films also, I think she’s alright in Short Cuts.
This film is three hours long, but I found the pacing so well done that I didn’t even notice the time going by, I think it was because Robert Altman made sure that each segment of each story was not very long making the viewer eager to see where and how the story will continue to develop in it’s next segment. I found I was eager also to see how each character would bump into one another. Most of the characters are related to one another or are neighbour or have some affiliation with each other, and I found it interesting to see how each would meet.
All of the cast members I enjoyed, This film is definitely worth checking out.
I like Short Cuts more than Magnolia because it doesn’t have that syrupy orchestral music playing in the background the whole time; it’s more gritty and believable. Julianne Moore is in both films also, I think she’s alright in Short Cuts.
This film is three hours long, but I found the pacing so well done that I didn’t even notice the time going by, I think it was because Robert Altman made sure that each segment of each story was not very long making the viewer eager to see where and how the story will continue to develop in it’s next segment. I found I was eager also to see how each character would bump into one another. Most of the characters are related to one another or are neighbour or have some affiliation with each other, and I found it interesting to see how each would meet.
All of the cast members I enjoyed, This film is definitely worth checking out.
The English Patient (1996)
I really didn’t like this film, I thought it was crap. It in no way appeals to me, and I will now say why.
For one there is not much dialogue in this film. You may thing, but the visuals speak where words would be, but no. All the visuals are the same, there is no vary whatsoever in the visuals. The characters mostly rely on facial expressions to say their emotions, but there is only one expression in this whole entire friggin film. The oh I miss my lover, my life is soo deprived, I was happy at one time, I wish I could love someone passionately, I’m lonely and I need a huggy-wuggy, bleh! I’d rather listen to someone say this than have to look at their facial expressions.
The other thing is that the cinematography has nothing to it, I never say this, but I could have done better cinematography myself. Gah! I can understand why this film won 9 academy awards, I don’t agree with the academies decisions as it is, so The English Patient film can take their crappy awards, and shove it.
I guess I’m a little irritated that I sat through this film. I just don’t understand this type of film, why do people find it appealing, it’s so boring and predictable, in the bad way.
For one there is not much dialogue in this film. You may thing, but the visuals speak where words would be, but no. All the visuals are the same, there is no vary whatsoever in the visuals. The characters mostly rely on facial expressions to say their emotions, but there is only one expression in this whole entire friggin film. The oh I miss my lover, my life is soo deprived, I was happy at one time, I wish I could love someone passionately, I’m lonely and I need a huggy-wuggy, bleh! I’d rather listen to someone say this than have to look at their facial expressions.
The other thing is that the cinematography has nothing to it, I never say this, but I could have done better cinematography myself. Gah! I can understand why this film won 9 academy awards, I don’t agree with the academies decisions as it is, so The English Patient film can take their crappy awards, and shove it.
I guess I’m a little irritated that I sat through this film. I just don’t understand this type of film, why do people find it appealing, it’s so boring and predictable, in the bad way.
A Fistful of Dollars (1964)
I thought this was a really good movie. I didn’t think I was a fan of Westerns, but the style that the spaghetti western is done in is really good. What I like about this kind of western is that there is a dimension of parody in the film. When I watched “The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly” a few months ago with my dad, I had no clue why he was laughing all the time, I just thought the film was being corny and not knowing it. Now I realize that the director was aware and consciously put the parody elements in the film. One of the strongest ways this dimension is portrayed, I believe, is in the soundtrack. It’s an awesome soundtrack with a funny flute loop and chain clang against something. The cinematography is also amazing, I put it up there with my favourite films in terms of visuals, it’s orgasmic! I really want to see ‘For a Few Dollars More’, but it seems to be a hot ticket item at the library for a few weeks, argh nugget!
Note to fans of the Back to the Future trilogy: Fistful of Dollars has the scene that Marty used to get the idea of the ‘bullet-proof vest’; it was cool seeing that scene.
This is definitely a film to watch to get a well rounded film history.
Note to fans of the Back to the Future trilogy: Fistful of Dollars has the scene that Marty used to get the idea of the ‘bullet-proof vest’; it was cool seeing that scene.
This is definitely a film to watch to get a well rounded film history.
Friday, June 23, 2006
Nine to Five (1980)
This was a cute and enjoyable film. Lily Tomlin, Jane Fonda and Dolly Parton have good chemistry together, and even though it could be slightly irritating to watch their hijinks, I couldn’t help chuckling to myself.
Nine to Five is a kind of self-mockery of the women’s liberation movement during the 70s. I thought they played it well; I especially found it interesting to see how different the times were over 25 years ago. Just a few weeks ago I had heard about this film because they were releasing a 25th anniversary DVD.
I also found this film interesting because of all the old technology that the have in the office. All their office equipment are antiques when compared to what is around today, it was pretty funny watching the characters function with the gi-normous photocopier, it’s loco.
I recommend this movie as an easy watch. Thinking about it now, it reminds me of Weekend at Bernie’s, but with the subject matter dealing with woman’s lib instead.
Nine to Five is a kind of self-mockery of the women’s liberation movement during the 70s. I thought they played it well; I especially found it interesting to see how different the times were over 25 years ago. Just a few weeks ago I had heard about this film because they were releasing a 25th anniversary DVD.
I also found this film interesting because of all the old technology that the have in the office. All their office equipment are antiques when compared to what is around today, it was pretty funny watching the characters function with the gi-normous photocopier, it’s loco.
I recommend this movie as an easy watch. Thinking about it now, it reminds me of Weekend at Bernie’s, but with the subject matter dealing with woman’s lib instead.
Wednesday, June 14, 2006
Holiday (1938)
This is another great Cary Grant picture. It’s the third film he starred in with Katherine Hepburn, and I have to say this film is my favourite with Hepburn because she was not annoying at all, I found her very charming and victimized actually (which sucked, but I guess helped me sympathize with her character).
I was deceived at the beginning of this film. The love interest in the film initially is named Julia, and I got so excited because I thought hey it’s going to be another Cary Grant love Julia film. It was like this for most of the film, but half way through it turns out that the character known as Julia was shallow and uninteresting, which blew for me personally in a way, but since I found Hepburn’s character so endearing I just told myself I wasn’t like that crazy Julia character and enjoyed the film.
Cary did some cool nonchalant acrobatics. I’m reading a biography of his and seeing him do the acrobatics (because he’s where he originated in show biz) really shown that the man has class and talent.
In terms of story this was a good film. It was explained very well why Hepburn was the black sheep of the family, besides a few renegade ideas she talked about, she didn’t seem that far from the pack (I guess they wanted me to use my imagination).
I say check out this film if you want to see classic Cary and a non-irriating Hepburn.
I was deceived at the beginning of this film. The love interest in the film initially is named Julia, and I got so excited because I thought hey it’s going to be another Cary Grant love Julia film. It was like this for most of the film, but half way through it turns out that the character known as Julia was shallow and uninteresting, which blew for me personally in a way, but since I found Hepburn’s character so endearing I just told myself I wasn’t like that crazy Julia character and enjoyed the film.
Cary did some cool nonchalant acrobatics. I’m reading a biography of his and seeing him do the acrobatics (because he’s where he originated in show biz) really shown that the man has class and talent.
In terms of story this was a good film. It was explained very well why Hepburn was the black sheep of the family, besides a few renegade ideas she talked about, she didn’t seem that far from the pack (I guess they wanted me to use my imagination).
I say check out this film if you want to see classic Cary and a non-irriating Hepburn.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Snow Falling on Cedars (1999)
I have to say that this film did nothing for me, and I know why. This film, along with many films of the same style, is extremely lyrical. That means that there are no jokes. The film revolves around illustrating the passion and the yearning the characters have for each other. There is always the direction of withdrawl that one character experiences for the other and the audience experiences this by being shown flashback over flashback of the characters happy encounters overlapped with the sad character's desire for the other, who is trying to move on with their life. I find it hard to sit through these types of films because, in two words, they’re dramatized drama. This style of filmmaking is bland to me. Now you may think I’m a hypocrite, but I love lyrical foreign films, and most lyrical Canadian films; it’s just the American lyrical film that makes me want to fall asleep or fast forward through the film.
The topic of the film was pretty interesting, and I would label this an enjoyable film, but it’s honestly the director’s fault that I don’t like this film. I don’t blame the director for ruining it for me because it’s his style; I just think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. Scott Hicks also directed Shine which I enjoy, but that’s because there was some comic relief present. I think for myself, an American film with no comic relief whatsoever is sacrilegious; it’s their strongest device in their films.
Snow Falling on Cedars did have some great performances and they deserve attention. Ethan Hawke was very cute and lonely.
The topic of the film was pretty interesting, and I would label this an enjoyable film, but it’s honestly the director’s fault that I don’t like this film. I don’t blame the director for ruining it for me because it’s his style; I just think it’s important to give credit where credit is due. Scott Hicks also directed Shine which I enjoy, but that’s because there was some comic relief present. I think for myself, an American film with no comic relief whatsoever is sacrilegious; it’s their strongest device in their films.
Snow Falling on Cedars did have some great performances and they deserve attention. Ethan Hawke was very cute and lonely.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
The Break Up (2006)
I really liked this movie. Yes, it was really depressing to watch a loving relationship end, but at the same time I thought this film had excellent flow and great character development (the film student in me, what do you expect). Both characters had their flaws in terms of communication and it was interesting to watch how the other received and responded to that communication and more so lack of communication.
It would have been nice to see the couple for a bit at least during their happy period (but I guess that’s not what the film is about). Instead the two years the relationship occurred is represented through the opening credits of snapshots (candid and organized). I thought that was an effective device, but it would have been nice to see a scene or two of them actually being in the relationship (instead of starting the film after the credits with them fighting).
There was some humour also in the film to lighten the incredible dark and depressing fall of the relationship. Aniston’s effeminate brother, during a dinner scene, is trying to get Vince to sing a drum beat in harmony to other people at the table. He kept repeating “come, come on the bass drum” to try and encourage Vince, it was hilarious! Jon Favreau also stole some scenes as Vince’s best buddy who tries to console him during this period of break up (I felt sad that Jon has gained so much weight since “Swingers”, he was hot in that film, what happened Jon? I thought you lost all your baby fat from “Rudy” years ago, you can’t claim its baby fat anymore).
I definitely recommend checking this film out. I saw it with my roommates and the consensus was it was a bad film because it made them feel awkward to watch it. I guess the voyeur in me holds nothing against that!
It would have been nice to see the couple for a bit at least during their happy period (but I guess that’s not what the film is about). Instead the two years the relationship occurred is represented through the opening credits of snapshots (candid and organized). I thought that was an effective device, but it would have been nice to see a scene or two of them actually being in the relationship (instead of starting the film after the credits with them fighting).
There was some humour also in the film to lighten the incredible dark and depressing fall of the relationship. Aniston’s effeminate brother, during a dinner scene, is trying to get Vince to sing a drum beat in harmony to other people at the table. He kept repeating “come, come on the bass drum” to try and encourage Vince, it was hilarious! Jon Favreau also stole some scenes as Vince’s best buddy who tries to console him during this period of break up (I felt sad that Jon has gained so much weight since “Swingers”, he was hot in that film, what happened Jon? I thought you lost all your baby fat from “Rudy” years ago, you can’t claim its baby fat anymore).
I definitely recommend checking this film out. I saw it with my roommates and the consensus was it was a bad film because it made them feel awkward to watch it. I guess the voyeur in me holds nothing against that!
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Thin Man (1934)
I thought this was a great film. It’s definitely one that is entertaining, let has enough substance that one does not feel like are killing brain cells.
William Powell stars as a former detective who marries woman with a large dowry who is living a life of luxury. One day there is a murder and he gets roped in (partially unwittingly) into cracking the case of who the murderer is. This film is definitely a classic caper (probably one of the best of it’s kind). William Powell is dashing and debonair; his character is constantly drinking, it’s hilarious. The chemistry between he and his wife is reason enough to watch this film. It’s a fast talking, almost screwball comedy (but he already has the girl, so the film is picking up after a few years of marriage). They joke around, very dryly, about not caring about one another, it’s so funny. This movie must have made dinner parties the hippest thing on this side of the coast.
William Powell stars as a former detective who marries woman with a large dowry who is living a life of luxury. One day there is a murder and he gets roped in (partially unwittingly) into cracking the case of who the murderer is. This film is definitely a classic caper (probably one of the best of it’s kind). William Powell is dashing and debonair; his character is constantly drinking, it’s hilarious. The chemistry between he and his wife is reason enough to watch this film. It’s a fast talking, almost screwball comedy (but he already has the girl, so the film is picking up after a few years of marriage). They joke around, very dryly, about not caring about one another, it’s so funny. This movie must have made dinner parties the hippest thing on this side of the coast.
Amadeus (1984)
I was surprised by this film because I feel like I’ve taken so much from watching it. Initially I had thought of this film as a hoaky, bio-pic of some dude with loads of melodrama and a few bits of historical information. Instead what I got was an self-enriching lesson about how history is recorded and remember. Now obviously these are all my observations because I have nowhere near enough time to research the accuracy of this film about the life of Mozart, but everyone has their own stance.
I enjoyed the novelty occurrences that this film provided. I felt like it was more of a story of the lifestyle during his time period. I never thought too much about it, but they really cared a lot about their white wigs in that time, I would think it has the equivalent importance people have to their favourite clothes.
Even though this film was long I think it was all important to have on the screen. While usually when you know a film is over 120 minutes you have to commit to really watching it, but what I found with this film is that because it was more about the daily occurrences in Mozart’s life I felt I didn’t have to give it 100% of my attention the entire time. I was able to chat with a roommate at one point, and surf the internet for some information and still was able to attain the main just of the film. Sidenote, my observations tell me that the film was called Amadeus (Mozart's middle name) to maybe show a more candid angle of Mozart's life
I recommend this film for someone who is interested in watching all the marquee Oscar films (because it won during it’s year). It is definitely an interesting story about how an artist has to struggle to put his work in exhibition because of the powers that control distribution and commission for the project (definitely something that still applies to today’s art work).
I enjoyed the novelty occurrences that this film provided. I felt like it was more of a story of the lifestyle during his time period. I never thought too much about it, but they really cared a lot about their white wigs in that time, I would think it has the equivalent importance people have to their favourite clothes.
Even though this film was long I think it was all important to have on the screen. While usually when you know a film is over 120 minutes you have to commit to really watching it, but what I found with this film is that because it was more about the daily occurrences in Mozart’s life I felt I didn’t have to give it 100% of my attention the entire time. I was able to chat with a roommate at one point, and surf the internet for some information and still was able to attain the main just of the film. Sidenote, my observations tell me that the film was called Amadeus (Mozart's middle name) to maybe show a more candid angle of Mozart's life
I recommend this film for someone who is interested in watching all the marquee Oscar films (because it won during it’s year). It is definitely an interesting story about how an artist has to struggle to put his work in exhibition because of the powers that control distribution and commission for the project (definitely something that still applies to today’s art work).
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
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.
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
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.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
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;
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;
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
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.
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 3rd and 5th 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 6th time I have seen The Dears in concert, I can’t say it was as awesome of an experience as the 2nd, 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
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
