Well, I tried

I've had to stop watching Hercules. I really liked this show when I was in my late teens, early twenties. Now, I think it's just awful. I really did try, but enough is enough. This is going to be the first thing I've given up on. Even though I have sat through some movies I think are pretty bad in the past six or so weeks, they were individual movies. Watching episode after episode of something so bad seems like a waste, not to mention stupid.

So, that leaves CSI: Miami, which I'm watching right now. I decided to take a day off from doing homework today, so I've had quite a bit of time. I plan on making my October schedule in an hour or so. Should be fun.

Screwballing Around

Libeled Lady (1936)

William Powell
Myrna Loy
Jean Harlow
Spencer Tracy

William Powell and Myrna Loy are a wonderful pair, legendary for their performances in The Thin Man series. They had a tremendous amount of chemistry. Jean Harlow was famous (especially as a sex symbol) in her own right, and I bet a ton of people even today have heard the name Spencer Tracy. The one thing that surprises me about this cast is that even though Tracy did some comedies with Katherine Hepburn (the love of his life), I have never thought of him as a traditional screwball comedy actor. He was all right in this one, though.

As with all screwball comedies, the plot is silly. On the day he is to be married, an editor of a newspaper (Spencer Tracy) finds out that his paper has committed libel. He drops everything, including his long-suffering fiancee (Jean Harlow), to try and fix things. It seems that the paper accused the daughter (Myrna Loy) of a very wealthy man of stealing another woman's husband, which later turned out to be untrue. She is so angry, in a detached sort of way, that she decides to sue for 5 million dollars (in 1936!). Desperate, the editor hires a "heel" (William Powell) to try and seduce the woman, making the lie seem true. Of course, to make the scandal work, Powell has to actually be married, so Spencer comes up with the crazy idea of Harlow (his own fiancee) marrying him temporarily, just until this whole thing is over.

Of course, along the way, Powell falls in love with the rich heiress. At the same time, Powell treats Harlow, who is desperate for affection she isn't getting from her former fiance (who still calls himself her fiance), with a faux type of affection, which Harlow likes a great deal. This leads to Spencer becoming jealous, which Harlow intended all along.

You get all that?

It doesn't really matter because the plot isn't the point. The real entertainment comes from watching the characters try to deal with the various individual misunderstandings and sticky situations. The best part, though, is Myrna Loy. William Powell just seems to light up in every scene he shares with her, and her sarcastic voice is a character in its own right. Spencer Tracy and Jean Harlow did have a sort of chemistry, but it wasn't as sublime as what Powell and Loy were always able to show.

I really want to watch The Thin Man right now.

On a side note, I had wanted to watch The Agony and the Ecstasy tonight, but I got home an hour later than I expected so I am going to have to reschedule again. I was originally supposed to watch it and Mean Creek but the Heston/Harrison movie is nearly two and a half hours long. So, I switched it with Libeled Lady, which is just over 90 minutes. This way, I will at least get some decent sleep tonight. The movie I'm scheduled to watch tomorrow night isn't too long, so I will, hopefully, finally, be able to watch Rex Harrison and Charlton Heston go at each other, so to speak.

Hail to the Chief

This month has been crazy busy. I was sick for a few days, had a bout of insomnia, and have just now regulated my sleeping. On top of all that, I've been busy with school and watching depressing after depressing Cubs game. I am so ridiculously behind on the reviews, but I am only 2 movies behind schedule. The weird thing is that I'm moving right along with the TV DVDs. I'm already done with Looney Tunes, almost done with CSI and a third of the way through Hercules.

So, I have some catching up to do.

First up, Shadowlands, the true story of how C.S. Lewis went from an old, arrogant, and comfortable bachelor to a man in love with a divorced American poet, but only admitting it after she is diagnosed with cancer. I love, love this movie. There is much to admire about it on an intellectual level, but the real draw for me is that it is one of the few chick flicks I can stand. Anthony Hopkins and Debra Winger are absolutely wonderful together, and the rest of the cast complements them well. This is also the first movie I really cried while watching, but it wasn't because I found it so romantic (I do). I was a teenager when I saw this for the first time, and the idea that true joy and pain are tied together seemed quite profound at the time; it still does today. On another note, the direction and cinematography are fantastic. Sir Richard Attenborough directed this the same year he was in Jurassic Park. It's too bad that he hasn't done much since.

Next, Cinderella, the black white televised musical starring Julie Andrews. Wow. What an absolute bore. The guy that played the prince was particularly awful. The saving grace of the entire thing is Ms. Andrews. Her performance is sparkling and her voice is a joy to hear. This aired years before she got her start in movies, and even this early it is clear she's going to be a star. I can't believe the people that made My Fair Lady gave the role of Eliza Doolittle to Audrey Hepburn because they weren't comfortable with someone who had never been in movies. At least she got the last word at the Oscars the next year.

A little over a week ago, my husband and I watched In the Valley of Elah. I hadn't scheduled the movie on a day he could watch it, but I had coincidentally switched the order. I am glad things worked out the way they did. He and I were both in the Army, and it was nice to watch it with someone who understood it the way I did. As you may have guessed, this movie focuses on the Army. In particular, it's based on a true story of a soldier who ended up dead under mysterious circumstances shortly after getting back from Iraq. Starring Tommy Lee Jones (love him), Susan Sarandon and Charlize Theron, this was an interesting movie. Primarily, it's a murder mystery. Jones plays the father of the dead soldier, a military vet himself. He does everything he can to find out what happened to his son. He's also a dick, which ends up helping him get to the bottom of what happened. Underneath the main story lurks an examination of what the war in Iraq is doing to our soldiers. Spoiler alert: it isn't pretty. Overall, the movie has some interesting things to say, but I found it a bit unsatisfying. On the other hand, there is nothing satisfying about the real story, so this is to be expected. Oh, and though Sarandon is not in it much, she is particularly memorable.

Tonight, my husband and I watched My Fellow Americans. A hilarious movie about two ex-presidents who loathe each other yet wind up helping each other when they get caught up in a dangerous conspiracy and hunted across the country by the NSA. My husband and I repeat some of the lines in this all the time, yet I had forgotten how truly funny this movie is. This is one of the funniest movies made in the past couple of decades. It's a shame it's not mentioned more. James Garner and Jack Lemon are wonderful (when are they not?) and have wonderful chemistry, but the script is just as good. A minor rant: the DVD was full screen. I had no idea, and I'm angry because I know, at least when I bought it, it was the only version available.

There are a few movies I own only because I love one of the actors in them so very much. January Man is one such movie. I don't even want to summarize the plot. Look it up on imdb if you're interested. The fact is, it's mediocre at best, despite a pretty good cast. And yet, Alan Rickman is in it, playing a role very different from what we normally see him play in American movies. So, I bought it. *sigh* At least he's good in it; as always.

Well, that's it for tonight. I still have 5 reviews yet to do, along with the 2 movies I plan on watching tomorrow, Mean Creek and The Agony and the Ecstasy (was supposed to watch this last week). We'll see how it goes tomorrow.

Now is the winter of our discontent...

Richard III (1955)

Richard III: Sir Laurence Olivier
King Edward IV: Sir Cedric Hardwicke
George, Duke of Clarence: Sir John Gielguld

Directed and Produced by: Sir Laurence Olivier

Sir Laurence Olivier is almost universally acknowledged as one of the greatest actors of modern times. I have seen him in numerous roles, and they have always made a strong impression (though not always a good one). The words "Is it safe" from Marathon Man still send shivers down my spine. To watch Richard III is to watch a master give a course on acting.

This film is little more than a deliberately staged play, only moving to location shooting in the climactic battle. This may not be to everyone's taste. Still, Olivier makes the film worth watching at least once. His face is a bit hard to recognize at first due to the gigantic prosthetic nose he wears, but the first time I saw his eyes, his sly look, I knew it was him. Besides the exaggerated nose, his body is also costumed in such a way to accurately reflect Richard's physical deformities; hunched back, deformed left hand, and uneven legs. Sir Laurence wears them well.

I've always thought Richard III to be the most monstrous character Shakespeare ever wrote; it is said that this was deliberate since Richard III did murder the ancestors of the Queen for whom Shakespeare wrote. Oliver does a great job of playing such a monster. I enjoyed his effective us of shadows throughout the film to reflect many of the evil deeds committed.

Despite this darkness, Sir Laurence does an excellent job of conveying the character's sarcastic view of his actions and life in general. His choice to have Richard address the audience directly rather than use a voice-over was a correct one. The careless, dismissive manner with which he describes his dastardly, evil deeds is very humorous. I found myself laughing at several points, something I never did when reading the play. There is nothing subtle about Richard III - he's just plain evil. Yet I was never once bored by anything Richard did. Much of this credit goes to Sir Laurence.

The main disappointing aspect of the movie is that, though the cast features one of the greatest groups of actors of all time, most of the amazing talent is wasted. I am not sure if it is due to bad direction or if Olivier is just so overwhelming that everyone else pails, but Gielgud really disappointed me. He had one decent monologue, but he was ridiculously boring. Ralph Richard, who played Lord Buckingham, was the only one who was able to stand his ground against the director/actor.

Overall, I found this movie to be an excellent adaptation of the play, if a bit boring in parts. I also thought the bit thrown in from Henry IV, which allowed Richard to talk about how he so easily killed people, was a stroke of genius. Still, I found the staging to be a bit too deliberate for my taste, and the sound of the voices was jarring from time to time, whenever an actor had to raise his or her voice over something that made a lot of noise.

A few other things:

I had no idea Sir John Gielgud had red hair. He even resembles Danny Kaye a bit. I found myself admiring his hair at a few points. Like a lot of people my age, I had only seen him in Arthur, made when he was quite old. A part of me believes he won that Oscar because Hollywood realized it was probably one of the only chances they would get to give one to such a great actor; one who mainly stuck to the stage.

It is such a shame that so many of the great stage actors did not start doing movies until later in their careers, and many chose bad ones.

Sir Laurence was famous for being able to accurately affect any accent. Listening to him in this film, I almost forgot that his regular voice did not resemble the traditional Shakespearean English.

The first monologue of the film is staged so well, I think it qualifies as one of the greatest in film history. My eyes were riveted to the screen the entire time. And I am not sure, but I don't remember a single cut. I think Olivier did most if not all of it in one take. Amazing.

Where have all the good guys gone?

Seven Samurai (1954)
Directed by Akira Kurosawa

This is perhaps the most famous foreign films of all time in America. As the title suggests, it follows seven samurai (one who only wishes he were so) who decide to defend a village against a band of pillagers. A simple plot that Kurosawa managed to tell over the span of 3 and a half hours. I have never had a problem with long movies purely because they are long. I watched Sergio Leone's movie a few weeks ago that was just as long, and I loved it. This film was a different story, and for one reason.

I have a confession to make, one that feels like a crime among fans of classic films: I don't really care for Akira Kurosawa's films. I know he's supposed to be a genius, one of the greatest directors of all time, but I find his movies tedious, and a bit boring. I do not deny his skills purely as a director. His use of a camera to tell a story was remarkable. What I don't like is how he seemed to think that movie audiences are morons, something that will turn me off a movie faster than anything else. Films that take the point of view that a point can only be made by slamming it into the viewer's mind over and over again bore me. I will admit that I am not sure whether this style of using a sledgehammer to drive a point home was unique to him or was just a characteristic of Japanese film-making of that era. I watched the 1964 horror film Onibaba several months back, and it was even worse.

My complaints aside, there is much about this film to be admired. One of the highlights is the acting, and leading the way is Takashi Shimura, a legend in Japanese film history. As far as I am concerned, he is the real draw of this movie. One of the main reasons the film is so long is that the entire first hour is used solely for the establishment of all the characters. I found most of the samurai to be fascinating, though there were two that seemed fairly interchangeable; I had a tough time telling them apart. Shimura plays the leader of the samurai, and he shines in every scene. He emotes a quiet dignity, even through his moments of shame and doubt, which I found a joy to watch. An amusing side note - he bears a slight resemblance to Yul Brynner (though much smaller), who played the same character in the American remake, The Magnificent Seven. My husband and I realized this at nearly the exact same moment.

There is a fair amount of action in this movie, the last hour is mostly dedicated to the siege of the village, and here is where Kurosawa's skills really shine. For a film made in the 1950s the siege is remarkably intense, and the movie seemed to fly by in the last 45 minutes. The editing of the last hour is noticeably different from the rest of the movie, adding to the increase in pacing, and the camera is far less static, which leads to a lot of excitement in how everything plays out. I can't wait to find out if his film Hidden Fortress is the same.

The way the story unfolds, as I already mentioned, is tedious in its execution due to the script's complete lack of subtlety. But, I did appreciate that the film maker made the decision to have the characters fully realized; there are very few two-dimensional people in this movie. Proving my preconceptions of a 1950s movie wrong, this movie isn't really about good guys and bad guys. In fact, the movie barely gives any time to the pillagers; there is more than enough personal conflict among the so-called good guys. Though I expected the outcome of the ending, it was still interesting experiencing the tone of a film that does not go for a typical happy ending. This made the payoff all the more interesting. So, even though the point of the story was so very obvious within the first 90 minutes, watching the execution of it through interesting characters play out over the 120 past that was bearable. Overall, I am glad I saw this movie. It features some of the best direction I've ever seen, and anyone who loves movies should definitely see it. But I never want to see it again.

He can call me flower if he wants to

Bambi (1942)

Less than two months after I started working at Suncoast, Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs was released on DVD for the first time. I never got around to buying it. Several months later, my boss gave me a copy for free. I watched it with my husband later, and the main thing I remember was how surprising it was that a movie that old still looked quite well. I was reminded of this when he and I sat down to watch Bambi last week.

I cannot stress enough how amazing the animation of the first and last minute of the film is. It is about as close to CGI I've ever seen old school animation reach, and this was made nearly 70 years ago! The multi-camera technique was used to great effect. In fact, I am now of the opinion that this is one of the most beautiful films Disney ever produced.

Bambi is one of those few Disney movies parents think twice about before they show it to their children. I've never met an adult who didn't know why. I watched this film several times when I was a kid, and I remember well the first time I saw it. I couldn't have been more than 6 or 7, and I remember feeling surprised and a general sense of sadness that Bambi's mother was killed. Watching this movie as an adult, knowing what was coming, was a vastly different experience , so much so that I now wonder if adults have stronger feelings about the movie than children.

First off, I was halfway to tears by the time the doe was born. Seeing how cute he looked while knowing what was going to happen to him was gut-wrenching. I was almost hyper-aware of how the animation took a darker tone when the story became more serious, and danger lurked. But the worst part came after Bambi's mother was shot. Hearing Bambi shout "Mother!" is one of the most haunting sounds I've ever heard in a film. All in all, this movie was a lot harder for me to handle as an adult than it was as a child.

And then I made the mistake of checking to see how different the movie was from the book on which it was based. Oh. My. God. The film was all sunshine and rainbows compared to the book. At least Disney allowed for a mildly happy ending. The book's ending is positively miserable. That certainly put things into perspective.

This is the first time I watched this movie since I was about 18. My respect for it has skyrocketed.

The first three

I'm running late tonight, so I am only going to post on the first three movies I watched this month. Too bad, really, since these were three of the weakest I've seen so far. I'll catch up with the rest this weekend. I can't wait to talk about the movie I just watched: Blackboard Jungle.


Bridget Jones: Edge of Reason - whoever made this movie either didn't understand why the first movie worked or didn't care. The first movie was a cute piece of fluff featuring a single woman who occasionally got into some embarrassing situations, but made up for it with her charm. Oh, and it had Colin Firth and Hugh Grant. I like the first Bridget Jones' movie, though I have noticed that it does not hold up well to repeated viewing. This second one is nothing short of a travesty. For some reason, whoever wrote this script decided it would be a good idea to take all of Jones' worst qualities and exacerbate them. The result is just appalling. Instead of being cute, Bridget Jones is just an annoying idiot who I would never want to meet. After the first 20 minutes, I was cringing at the fact that the movie kept moving from one embarrassing moment to the next. After 30 minutes, I couldn't recall why I even liked Bridget Jones. By the time Bridget was tripping on 'shrooms, I was trying to come up with a story of my own where Mark Darcy would leave Bridget and run away with me instead. This is no exaggeration. I decided to get this movie, for free, just because I like Colin Firth, but even he doesn't make this movie worth it. Heck, for most of the movie, Mark Darcy is a complete jerk. I don't care that I spent no real money on this DVD, I paid too much.


The Man in the White Suit - This was an interesting comedy starring Alec Guiness. It was one of a series of black and white Ealing comedies released in the 1940s and 1950s; The Ladykillers was another one. The movie is about a naive young scientist who invents a suit that will never get dirty and never wear out. Sounds great doesn't it? Try telling that to the textiles companies and union workers. The film is, as they say, "very British." Half way in, my husband asked me if it was supposed to be a comedy. The story moved slowly, and I didn't really laugh that much. And yet, it was a lot of fun. The satirical and ironic aspects of the plot are funny, and Alec Guiness is fantastic. The real strength to this film is its execution, and this is why even though I didn't actually laugh that much, I did find it to be funny. The choreography of all the actors in every scene is absolutely brilliant, and the editor did a great job of splicing in the reaction shots at just the right moment. I am looking forward to watching the rest of the Alec Guiness Ealing movies. It's such a treat to be able to watch someone like Sir Alec in an old British comedy.

Oh, and one of the guys in this movie actually played Alfred in Tim Burton's Batman. That was pretty cool.


The Journey of Natty Gann - I have loved this movie since I first saw it more than two decades ago. Set during the Great Depression, it's about a girl who travels from Chicago to Seattle to find her father after he was forced to leave her behind to find a job. Along the way, she picks up a wolf (ok, a dog that's supposed to look like a wolf) and a very young John Cusack. It's a fairly dark movie considering it's a Disney flick from the 1980s. I remember when I was a kid, I wanted to watch the movie so I could pretend to be Natty Gann, traveling across the country on my own, having strange, scary and wonderful adventures. After watching as an adult, I can honestly say it is barely all right (husband laughed through much of it), but I have a suspicion that kids would like it. My one real disappointment is that the movie is only available in Full Screen. Ugh. My abhorrence for that film aspect ratio aside, one of the true pleasures of this movie is its cinematography; the scenery is just gorgeous. Pan and scan really takes something away from this movie.

That's all for now. I've got class in six hours.