Movies of the Month

[MadMan]

Its about time I explained why each of the films in my sig got that "honor." This is also an excuse to increase my post count. Besides after this month I'll be switching to covering the next sixth months of the year (including July of course). Besides I'm sure someone is curious. Or not really. Anyways.

Oh and the full list of all the movies I've seen this year can be found here:
http://icine.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=13709&start=0-post 13, first page.

*January:

Adaptation(2002)



Perhaps I haven't seen enough movies, but to me this is the best tackling and skewering of conventional film cliches, breaking them down, mocking them, and even employing them to serve a point. The film also isn't afraid to look inside the creative mind, nor to really not only play with our emotions but give us a reason for doing so.



That all wouldn't work if it wasn't for the film's marvelous cast. Meryl Streep really is the film's heart and soul, turning in a usual brilliant acting job, but also adding layers and depth to a character that on the surface really doesn't seem to add up to much. Nicolas Cage's neurotic, Woody Allen on crack persona actually works here unlike in other films, and it just might be his best performance ever. He comes off as likable, creepy, sympathetic and also quite loathsome in many ways, and somehow pulls of playing two people, both who exhibits those traits (one's nicer than the other though). And finally I have to give massive kudos to the underrated Chris Cooper, who finally got his long overdue recognition thanks to this film. If anything he completely disappears into the role of John Laroche. If anything this and Lone Star have hopefully alerted others to what I've previously discovered.



Oh and I can't understand why some don't like the film's second act, and the ending. If anything I think the last act is quite beautiful, and very touching on the old heart strings. I actually dug the last shot more than I thought I would, although I must admit that moment is one of the few weak things about the entire film. After some thought I realized this film beat out Children of Men, which I viewed in the same month, by a small margin. Both receive 100s from me, which I actually do not give out as much as some people might think.

[Morris Schæffer]

I like this one a helluva lot more than Being John Malkovich. Cage looks like Gene Wilder in that third pic.

[Skitch]

I love Adaptation. It still manages to make my head spin a bit...in a good way.

[MadMan]

I like this one a helluva lot more than Being John Malkovich. Cage looks like Gene Wilder in that third pic.

Heh, now that you mention it he does. Makes sense to me, considering that Wilder often played rather neurotic/nervous characters in comedies.

Finally 3,000 posts. Awesome. That means I've spent way too much time here, and this is the fastest I've ever reached it. Folks are posting here at such a high rate I wonder how much more the server will be able to take. I won't worry about such things, of course


*February:

L.A. Confidential(1997)



Really is Titanic better this movie? I highly doubt it, but hey that flick won best picture and sadly this one never stood a chance. Especially since after a second viewing thanks to TCM during their Month of Oscar spotlighting award winners I came to realize that Curtis Hanson's 1997 offering is truly a great film. Maybe even a masterpiece, although I don't really like that word and I think its thrown around way too lightly without any thought as to what it means.



Anyways I digress. Few neo-noirs set in the past yet made in the present day have succeeded in capturing the feel, the energy, and the atmosphere of the old days, such as in this case the 1950s. Back then film noirs were a dime a dozen, and yet watching this picture one can't help but sense that Hanson perfectly nails everything about that time and place down. The corrupt cops, the sleazy reporters, the desperate dames, all classic elements expertly imported, updated, and showcased wonderfully.



Not only does the film do that, but it also features a cast balanced out by aging vets like the still lush and gorgeous Kim Basinger, James Cromwell (in a performance completely the opposite of what he did in Babe), Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito. Yet its the kids that steal the show, as then up and comers Russell Crowe and Guy Pierce displayed what they could do, especially in that rather heated and awesome scene where they completely go apeshit and fight one another. Yeah I love this film a great deal, and I think its one of the few 90s films I really want to add to my DVD collection as well.

[Morris Schæffer]

L.A. Confidential is all kinds of awesome. I'm hoping to see a kickass blu-ray edition very soon because here's one movie I've yet to pick up.

There's some needless exposition at the end and the revelation that [

Show Spoiler

Bud White is still alive after being shot at point blank range by Cromwell!

]

I think it would have been perfect had it simply ended with the shootout and Guy Pearce holding up his badge while the cops arrive en masse.

I still love Titanic however. :P

[MadMan]

L.A. Confidential is all kinds of awesome. I'm hoping to see a kickass blu-ray edition very soon because here's one movie I've yet to pick up.

Yeah a SE of the film would rock.

There's some needless exposition at the end and the revelation that [

Show Spoiler

Bud White is still alive after being shot at point blank range by Cromwell!

]

I think it would have been perfect had it simply ended with the shootout and Guy Pearce holding up his badge while the cops arrive en masse.

I still love Titanic however. :P

In some ways I think that yes, ending it with Pearce holding up the badge would have been a perfect shot. But in many ways the ending really signifies how Pearce's character [

Show Spoiler

completely sells out, and lets the cops cover it up so he can become a hero. The truth stays buried regardless, something that's another aspect of noir in general.

]

The day I see Titanic is the day I have time for a 3-4 hour long romantic movie covering events I already know about :P

[Ezee E]

The day I see Titanic is the day I have time for a 3-4 hour long romantic movie covering events I already know about :P

your loss

[MadMan]

your loss

I highly doubt that.

And yes I've neglected this thread for too long. But I've been, um, busy. Procrastinating and such :P

*March

All About Eve(1950)



The general consensus is that show business is a place that is nasty, brutish, and short. Like the state of nature. I'd say that's about right, and what's interesting is how in 1950 not one, but two films about the business were created. One I have yet to see (its painfully obvious), but is more about Hollywood. The other is centered around Broadway, but to me both movies are really about the actors/actresses, and how cruel their world can be. "Eve" wouldn't be half as entertaining if it didn't dive into that, and sport not only really sharp, smart and mean dialogue but also moments that are practically cat fights.

Ah yes, the dialogue and the performances are the best things about this movie. We get juicy bits like "Fasten your seatbelts people. Its going to be a bumpy night," among others too numerous to mention. Before this film I had not seen Bette Davis in action, and I now regret that this is so far the only performance of her's I have seen. She is utterly magnificent, showcasing not only her high intelligence but the fact that she so easily can disarm and massacre someone with a quick quip from her icy tongue. Here she is absolutely brutal, and even after she finds some sort of redemption she still remains a bit contemptuous, not forgetting the transgressions committed against her.

Now I'm not forgetting the gorgeous Anne Baxter, who up to this point I had only seen in The Ten Commandments (she's awesome in that as well). I love how she goes from being an seemingly innocent girl, naive even, to in fact a younger, even bitchier version of Davis' character. Eve, like all people secretly scheming for success, does anything and everything to get it, and thus by the final amazing act she and Davis actually manage to switch places in a way.

I can't leave this review without tossing a bone to the wonderful George Saunds, who acts as the film's succulent narrator and is just as witty as the others, although the film doesn't bother to leave him out of the fun. He's the bastard to the female's bitchiness, with only Eve's lovely older friend being the only person even remotely likable here. See this film people simply because its utterly amazing in every way. I can't honestly think of any major flaws, and its minor ones aren't even recognizable or worth noting.

[Philosophe_rouge]

All About Eve is a great film, and I'm happy you think so highly of it. I definetely recommend seeing Sunset Blvd. because it's even better, though very different.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Also, as far as Davis goes there are still MANY of her films I'm aching to see (especially Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Jezebel and the Little Foxes), but I can recommend: Dark Victory and The Letter.

[Morris Schæffer]

I highly doubt that.

Cameron is really more interested in the ship of dreams itself and its tragic demise courtesy of a piece of ice. If you think that you can find yourself caring for a damn boat, then do not be dissuaded because of a romance that is merely okay. Titanic is frequently awe-inspiring.

[baby doll]

L.A. Confidential(1997)

Really is Titanic better this movie? I highly doubt it, but hey that flick won best picture and sadly this one never stood a chance. Especially since after a second viewing thanks to TCM during their Month of Oscar spotlighting award winners I came to realize that Curtis Hanson's 1997 offering is truly a great film. Maybe even a masterpiece, although I don't really like that word and I think its thrown around way too lightly without any thought as to what it means.

I haven't seen Titanic either, but as far as Time Rendering a Different Verdict, as in 1980, you have a more obviously prestigious Hollywood film that I haven't seen squaring off against a darker, conspicously masculine Hollywood film. In both years, the latter film is bound to be wildly overrated simply for being nominally edgier than one designed to flatter conservative Academy tastes. However, we should make a clear distinction between films that are "too dark" for the grey old Academy voters but somehow still get nominated for best picture, and truly disturbing films like Bruno Dumont's La Vie de Jésus (my favorite film of 1997) which isn't even on their radar.

As far as making an evaluation (which is all the word masterpiece signifies, an evaluation), I think it's a very good film, better than the majority of commercial Hollywood fare--which are the only films in contention for the Oscars--but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. Again, that's just my evaluation.

Anyways I digress. Few neo-noirs set in the past yet made in the present day have succeeded in capturing the feel, the energy, and the atmosphere of the old days, such as in this case the 1950s. Back then film noirs were a dime a dozen, and yet watching this picture one can't help but sense that Hanson perfectly nails everything about that time and place down. The corrupt cops, the sleazy reporters, the desperate dames, all classic elements expertly imported, updated, and showcased wonderfully.

Well, few of the originals had the budget for big stars and expensive period trappings, which no doubt helped in the Oscar race. While both of these things strike me as obvious improvements, the low-budget originals were often weirder and more personal (Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly being only the most obvious example). In any event, I would've rather seen a film that had a stronger connection to lived experience, that told me something about life in the 1950s instead of other movies.

Not only does the film do that, but it also features a cast balanced out by aging vets like the still lush and gorgeous Kim Basinger, James Cromwell (in a performance completely the opposite of what he did in Babe), Kevin Spacey and Danny DeVito. Yet its the kids that steal the show, as then up and comers Russell Crowe and Guy Pierce displayed what they could do, especially in that rather heated and awesome scene where they completely go apeshit and fight one another. Yeah I love this film a great deal, and I think its one of the few 90s films I really want to add to my DVD collection as well.

The performances are all strong, but in keeping with what I just said, the characters are all familiar types from other movies: as you say, corrupt cops, sleazy reporters, desperate dames. Kim Basinger is especially good in part because her character is viewed more sympathetically than she would be in a film from the 1950s. She's not the femme fatale but a victim. That said, the treatment of her character as a Damsel in Distress waiting for Russell Crowe to come along and save her is hardly progressive.

[MadMan]

Cameron is really more interested in the ship of dreams itself and its tragic demise courtesy of a piece of ice. If you think that you can find yourself caring for a damn boat, then do not be dissuaded because of a romance that is merely okay. Titanic is frequently awe-inspiring.

Perhaps I cannot muster that amount of caring. But eventually I will give the film a chance, I suppose. I remember going through a short phase where I was pretty fascinated by the doomed ship. That phase has long since passed.

Also, as far as Davis goes there are still MANY of her films I'm aching to see (especially Whatever Happened to Baby Jane, Jezebel and the Little Foxes), but I can recommend: Dark Victory and The Letter.

All of those are on my "To See" list. Some are higher priority than others.

All About Eve is a great film, and I'm happy you think so highly of it. I definetely recommend seeing Sunset Blvd. because it's even better, though very different.

Eventually I will get to it. I imagine that it will be worth the wait.

baby doll I will get to your post eventually. I'm a bit tired at the moment.

[MadMan]

Okay, time to get this thing in gear again. I should really finish it before the end of the year happens.

I haven't seen Titanic either, but as far as Time Rendering a Different Verdict, as in 1980, you have a more obviously prestigious Hollywood film that I haven't seen squaring off against a darker, conspicously masculine Hollywood film. In both years, the latter film is bound to be wildly overrated simply for being nominally edgier than one designed to flatter conservative Academy tastes. However, we should make a clear distinction between films that are "too dark" for the grey old Academy voters but somehow still get nominated for best picture, and truly disturbing films like Bruno Dumont's La Vie de Jésus (my favorite film of 1997) which isn't even on their radar.

Sadly that is all too true. Since I last wrote that review I've realized that bitching about the Academy screwing over "X" film, actress, actor, director, etc. is pointless. So many greats have never won a little Golden Man that bitching about them not winning it is like caring if your favorite artist takes home a Grammy. I can clearly understand why the less happier movie doesn't stand a chance against the brighter, more standard fare.

As far as making an evaluation (which is all the word masterpiece signifies, an evaluation), I think it's a very good film, better than the majority of commercial Hollywood fare--which are the only films in contention for the Oscars--but I wouldn't call it a masterpiece. Again, that's just my evaluation.

I can see your point here. Maybe I shouldn't have used masterpiece, and maybe I should stop using it. But I felt it applied to LA Confidential in this case. I am glad that as of late I haven't been throwing the term around a great deal. And of course most Hollywood fare is crap, which is a shame considering that back in the "Old Days" we got much better blockbusters and popular fare. Standards have been lowered all too considerably.

Well, few of the originals had the budget for big stars and expensive period trappings, which no doubt helped in the Oscar race. While both of these things strike me as obvious improvements, the low-budget originals were often weirder and more personal (Aldrich's Kiss Me Deadly being only the most obvious example). In any event, I would've rather seen a film that had a stronger connection to lived experience, that told me something about life in the 1950s instead of other movies.

Huh, interesting. Due to being out of town one weekend I actually missed TCM showing Kiss Me Deadly. I'll be on the constant lookout for that film however, as I am interested in seeing more film noirs. When it comes to low budget cinema I like a great deal of it, and one of my all time favorite movies (The Night of the Living Dead(1968) is low budget.

The performances are all strong, but in keeping with what I just said, the characters are all familiar types from other movies: as you say, corrupt cops, sleazy reporters, desperate dames. Kim Basinger is especially good in part because her character is viewed more sympathetically than she would be in a film from the 1950s. She's not the femme fatale but a victim. That said, the treatment of her character as a Damsel in Distress waiting for Russell Crowe to come along and save her is hardly progressive.

Good point, heh. I don't mind that in this case Curtis Hanson decided to not include a female fatale in his movie. That's one of the few noir elements missing from the picture. However while its not progressive it is in line with the movies of the 1950s, which aside from noir and a few other exceptions did not feature strong female characters. Maybe that's what Hanson was going for here. I'm not sure.

[MadMan]

*April:

The Gold Rush(1925)



Last year I set about watching some of the movies from Charlie Chaplin, and I discovered that the buzz about him was spot on. I had seen bits and pieces of The Great Dictator years ago on AMC, but that had previously been my only exposure to his greatness. Here, in what is widely regarded as one of the best comedies ever made, what truly made him a talented legend is on full display. Chaplin features slapstick, inspired gags, a clever sense of comedic timing, and also some realistic sadness and sympathy for his Tramp figure, a little fellow simply trying to survive despite all odds against him.



Those well versed in cinematic history know of the classic "Eating the shoe" scene, or the famous "Oceanic Roll" moment. But to me the film's best comedic parts come when the house is hanging on the edge of a cliff, with its occupants unaware of their predicament; the Tramp accidently catching his suspenders on someone else, walking away, and pratfalling. These moments help lay the groundwork for the movie's more bittersweet and sad parts, most notably The Tramp's desperate and endless attempts to win over who he perceives to be the girl of his dreams, which is something so easily identifiable with most people. In a way, The Tramp is simply a template for future comedic characters, most notably the usual sad sack loser trying to win some pretty lady's heart and actually excel at something in life.



What I mostly take away from The Gold Rush is that even though it’s not apparently a masterful film, or completely breathtakingly brilliant. But that through many of its smaller elements, brought together with its bigger pieces, combine to form a greater whole that is truly something special. I'm not sure if this is the best comedy ever made (I'd have to see more before I really say that), but I am certain that its awesome, and that I did witness something member able and remarkable. Plus Chaplin's efforts left me with a big grin on my face, and that's all I really ask a movie like this to do, anyways.