Tuesday, August 27, 2024
Rise of the Planet of the Apes
- Commentary: This is the first movie in the Planet of the Apes Reboot series, and it's a honey of a movie. It's one of the best super-hero origin stories I've seen. Andy Serkis, an extraordinary actor, plays the role of Caesar, the chimpanzee who is born into super-hero ape status.
My mother, who was famous in our family for her love of the original Planet of the Apes series, did not live long enough to see this reboot. I think she would have loved it, even though there are several differences, the first and most significant being that the apes don't speak English, they speak Ape. There are a few words they pick up, here and there, most significantly, the word, "No!", but communication between apes is handled so well that a watcher is never in doubt as to what is communicated. Really a magnificent reboot of the series. I often hope, as I watch each of the three reboot movies, that, if there is a survival of consciousness after death, my mother is watching over my shoulder as I watch these movies.
Update 6/9/2022: This post was originally published on 1/16/2021 but disappeared from public view. I am now reinstating it.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role James Franco Dr. William Rodman Freida Pinto Dr. Caroline Aranha John Lithgow Charles Rodman Brian Cox John Landon Tom Felton Dodge Landon David Oyelowo Steven Jacobs Andy Serkis Caesar Karin Konoval Maurice Terry Notary Rocket/Bright Eyes Richard Ridings Buck Devyn Dalton Cornelia Christopher Gordon Koba
Here is the Wikipedia write-up for this movie.
This Wikipedia article provides an excellent overview of all the Planet of the Apes movies. It also hints at a fourth installment of the Reboot series.
Release Date: 2011
Directed by Rupert Wyatt.
Update 8/27/2024: I've actually had this movie for quite awhile but the post became corrupted and I had to salvage what I could, repost, redate it and re-enter it into my Alpha List. It seems to be okay, now.
Labels: action2, adventure2, andy-serkis, animal, biography1, cgi-animation, drama2, fantasy1, political1, reflective, science-fiction1, super-hero1, tragedy1, violence1, war1
Hanna
- Commentary: Mmm, mmm, mmm! I love this film. I know. It's not classic film art. Whatever. It just mesmerizes me from beginning to end, no matter how many times I see it, which is why I decided I need to own it. Our library has about four copies in the system, including the branch I frequent, but it is always checked out of my branch, so, when I yearn to see this movie I have to wait at least a week.
Why do I love this film? I think it's because I like to imagine myself in the heroine's shoes, scientifically altered body and brain and all. I like the fact that she is "plussed" (vs. "nonplussed") throughout, no matter what comes her way, and only slightly cracks when she hears her father being shot. She is in-the-moment-to-the-near-future to the extreme, completely, unshakeably self-possessed. I wouldn't mind being that way. As well, Cate Blanchette is terrific fun in this movie. Although some critics panned her for her over-the-top acting, she reminded me of Anthony Hopkins when he's having lots of fun acting. You know, it's funny, since I began exploring thrillers some years ago (hmmm...I guess it's been about eight years, now) I've become more critical of them, too, and can be easily bored by chase after almost-catch after narrow escape. Some critics place this movie in that category. One critic even called it "derivative", at which I wonder, derivative of what? Is there something else out there like this movie that I might love even more? If so, let me know. I'm ready. Until then, you'll find me on the floor watching Hanna.
Update 6/4/2022: No, I didn't follow the TV series Hanna, despite its increasingly good to excellent reviews. I tried, but the movie did it all for me, wrapped it up with a bow, and left the rest to my imagination, which I prefer.
Update 8/27/2024: I've actually had this movie for quite awhile, at least 5 years, but the post became corrupted and I had to salvage what I could, repost and redate it and re-enter it into my Alpha List. It seems to be okay, now.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Saoirse Ronan Hanna Eric Bana Erik Heller Vicky Krieps Johanna Zadek Cate Blanchett Marissa Wiegler Jessica Barden Sophie Aldo Maland Miles Olivia Williams Rachel Jason Flemyng Sebastian
Release Date: 2011
Directed by Joe Wright.
Labels: action1, adventure1, cate-blanchett, drama4, fantasy1, mystery1, saoirse-ronan, science-fiction1, spy, super-hero1, suspense1, thriller1, violence2
Sunday, October 01, 2023
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
- Commentary: This, the second installment of the Planet of the Apes Reboot trilogy. essentially defines and exacerbates the conflict between those humans who have not been wiped out by the Simian Flu Virus. Caesar, throughout most of the movie, remains hopeful that apes and humans can separately and peacefully coexist. Bad actors on both sides, though, due to both human and ape nature, make this impossible.
This movie has very sad undertones. It, essentially, sets up the large scale conflict between apes and humans that plays out in the final Trilogy Reboot.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Andy Serkis Caesar Toby Kebbell Koba Judy Greer Cornelia Nick Thurston Blue Eyes Terry Notary Rocket Karin Konoval Maurice Doc Shaw Ash Lee Ross Grey Jason Clarke Malcolm Gary Oldman Dreyfuss Keri Russell Eli Kodi Smit-McPhee Alexander Kirk Acevedo Carter Jon Eyez Foster Enrique Murciano Kemp Keir O'Donnell Finney
Update 6/9/2022: This post was originally published on 1/16/2021 but disappeared from public view. I am now reinstating it.
Update 10/1/2023: This post was originally published on 1/16/2021 but, yet again, it disappeared itself from public view. I am now re-reinstating it.
Here is the Wikipedia write-up of this movie.
Release Date: 2014
Directed by Matt Reeves.
Labels: action2, adventure2, andy-serkis, animal, biography1, cgi-animation, drama2, fantasy1, political1, reflective, science-fiction1, super-hero1, tragedy1, violence1, war1
Saturday, May 15, 2021
The Last Wave
- Who's watched: M & G
- Mentions: *1*
- Commentary: This movie has haunted me since I saw it when it was first released. My mother has watched it a couple of times with me. She likes the background digideroo music, the otherworldliness of the movie...but she's not interested in trying to make sense of it. Neither am I, so we just watch it in awe on a fairly frequent basis.
Update 5/15/21: This post was originally published on February 9th, 2005. I had to replace it because some glitches had developed in its labels and it wasn't coming up when I corralled most of the labels applied to it. Everything is working fine, now.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Richard Chamberlain David Burton Olivia Hamnett Annie Burton David Gulpilil Chris Lee Fred Parslow Reverend Burton Vivean Gray Dr. Whitburn Nandjiwarra Amagula Charlie Walter Amagula Jerry Lee Roy Bara Larry
Here's the Wikipedia write-up for this movie.
Release Date: 1977
Directed by Peter Weir.
Labels: apocalyptic, Criterion1, drama1, dream1, fantasy1, haunting1, me-favorite1, mystery1, peter-weir
Sunday, January 17, 2021
Cat People
- Commentary: This movie mesmerizes me and has since I first saw it during its initial theater release. I love its dark sexual statements. I love Natassia Kinski's and Malcolm McDowell's performances. I love the suggestion that sex is never simple, and if you approach it as such, you're liable to lose an arm (or some other essential body part).
By the way, I've never seen the original version, although I'd love to. Interestingly, my local library, which draws on the entire system of libraries in the county, offers this 1982 version for loan but not the 1942 version, even though that version is widely available. This piques my curiosity even more.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Nastassja Kinski Irena Gallier Malcolm McDowell Paul Gallier John Heard Oliver Yates Annette O'Toole Alice Perrin Ruby Dee Creole Housekeeper Female Ed Begley Jr. Joe Creigh Scott Paulin Bill Searle Frankie Faison Det. Brandt Lynn Lowry Ruthie John Larroquette Bronte Judson Tessa Richarde Billie Meshach Taylor Powell Berry Berenson Sandra Pui Fan Lee Olga Ray Wise Soap Opera Man Stocker Fontelieu Priest
Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up for this movie.
Release Date: 1982
Directed by Paul Schrader.
Labels: erotic, fantasy1, horror1, john-heard, malcolm-mcdowell, ruby-dee
Saturday, January 16, 2021
Wonder Woman
- Commentary: I really enjoy the part of this movie which focuses on Diana's Amazonian life. The rest of it, once she leaves Themyscira, eh. My reaction to the story of how Diana becomes embroiled in World War I and, as the blurbs say, discovers her true destiny, left me flat. Yes, the underplot of Diana actually battling Ares as she becomes involved in WWI is interesting, but frankly, anti-climactic. I'm not sure why. You'd think this mission would be exciting. That's certainly the secondary reason why I purchased the movie. The primary reason was because I collect certain super-hero movies and I wanted this particular origin story in my catalog. Will I watch it again? Probably. As I do, though, I'll always wish ...
Update 8/7/2021: I haven't decided whether I want to obtain Wonder Woman: 1984. I've read synopses (some detailed) of the movie, so I know the story, but, of course, that's not important, since, if I like a movie, I'll watch it multiple times, with the story already firmly in mind for all but one of those watches. And, as well, I don't particularly care about the conflicted reviews, like the one immediately above in this paragraph. Thing is, I've watched the original only once and, despite my adoration for the character as played by Gal Gadot, I may never watch this movie, again. My copy won't end up at my local library, since I consider it a must-keep in my super-hero caches (both caches linked, by the way; one to "super-hero" and one to "caches"). But, unlike Iron Man, for instance, I'm not drawn back to yet another watching. Then, again, this movie features Kristin Wiig as a villian, and that sounds like fun. Perhaps I'll check it out of my local library and see how I like it.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Gal Gadot Diana/Wonder Woman Chris Pine Steve Trevor Robin Wright Antiope Danny Huston Erich Ludendorff David Thewlis Sir Patrick Connie Nielsen Hippolyta Elena Anaya Dr. Isabel Maru Lucy Davis Etta Candy Saïd Taghmaoui Sameer Ewen Bremner Charlie Eugene Brave Rock Chief Lisa Loven Kongsli Menalippe
The Wikipedia article on this movie is here.
Release Date: 2017
Directed by Patty Jenkins, as is the second film in this series.
Labels: action2, adventure2, don't-ask-me-why, drama1, fantasy1, female-director3, military, period1, political1, popcorn-and-soda1, pseudo-cgi-animation, super-hero1, suspense1, thriller1, violence1, war1
Wednesday, August 05, 2020
Valley of the Dolls
- Commentary: Yes, I read the book. Decades ago. When I was a teenager. When it was, sort of, taboo literature for girls my age. I also saw the movie when I was a teenager, and have seen it several times since, when it's been featured on some TV channel. It's hard to describe what kind of a hold this movie has over me; why, for instance, I so enjoy watching the turgid stories of these three young women and their torrid lives. I can tell you that I never considered owning this movie until I noticed that Criterion had put out an edition of it with loads of special features. "Ah ha!" I thought. "This edition will help me explain to myself my fascination with this movie!" I'm not sure that's what happened, but I can tell you that I spent an entire afternoon indulging in the movie and each one of the special features, including reading the accompanying booklet cover to cover.
This movie is the ultimate chick flick. Although the focus is supposed to be on the "dolls", the pills that these women consume in order to follow their dreams, the truth is the pills are incidental. The bonus material often refers to it as "camp", but, I can tell you, its campiness is not why I love this movie. I don't love it because it reminds me of the decade of the 1960s. Frankly, even though I was a teenager during that decade, I was pretty much a bookish girl-woman who lived a life that could have been described, from the outside, as dull. I didn't have glorious dreams like the women in this movie. I love the movie because I love reveling in the stories of embattled chicks, whether they're on "dolls" or not. There. I said it.
You'll notice I've labeled it as both a "pussy-flick" and a "women's movie". For me, it's both. It is not a "20th-century-chick-flick", as none of the romances follow that particular type of romantic story. Nobody ends up with their man. It contains scenes that are so full of pathos they can only be described as pathetic and scenes that are touching and thoughtful. It contains a lot of other scenes that are, frankly, just plain cheesy. Sometimes, too, those cheesy scenes are so over-scripted that, while you're watching, you know you're supposed to find them moving but you can't help but giggle, even if you're watching the movie alone. Ah, but those scenes are, dare I say it, the most fun!
Finally, yes, it's true, Roger Ebert was mildly disgusted by this movie (I say "mildly" because he gave it two stars, rather than one). So, he and Russ Meyer co-wrote what they intended as a parody, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I never saw that movie, although, apparently, according to Wikipedia, it duplicated the fate of the original, first ignored, then loved, then culted and partially reappraised. Roger Ebert even wrote an explanatory review of Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. I didn't read the review, only skimmed it. I probably won't ever see this movie, but, you know, if you can't beat 'em, I guess ...
Thank you, Criterion! A master coup!
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Barbara Parkins Anne Wells Patty Duke Neely O'Hara Paul Burke Lyon Burke Sharon Tate Jennifer North Tony Scotti Tony Polar Lee Grant Miriam Polar Susan Hayward Helen Lawson Martin Milner Mel Anderson Alexander Davion Ted Casablanca Jacqueline Susann Reporter #1 Richard Dreyfuss Asst. Stage Mgr. Judith Lowry Aunt Amy
Here, as usual, is the Wikipedia write-up of this movie.
Release Date: 1967
Directed by Mark Robson.
Labels: 20th-century-chick-flicks1, buddy, Criterion1, drama2, fantasy1, me-favorite1, popcorn-and-soda1, psychological1, pussy-flick, richard-dreyfuss, romance1, tragedy1, women's-movie1
Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Joker
- Commentary: Yes, yes, yes! Spectacular film!
Truth is, I'm not heavy into super-hero-comic-book movies, but there are a few I favor, and when I favor them, I really favor them. I'd seen trailers of this movie and my curiosity had been piqued, but, with 100 holds on the movie at the library the day it was released, and a pretty-penny-purchase-price, I knew it would be awhile before I even saw it, let alone considered owning it. My Florida Sister, though, had seen the same trailers, been similarly intrigued, and, instead of buying the movie for herself, she pleaded her work schedule, which wouldn't allow her to see it for awhile, and sent the movie to me!
Yes, it's dark as fuck. Yes, it's not only an origin story that adds to the plausibility of The Dark Knight (which I immediately rewatched after viewing Joker for the first time; yes, Virginia, I finally did watch the entire The Dark Knight movie, thoroughly enjoyed it and have watched it twice since the first viewing just to revel in Heath Ledger's performance), the pleasure of watching Joaquin Phoenix's performance was sooo satisfying. The man, literally, danced through the story, sometimes explicitly, always implicitly. I've since read reviews of the movie and they are maniacally mixed (except for reviews of Phoenix's performance). While there were many accolades, some considered the story unforgivably incendiary. Some considered it scattershot, too obvious, and/or boring. Almost no one acknowledged the obvious connection between Gotham's Joker by Heath Ledger and Joker by Joaquin Phoenix.
Speaking of critical constroversy, although Roger Ebert didn't live long enough to see this movie, reviewers on the site wrote not less than four pieces about the film. The initial review granted it only two stars, but, then, a second, then a third, then a fourth piece followed. Extraordinary.
Although I am a thoughtful fan of super-hero/super-villain movies, don't own many and have seen only the few I own, I have to say, this movie renders the madness of Joker and the madness of Gotham so immediate and real that it makes me wonder, how many Jokers are out there, around the corner, in our confusion of Gothams, just waiting for an accidented (yes, Virginia, accidented) chassis to place them on the world stage?
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Joaquin Phoenix Arthur Fleck/Joker Robert De Niro Murray Franklin Zazie Beetz Sopie Dumond Frances Conroy Penny Fleck Brett Cullen Thomas Wayne Carrie Louise Putrello Martha Wayne Douglas Hodge Alfred Pennyworth Dante Pereira-Olson Bruce Wayne/Batman
For the curious, here's the Wikipedia write-up for this film. Not surprisingly, considering the controversy that erupted around the film, it is a much extended piece, including the usually threadbare Critical Response section.
Release Date: 2019
Directed by Todd Phillips
Labels: action2, adventure2, cgi-animation, coming-of-age1, dance, drama2, fantasy1, film-art1, horror1, joaquin-phoenix, political1, robert-de-niro, satire1, super-hero1, violence1
Mulan: Rise of a Warrior
- Commentary: I didn't know this movie existed until recently. Yes, I enjoy the Disney cartoon version of Mulan, I have it in my collection. When I discovered that this live action version existed, though, I immediately checked it out of our library system and watched it. Although it dramatizes many of the same themes, including romance, although a thwarted one, it is a much more serious take on the legend, especially since any comic elements this one contains (and, there are a few soft moments that could be considered comic) do not have anything to do with Eddie Murphy or a dragon and a chicken. However, there is a striking parallel between the portrayal of the Mulans.
Much to my surprise, I'm not sure which version I prefer. Immediately after I watched this version (when I initially checked in out of the library), I found myself hankering to watch Disney's version ... and I did. Both movies have such a high degree of respect for the heroine that I find them both satisfying, and mutually complementary. Which is why I now own a copy.
You'll notice the number of tags I have attached to this movie; and the fact that the same number is not attached to the Disney version of Mulan. I think all the tags I've attached to this version could apply to the Disney version, but I think this movie had more of an impact on me than the Disney version. Truth is, I'm curious about the 2020 live action Mulan put out by Disney. At some point I'll check it out of the library and watch it, but I'm not sure I'll purchase it.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Zhao Wei Hua Mulan Chen Kun Wentai Hu Jun Mendu Jaycee Chan Fei Xiaohu Nicky Lee Hu Kui Liu Yuxin Rouran Princess Yu Rongguang Hua Hu Vitas Guide
If you feel the need, here's the sparse write-up on this film at Wikipedia.
Release Date: 2009
Directed by Jingle Ma.
Labels: §2, action2, adventure2, cgi-animation, coming-of-age1, drama2, fantasy1, father-daughter-dynamics, gender-bender, historical1, military, period1, political1, romance1, spectacle1, tragedy1, war1
Tuesday, November 05, 2019
Monty Python's Life of Brian
- Commentary: O.K. Look. Considering how Christianity has had an extraordinary impact on several branches of my family (one of my great grandfathers and one of my great uncles were Methodist preachers, the first of whom was a fire-and-brimstone circuit rider), I could not not own this movie, eventually. Yes, I have reverence for spirituality, but I have none for the institution of Christianity. I don't even agree with everything Jesus was purported to have said. So, this movie is a vigorous, always laughter-provoking, head nod for me.
Would my mother have enjoyed it (she never saw it), being a woman of faith? Yes, I think so. One of my sisters once pronounced her a "pure spirit". I agree with that assessment. The solemnity of her faith, though, was liberally mixed with realism and a questioning attitude. She was not averse to bringing Jesus to task. Maybe she's who taught me how to lean into irreverence.
Once again, Roger Ebert wrote two reviews of this movie: the first in 1979, linked to this post title, the second on its re-release in 2004.
By the way, all members of Monty Python and a few other actors played multiple roles in this movie. I'm listing only one per member.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Graham Chapman Brian Cohen John Cleese High Priest Terry Gilliam Mount Sermon attendee Eric Idle Mr Cheeky Terry Jones Mandy Cohen Michael Palin Mr. Big Nose Terence Bayler Mr. Gregory Carol Cleveland Mrs. Gregory Charles McKeown False Prophet Kenneth Colley Jesus Sue Jones-Davies Judas Iscariot John Young Matthius
Just in case, here's the Wikipedia link to this movie.
Release Date: 1979 & 2004
Directed by Terry Jones.
Labels: bible-movies1, comedy1, dramedy1, fantasy1, film-art1, jesus-dvds, me-favorite1, religion1, satire1
Thursday, August 08, 2019
Glass
- Commentary: I own this movie because I was destined to own it. I became of fan of the Eastrail 177 Trilogy before it was a trilogy, when it was only Unbreakable.
I'm not much for superhero movies or superhero stories. I own a few, a very few, considering the extent of my entire collection, but superhero stories have to be strong on character for me ... really strong, and have a super (forgive the pun) compelling story. Unbreakable was one of those few superhero movies with which I fell in love.
When I heard a sequel was planned, and then a third, I was so excited that I vowed, before either movie was even in theaters on initial runs, that I would own them.
I appreciated (and enjoyed) Split as a continuation of what I knew was going to be a trilogy. James McAvoy was splendid (Can that guy act, or what?!?). His performance blew me away because I'm familiar with a fair amount of his work (there is a lot of it) and didn't know he had that "horde" of characters inside him. It was, and still is, breathtaking for me to watch his performance in that movie. I also, though, considered Split rather like the middle of a book ... it might bog you down, a bit, but you know help is coming in the last few chapters and, anyway, you need to know what's in the middle to realize you're being helped at the end.
By the time Glass arrived in theaters, I was ravenous for it, and unsettled that I'd have awhile to wait before it became a DVD and I could see it. [Why didn't I see it in a theater, I hear you asking ... that's another story ... remind me to talk about that later.] Finally, it was available for purchase. I didn't wait for the price to drop.
What can I say? I had no idea, during my long wait, what to expect, except that I expected something of the calibre of Unbreakable, something that would astound me and resolve the story in a superlatively unthinkable way.
Didn't happen.
In fact, I had to read the synopsis of the movie in Wikipedia just before I wrote this in order to remember the story. To my mind, there was little spark in the story, little spark in the continuation of the characters, and I was left unsatisfied. I can't give you an alternative scenario of what I would have liked to have seen. I just know that as I watched the movie I kept waiting for Something To Happen ... then, the movie was over and I realized, oh, nothing is going to happen.
I've thought about it. A lot. I can't imagine what it is I needed from the third movie to satisfy me. I just know that the third movie made both the first and the second seem implausible. That's a shame, because I fell in love with the first movie and remained excited for the story by the second movie. The third? Well, it seems to me like it's a third movie that exists without a first or second movie having been made.
Maybe Shyamalan tired of the concept he'd imagined as the Eastrail 177 Trilogy before he finished it. Maybe he never meant for Unbreakable to be more than what it was, which would have been fine with me. It's one of my all time favorite movies and didn't need sequels. Despite my disappointment, I'm going to keep all three movies. Forever. I know I'll watch Unbreakable again. I'll probably watch the other two again, as well. When I watch Glass though, it won't be for the sheer enjoyment of it. It will be to wonder, once again, what went wrong.
I'll finish this write-up with a quote from the Wikipedia article about this movie (to which I've linked in the title): "M. Night Shyamalan has been asked numerous times if there would be any sequel for Glass. On January 8, 2019, he officially confirmed that no sequels are currently planned, saying he has no interest building a cinematic universe."
Thank you and good [M] Night [Shyamalan].
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role James McAvoy Kevin Wendell Crumb/The Horde Bruce Willis David Dunn/The Overseer Samuel L. Jackson Elijah Price/Mr. Glass Sarah Paulson Dr. Ellie Staple Anya Taylor-Joy Casey Cooke Spencer Treat Clark Joseph Dunn Charlayne Woodard Mrs. Price Luke Kirby Pierce
Release Date: 2019
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan.
Labels: action2, adventure2, drama3, fantasy1, horror1, m-night-shyamalan, pseudo-cgi-animation, samuel-l-jackson, super-hero1, suspense1, thriller1, tragedy1, violence1
Monday, January 28, 2019
A Touch of Zen
- Commentary: Welcome to the ultimate possession of my movie collection!
I'm going to quote from a few letters I sent to my sister about my discovery of and affection for this movie. Any other information you can probably glean from the Wikipedia article attached to the title of this post.
Quote 1 [dated 8/27/2009]: I've been searching for years (on the internet) for another movie I saw at a Chinese film festival in Sacramento in either 1984 or 1985. It was an old movie at the time I saw it ... although not as old as I have been thinking (I thought it was made in the early 1960's; turns out it was made in 1969 and released in 1971). It was a long and mesmerizing movie ... one of the first that used magical martial arts (although not THE first; the first Chinese martial arts movie was made in, get this, 1927; I learned that on the way to finding the movie I was looking for). For years I thought I remembered the name as being "The Golden Buddha" because at the end of the film a Buddhist monk bleeds gold ... a scene I've not been able to forget. I don't know why, but, not until today did it occur to me to try searching "classic chinese films" with a description of that scene, "golden blood" ... and, I found it, you'll never believe this, on Wikipedia (fie on those who dismiss Wikipedia): "A Touch of Zen". Seems it's actually a very popular movie; rated, among moviephiles (especially Asian moviephiles) as one of the best to come out of China. Turns out, there is a DVD available, Region 1, for rental at Netflix and to buy at Amazon. However, I'm not going to buy it (yet, anyway), because, although most of the reviews of the movie on Amazon were favorable to ecstatic, there were complaints, even in the best reviews, about the sound and the darkness of some of the more spectacular martial arts scenes and landscape scenes (I also had this memory from the movie of a river valley with spectacular oblong rock formations, sort of like natural obelisks) ... so I'm renting it on Netflix, first ... will probably get it sometime next week. It may not be worth buying if the quality is bad, but it will certainly be worth watching again. I was sad, actually, a little, finding the movie, because one of the reasons I looked so diligently for it all these years (but, obviously, not diligently enough) was because Mom loved Hero (we have a copy of it) and I figured she'd love this movie even more. Who knows, maybe she's able to look at it over my shoulder. I hope so. [This was written about 9 months after my mother's death.]
Quote 2 [dated 10/23/2018]: So, I ordered myself a "birthday present" (That's my story and I'm sticking to it; aren't birthdays handy?!?) and it came today. ... there's a little story behind it. You may know some of it.
When I lived in Sacramento from 1983 - 1985 I lived in the middle of a mixed Asian community (primarily Chinese, Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese). I became acquainted and friendly with several people and was often invited over for dinner and to Asian-specific events. So, some time in 1984 the community became very excited about the possibility of a particular movie (which was around 10 years old at that time) that was going to be showing in Sacramento, "A Touch of Zen". I knew nothing about the movie. The Chinese people I knew in my neighborhood were insistent that I should go with them and the whole mixed group of Asian Americans to see the movie when it arrived. So, I did. I was mesmerized. Yes, it's a martial arts movie (of sorts). It's also this long, elegant, somewhat confusing epic story full of magnificent and evocative cinematography and thought provoking moments (not necessarily related to one another in a traditional European-centric story sense). Although I've seen the movie twice since then (one time I found it on the internet; I think I wrote you about that; at the time I was looking for it I thought it was called "The Gold Buddha", which made it somewhat harder to find), I can't tell you what it's about, although the heroine has a baby and there are some great martial arts scenes in it, full of magical moves. And, the comic relief character actually plays the second largest and most important part in the movie. The "hero" is almost a sperm donor afterthought. My neighbors and friends and I talked about the movie for days afterward.
So, about a week ago, for some reason unknown to me, although it's not unusual for it to occupy my thoughts unbidden, that movie was suddenly on my mind. I couldn't stop thinking about it, so I went on the internet and tried to find the original site where I watched it some years ago. Never found it, but, I did find that the movie has been remastered by Criterion (I love Criterion edition movies; I only own a few because they are usually very expensive, but they do a damn good job of restoration, when that's necessary, and they sponsor some excellent movies, like Antonia's Line, for instance) and was for sale at a reasonable price (reasonable compared to the prices I'd been following in previous years) AND, included a whole second disc devoted to special features about the movie! So, I decided, hmmm, my birthday's just around the corner, in fact, I see it peeking at me, so I think I'll get myself a birthday present!
Current Comment [1/28/19]: I've had the movie for just over three months, now, and have watched it three times. It remains amazing and mysterious to me and evokes all the times I've watched it and hunted for it in the past. 'Nuff said, I think.
Update 10/02/19: Well, I was wrong, Antonia's Line is not a Criterion movie. It should be. I recently signed up to their website, for the articles and newsletter about movies. Maybe I'll suggest it to them as a possible acquisition. Also, I noticed I've not labeled this movie. That is being corrected now.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Hsu Feng Yang Hui-zhen Shih Chun Gu Sheng-tsai Bai Ying General Shi Wen-qiao Xue Han General Lu Ding-an Roy Chiao Abbot Hui-yuan Tien Peng Ouyang Nian Cao Jian Xu Zheng-qing Zhang Bing-yu Sheng-tsai's mother Wang Rui Mun Ta Miao Tien Nie Qiu Han Ying-chieh Chief Cmdr. Xu Xian-chun Wan Zhong-shan Lu Qiang
Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
Release Date: 1971
Directed by King Hu.
Labels: action2, adventure2, audio-visual, Criterion2, drama3, fantasy1, film-art1, gender-bender, haunting1, historical1, period2, spectacle1, thriller1
Contact
- Commentary: I'm surprised I haven't entered this movie into this index before this. I've owned it for about a year. My movie collecting has slowed, considerably, true, but I didn't realize it had slowed to the point that I was sure I'd entered this one. Everything I've entered in this update is much "younger", in my collection, anyway, than this one.
Thus, it should not surprise you that I've watched it several times since buying it. Which is exactly why I bought it for my collection. I checked this movie out of the library so much that I remember looking it up online and thinking, "This is so cheap, I should just own it!"
For me, this is another one of those movies that has a diaphanous quality to it. No matter how much contact it actually contains, for me the bulk of the movie is about dreaming, wishing, hoping and actualizing, even in the face of the lack of recognition of everyone around you. Sure, it's a cool sci-fi movie. But, bottom line, this movie says to me, experience isn't what others say happened to you, it's what you know happened to you.
In case you're wondering, yes, I read the book upon which it is based long before the movie went into production. The book, perhaps because my primary familiarity with Carl Sagan is through the Cosmos series (which is, in itself, more about dreaming and actualizing than it is about space) was, for my mother and me, an essential fill-in for the series. I sometimes wonder if Carl Sagan considered himself, primarily, a dreamer and only secondarily a scientist. Or, perhaps he was a scientist, an astrophysicist, because he was, first, a dreamer.
In Roger Ebert's initial review of this film (linked to the title of this post), he gave the movie three and a half stars. Then, in 2011, he christened Contact one of his Great Movies and added the initially lacking half star. In the review he discusses the differences in his opinion from his initial watching and watching it 14 years later. It's interesting to compare the two reviews.
Update 8/11/2021: Funny thing, yesterday my older sister and I, in a lengthy phone conversation (life-catch-up, really), discussed this movie (it remains a popular movie, folks) in light of a series of beach scenes aired during Season 17 of Grey's Anatomy in which Meredith, while suffering from COVID-19, meets up with previous and current colleagues on a beach. I don't have access to this season (or any seasons past 12), but I looked them up to clarify exactly what my sister was comparing to this movie. For those of you who remain as cable-challenged as I, here is a descriptive rundown of those scenes. My sister brought up those scenes (in our conversation she remembered them as one scene) without reference to this movie. Once she described them, I brought up their curious duplication of Ellie's beach scene with her father in this movie. Although I didn't use the term, my sister's description of these scenes seemed to me a rip-off of that famous scene in Contact. Although my sister said she's seen the movie, she didn't recall the scene I was describing. My take-away, now, is that, both of us being unaware of the other's references, we were kind of talking at cross purposes, yesterday, without realizing it.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Jodie Foster Dr. Eleanor Ann Arroway Jena Malone Young Ellie Matthew McConaughey Palmer Joss David Morse Theodore Arroway Tom Skerritt Dr. David Drumlin James Woods Michael Kitz John Hurt S. R. Hadden William Fichtner Kent Clarke Angela Bassett Rachel Constantine Jake Busey Joseph Rob Lowe Richard Rank Geoffrey Blake Fisher
Here's a link to the Wikipedia write-up of the film.
Release Date: 1997
Directed by Robert Zemeckis.
Labels: adventure1, aliens, david-morse, drama3, dream1, fantasy1, james-woods, jodie-foster, john-hurt, popcorn-and-soda2, pseudo-cgi-animation, science-fiction1
Spartacus
- Commentary: Yet another film I was surprised to discover I didn't own. This was a Mom favorite and it was through me watching her savoring the movie (especially the love story and the plight of Varinia) that I came to appreciate it to the point that, a good year or so ago, after checking the movie out of the library several times, decided to purchase it.
Yes, it's clearly dated in its portrayal. It rather reminds me of my reaction to The Story of Ruth, when I blurted, in response to watching the priestesses preparing for a sacrifice to Chemosh, "Isn't it interesting that the priestesses gowns look exactly like 1960's evening gowns. Do you think the state of dressmaking, at that time, included all those stays and breast shapers?" My mother ignored me.
At any rate, I continue to find this movie involving. The write-up of the movie on the back of the case in which the movie came characterizes it as a portrayal of a "triumphant" slave revolt. Maybe idealogically and politically it was "triumphant" but, certainly, the fate of the slaves who participated in the revolt was, well, not particularly triumphant. Looking back at the revolt from 2100 years, noticing the current failings of imperialism, the nascent revolt of everyone but the plutocrats, the years-long dismissal of Christianity, let alone religion, and the success of various social democracies versus the burgeoning torpor of a variety of neo- and post-imperial regimes, well, however inspirational it might have been in 1960, it is mildly depressing, now.
Update 9/29/19: Is this a "gang-movie"? Yeah, it is. More of a "good-gang" movie, but a gang-movie, nonetheless. Still fun to watch.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Kirk Douglas Spartacus Laurence Olivier Crassus Jean Simmons Varinia Charles Laughton Gracchus Peter Ustinov Batiatus Tony Curtis Antoninus John Gavin Julius Caesar John Dall Marcus Glabrus Nina Foch Helena Glabrus John Ireland Crixus Joanna Barnes Claudia Marius Charles McGraw Marcellus
Just in case, here's the Wikipedia write-up for the movie.
Release Date: 1960
Directed by Stanley Kubrick.
Labels: action1, adventure1, drama4, fantasy1, gang-movie, historical2, jean-simmons, kirk-douglas, mom-favorite1, period2, political1, spectacle1, stanley-kubrick, tragedy1
Sunday, May 27, 2018
Black Panther
- Commentary: Well. Folks. Yes. I own a copy of this movie. It's certainly not the best super-hero movie in my collection, in fact I would venture that it's probably the worst. It's beautiful to look at and a lot of the ideas, especially the technological state of Wakanda and a few of the political ideas, are interesting to contemplate. When I first watched the movie, immediately upon its DVD release (I checked it out of the library), I kept waiting for the story to start until, about half way through the movie, I realized, oh, this movie is not going to be story driven! How peculiar! The actors were given nothing with which to work, thus some amazing talents are little more than props for the cgi and none of the characters appear to have discernible, well, character, including, amazingly, Black Panther. The cgi, while breathtaking in parts, often seems little more than a confused mish-mash, like someone threw a graphics program at the script, picked up the pieces and declared them "a movie". Yes, the costuming is glorious. Yes, the hints of what Wakanda really is as a country and a political entity are intriguing. Some of the characters have real promise, which, unfortunately, none of them fulfill: Shuri, for instance, as a science genius and strong-willed princess, is treated like little more than the comical sidekick dragon in Mulan, even though, at one point, which piqued my interest, someone suggests, after the assumed death of Black Panther, her brother, that she ingest the panther-making potion, but, for some reason never explained, she doesn't; Ramonda, the glorious queen, is never assumed to be the rightful heir to her dead husband's throne, even though woman-power seems something Wakanda values, as its cadre of woman warriors attests; Killmonger, the alluring villain who seems less like a villain and more like someone who would make a more lively and engaging Black Panther than the Black Panther he supposedly killed; the entire Jabari tribe, who appear to have adopted the silver-backed gorilla as their god, evidenced by the light colored, shortened fur capes they wear, and whose leader seems charismatic and worthy of a movie, himself; and, last but not least, Okoye, a fearsome, luminous presence who certainly deserves her own story line. As well, while watching the movie last night for the second time, I suddenly became obsessed with the concept of city building in Wakanda. You'd think that such an innovative culture (or, at least, what appears to be an innovative culture but, in the movie, doesn't really live up to this promise) might have innovative city structures, following, say, the structure of the the tree that is featured in the landscape scenery throughout the movie. One group, I can't remember which one, although I think it might be the Jabari, has some structural idiosyncracies but, otherwise, African city structure, including that of Wakanda, in the movie, mimics sky-scraper city structure.
Something else that bothered me quite a bit is that the super hero is a monarch. Why? The super heroes I like the best are people-of-the-people like David Dunn of Unbreakable, or those who are transformed by encounters with people-of-the-people, like Tony Stark of Iron Man. If there had been something in the film to humanize T'Challa I don't think I would have given his royal status a second thought. But there wasn't. So, I did. Perhaps, in the comics (which I've not read, although I'm intrigued enough to consider reading, at this point, especially Ta Nehisi Coates' and Roxanne Gay's versions) Black Panther is not a wooden statue. In this movie, he is.
So. It seems, this movie impressed me about about as much as La La Land (my discussion of it is embedded in a write-up for another movie) and failed me as a viewer for many of the same reasons. So, why did I buy it, considering that I venerate musicals but could not bring myself to own a copy of La La Land? It is, after all, one thing to create a movie that is little more than a plastic toy of the main character. It's quite another to create a movie that inspires a plastic toy that is venerated as a true idol of the main character. Also, the disc versions are not yet in their "cheap phase".
Simply put, I saw it at Costco when I was shopping, yesterday, initially bypassed it, remembering my initial reaction to it, then, as I was headed toward the coffee section, I entertained a second consideration: I don't think this will be the end of the Black Panther MCU franchise. At least, I hope it won't. There is so much unfulfilled promise in this movie and the legendary character of Black Panther. I mean, didn't you ever in your childhood imagine yourself as a fearsome cat of some kind, especially a jaguar? Such an exotic creature-name! I'm sure, as well, that the creators have become aware of the cogent, helpful criticism (not much, but all I've read is on point) this movie has generated [as an example, take a look at this review, which hits on all the unsatisfying points I mention above, a few more, including the problem of critic agreement, and is the fairest "bad" review I could find, considering that there are almost no bad reviews of this film] and will do better, much, much better, next time. I wait with bated breath.
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Chadwick Boseman T'Challa/Black Panther Michael B. Jordan N'Jadaka/Erik Killmonger Stevens Lupita Nyong'o Nakia Danai Gurira Okoye Martin Freeman Everett K. Ross Daniel Kaluuya W'Kabi Letitia Wright Shuri Winston Duke M'Baku Angela Bassett Ramonda Forest Whitaker Zuri Andy Serkis Ulysses Klaue Sterling K. Brown N'Jobu
Release Date: 2018
Directed by Ryan Coogler.
Labels: action1, adventure1, andy-serkis, drama4, fantasy1, forest-whitaker, pseudo-cgi-animation, science-fiction1, super-hero1, violence2
Monday, March 26, 2018
An American in Paris
- Commentary: Why did I come by this one? Hmmm ... one day about a month ago I decided to check out La La Land from the library. Mind you, other than it being a musical that was heralded and had won lots of awards, and who starred in it, I knew nothing about it. Hadn't read anything on it, laudatory, critical or otherwise. I happened to mention to my niece, the actor with whom I share a love of films, that I'd borrowed it for a line-up of movie watching. She confessed to me that it was her favorite film and asked to know my reactions once I'd watched it. I trust her tastes and instincts so I was ready to love the film. As well, I knew it was written and directed by the same guy who is responsible for Whiplash, a movie I loved, so I was excited to see it. Still and all, it took me a couple more weeks to get around to watching it. By that time, my anticipation level was through the roof. I should have remembered my experience with Mary Poppins decades ago. Oh well.
Certainly, I enjoyed watching La La Land, but my anticipation was not satisfied. I did, however, notice significant correlations with Singin' in the Rain, which I own, and An American in Paris, which, at the time, I didn't own. I decided I wanted to do a comparison of La La Land with both. I borrowed An American in Paris from the library, watched it and was reminded of how intriguing and masterful that film is. That's when I looked it up, found a reasonably priced copy and decided to buy it. Although I've noticed, since buying and watching it (twice, and once for all the special features, which are very interesting), that Singin' in the Rain is celebrated more than An American in Paris, well, let's just say, An American in Paris is such a treat I'm surprised we never bought it when Mom was alive.
Since watching it, I've become curious about musicals as a form in themselves, and have been working my way back through my own meager collection and checking even more out of the library. Considering what I own, this is a worthy addition.
In case you're curious, here's what my initial verdict on La La Land was to my niece:I just finished my first viewing of "La La Land". I say that because I'm convinced I'll have to watch it again, probably tomorrow, while it's fresh in my mind. That's because I'm, well, ambivalent.
Frankly, I prefer An American in Paris, Singin' in the Rain and, dare I say it, all the other musicals I own, over La La Land. But, it was the watching of La La Land that has launched me on a serious consideration of musicals (I've made a list of several I'm planning on borrowing within the next months) and the ownership of yet another, this one. For that, I'm grateful.
I was prepared to love it because it was written and directed by the same guy who wrote and directed "Whiplash", which I absolutely loved. When I learned that he is responsible for "La La Land", without knowing anything about the movie (including before I watched it this evening) [I know, hard to believe but I didn't look it up anywhere before I watched it and didn't run across any material about it prior, even though it was such a smash], except that it is a musical, I figured the movie must have a really interesting take on Hollywood musicals because, well, holy shit, this guy did "Whiplash"! So, I was shocked to discover how wrong I was. That realization is taking some getting used to. It is obvious, though, that the writer/director has serious chops, being able to do "Whiplash", then turn around and do "La La Land".
Right off the bat, here are some things I loved about the movie. Ryan Gosling, for one, but, I love him in anything. He could play a mushroom and I'd love him. "The Fools Who Dream" song, for another; that whole sequence, in fact. Sounds like my theme song! Sounds like I'm Mia's aunt, except for the whole Paris thing. Even better, though, I'm your aunt, and Emma Stone is merely a stand-in for you in that movie! I'll just go to Paris, and invite you!
The movie is clearly a revival of the old-time Hollywood musical. I easily recognized many parts of "An American in Paris" (which I saw with Mom too many times to recall, on TCM; it was a regular, so we never needed to own it) and just about every Ginger Rogers/Fred Astaire movie in existence (all of which I saw more than once with Mom on TCM). The brilliant color is taken right out of just about every musical Gene Kelly ever made. Sadly, neither Emma Stone nor Ryan Gosling are very good singers or dancers. [Frankly, Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire were only passable actors, but Ginger Rogers was good; even more so, Leslie Caron.] That was mildly disturbing. But, I think I can forgive them that, since both are, clearly, well developed and flexible actors. It would have been nice, though, if great actors who were also stellar singers and dancers had been given the parts. Hollywood should spend more time checking out stage musical actors. I'm not sure why such people weren't sought out for roles like this. I really like those old musicals, too, so I was ready to be wowed by this reinterpretation ... but I wasn't. I loved how Chazelle worked in the day-dream sequences, how he introduced them, what he did with them. The final one when Mia and her husband were watching Sebastian in his club was lovely. That's right out of "An American in Paris", including the use of the road. He must have a thing for that movie. In fact, I'm surprised he didn't attempt to resurrect Gene Kelly and Leslie Caron. To be fair, there was stuff from "Singin' in the Rain", too, specifically Gene Kelly's work. And, the dancing on stars and clouds? Ginger Rodgers and Fred Astaire.
Initial impressions of the story: Sad, sometimes sober, sometimes delightfully silly, sweet, sweet, sweet. The music? Aside from the "The Fools Who Dream", which I loved, okay. Definitely enjoyable. The production was made for the big screen, rather than the home screen, I think. My TV screen sometimes had trouble with the spotlighting techniques used. It seemed to me that there were places where the movie story went flat, but it never stayed that way and I'm willing to concede, upon a second viewing, that it may have just been me.
One more tiny, tiny thing about the movie: The end disappointed me. I don't usually have problems with movies in which initial relationships wither and evolve into others, like the branches of a tree. For some reason, though, and I'll have to reconfirm this with a second watching, Chazelle did not prep his audience well for it in this movie. It was, frankly, an unpleasant denouement to see Mia with a throw-away husband and kid, even as she was a famous actor. And the suggestion that Sebastian was alone in his personal life. Yes, I know, I saw the two something-or-others he was frying up in the pan before going to his nightclub, but, where was his throw-away wife and kid? Better yet, there never was a really good explanation for why Mia and Sebastian weren't married to each other with a kidlet, and an international acting career, and a successful night club. Not good story construction. Chazelle needs to work on crafting realistic, believable and successful love relationships.
Update 11/18/21: By the way, each mention of the name of this movie in this write-up is linked to a different review (including the last link, which is the Wikipedia write-up). This is such a famous movie and so many people are familiar with it, I thought it would be fun to scatter the availability of internet reviews throughout this write-up. I know, my sense of fun doesn't have much to recommend it, but it's mine and I enjoy it.
Update 6/4/22: Yet another movie made during the year I was born!
Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Actor Role Gene Kelly Jerry Mulligan Leslie Caron Lise Bouvier Oscar Levant Adam Cook Georges Guétary Henri Baurel Nina Foch Milo Roberts Eugene Borden Georges Mattieu John Eldredge Jack Jansen Anna Q. Nilsson Kay Jansen
An American in Paris [Wikipedia write-up attached] is breathtaking. I'm glad I own it.
Release Date: 1951
Directed by Vincente Minnelli.
Labels: birth-year, dance, dream1, fantasy1, film-art1, mom-favorite1, musical1, popcorn-and-soda2, romance1, spectacle1
