DVD Collectors Online

DVD Reviews => The "Marathon" reviews => Topic started by: Najemikon on February 05, 2009, 03:00:44 AM

Title: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 05, 2009, 03:00:44 AM

Hope Rich doesn't mind me jumping a little ahead, but I can only start at 1934 and I doubt I'll fit the 20-odd in I have... :tomato:

Title: It Happened One Night (1934) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 05, 2009, 03:10:15 AM

1934
It Happened One Night
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/ihon.jpg)

Ellie (Claudette Colbert) jumps from her father's boat to join her recently eloped-with-husband. He soon sets detectives looking her while she tried to cross country to New York, grudgingly helped by down on his luck newspaper man Peter Warne (Clark Gable).

This is the earliest Best Picture winner I have, but it’s a great starting point as it was the first year they were awarded annually and this film the first to win the big five: Picture, Actor, Actress, Script and Director. It’s a wonderful film and I can understand the attention it got. And like all the truly great films, it needed more than it’s fair share of magic to get made. I’ll come back to this later, but put simply for now, and pardon my French, but Claudette Colbert sounds like a bit of a cow.

Not that you can tell on screen. The chemistry between her and Clark Gable is an essential ingredient, making the sophisticated witty script even smoother. This is definitely Capra’s sentimental phase and you should have nothing but a huge grin from start to finish. Gable’s character and style is essential to keep it grounded with a little grit. I think Preston Sturges would have a little more substance to his films a decade or so later, but for pure optimism straight from the bottle, Capra's your man.

They certainly don’t make them like this anymore, although the story does have more than a hint of Overboard about it, mixed a little with Sullivan’s Travels, and Planes Trains and Automobiles of all things. Of course it predates all those, though it holds up wonderfully well. Despite the fast pace, Best Director Capra finds time for several gorgeous shots, especially a motel sequence with moonlight through rainy windows. The only thing I find hard to swallow as I do with a lot of films from this era -regardless of genre- is the ridiculous way women’s emotions can flip from hard-nosed to simpering love-sick fool in mere seconds. The script handles it better than most though and Colbert does convince from start to finish though.

Ah, yes. Colbert. She’s probably the heart and drive of this film in more ways than just her character. Capra set his heart on her, but she demanded twice her normal salary and gave them a four week shoot to do it. A road movie like this in four weeks is astonishing and accounts for much of the quick-fire style. She may even have started a sub-genre, forcing them to work so quick. This might be the first screwball and soon, Howard Hawks would pick up that ball and see just how fast he could make it go with Bringing Up Baby, then His Girl Friday. Colbert almost sabotaged the whole production, yet it sweeps the awards and then everyone’s trying to do the same style! True movie magic.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: richierich on February 05, 2009, 10:37:48 AM

Quote from: Jon on February 05, 2009, 03:00:44 AM

Hope Rich doesn't mind me jumping a little ahead, but I can only start at 1934 and I doubt I'll fit the 20-odd in I have... :tomato:

No probs Jon, I started my Oscar marathon Sunday and I will not be viewing them chronologically, just as the fancy takes me

cheers
rich

Title: You Can't Take it With You (1939) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 06, 2009, 02:38:01 AM

1938
You Can't Take it With You
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/yctiwy.jpg)

Grandpa Martin Venderhof (Lionel Barrymore) is head of a family of free-spirits who find joy in everything. Their home is under threat by an unscrupulous banker (Edward Arnold), whose son (James Stewart) happens to be engaged to Vanderhof's granddaughter, Alice (Jean Arthur). Not that all of them are quite sure of all those connections!

I have to jump forward four years, but it's Capra (winning another Best Director) again with an early, optimistic run at Fight Club, via The Darling Buds of May! It has a similar message to Capra's other films and the title is so obvious it may put you off, but don't let it. This is essential viewing considering the state of the global economy and Mr. Brown could do worse than listen to Martin Vanderhof. Everyone should watch this. It's an absolute riot, but with a strong message. Like the previous entry, It Happened One Night, the setup is so obvious it could play itself, but Capra and his fantastic cast still find gaps to explore and the heartwarming story nevertheless has a few lines that might make you squirm: "Lincoln said, 'With malice toward none, with charity to all.' Nowadays they say, 'Think the way I do or I'll bomb the daylights outta you.'"

Lionel Barrymore plays Martin, much older than his own years I think, and it's a great role, always played at the correct, but ever changing tone. You fully believe this quietly persuasive and calm gentleman could slide down a bannister any second. James Stewart is another stand-out as you'd expect, but again, much of the work was already done in such a wonderful character. Edward Arnold possibly has the hardest role as the resolution is predictable and for that reason, it was so easy to get it wrong. He doesn't. All the other characters have their moments and fill them well, especially Spring Byington as Penny, making the Vanderhof home a very attractive place to stay. As one character does, just on a whim! The only one who fails for me is Alice's father. You'd never know it. He does nothing wrong and has as much time as the other secondary characters, but whenever something happens regarding Alice, he's just... there. Penny, her mother and Martin are given all the time with her. It just felt a little odd to me. She's getting married, this is her dad, yet he spends all his time in the cellar setting fireworks off!

You may be forgiven for thinking it's a one joke film, but there are several brilliant set-pieces, like the courtroom (with possibly the best judge ever) and the restaurant, with James Stewart seeing mice! It's as subtle as a sledgehammer and it can be a little preachy in an underhand sort of way (Grandpa isn't at all, it's just the overriding message), though no more than the supposedly hip before-mentioned Fight Club, and you really won't mind anyway, they're such a loopy family. That's why Capra is so good. His films are sentimental, but only he can make them feel right. There is no hint of sarcasm or irony, just solid determination that it will all come out ok. Much like Vanderhof's prayer at mealtimes: "...We've all got our health; as far as anything else is concerned, we still leave that up to you."

Title: Re: You Can't Take it With You (1939) *****
Post by: Tom on February 06, 2009, 06:19:10 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 06, 2009, 02:38:01 AM

You Can't Take it With You
5 out of 5

Thanks! Wishlisted!
I have enjoyed "It Happened One Night", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and "Mr. Deeds Goes To Town", so I assume I will also enjoy this one.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 06, 2009, 06:37:09 PM

Can't fail, Tom. I haven't seen Mr. Deeds. I must get that. I have Lost Horizon, but yet to watch it.

I must post my Preston Sturges reviews. I'm sure you'd like his films too. Very like Capra, with a touch of irony, he made a short run of films in the 40s. The boxset is well worth getting.

Title: Rebecca (1940) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 07, 2009, 02:54:43 AM

1940
Rebecca
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/reb.jpg)

”Last night, I dreamt I went to Manderlay again.”

Rebecca is the story of a young girl (Joan Fontaine) who marries Maxim de Winter (Lawrence Olivier) after a whirlwind romance, but is unsuited to the role of mistress in the imposing Manderlay, especially dealing with the stern maid, Mrs. Danvers (Judith Anderson), and a husband still haunted by his first wife’s terrible death.

This, the most un-Hitchcock of Hitchcock films, was a Best Picture winner in a difficult year, coming out against The Grapes of Wrath, Hitch’s own Foreign Correspondent and The Philadelphia Story. The last in particular would have been as worthy a winner, but at least James Stewart got a deserved nod for his role.

As it is Rebecca is an excellent film and I have no issue with its quality. It is elegant, powerful and memorable, one of the very best suspense dramas ever made. But its production was troubled and just who was responsible for the end product very confusing! There’s little in the aesthetics that immediately mark it as a “Hitchcock Film”, but the story is thematically suited to him; jealousy, guilt, mysterious past, deaths and cruelty. And he’d used Daphne Du Maurier’s work before in Jamaica Inn and would again in The Birds. However, she hated the way he treated Jamaica Inn and here is where the problems start.

According to memos from David Selznick on the superb Criterion DVD, he had to step in to make sure Hitchcock produced a faithful script, something he had promised Du Maurier (aside from one moral concession to the Hays Office). I agree with his sentiments on how novels should be adapted (although that does result in mind-numbing, paint by numbers Gone With the Wind!), but he was essentially strangling the director who couldn’t inject any of the traits, including humour, he would become so famous for. Where I stop agreeing with Selznick is how he continued to treat Hitchcock, using spies on set and so forth. No wonder their relationship has been documented before. It’s fascinating!

Still, Hitchcock did find some room to show off, especially in the later sections and there are some extraordinary moments; the tension at a ball is unbearable and the confession scene outstanding. Such an unavoidably talky scene is made very exciting by the camera moving as if re-enacting the past. Manderlay, the building is similarly a character in its own right (not my words, as that was the intention), at once threatening and welcoming to the young bride. The pressure on her is tangible, not least from the terrifying Mrs. Danvers. Hitch makes her one of cinemas classic villains and even manages to sneak a hint of lesbianism past the Hays Office.

Without the attraction of a Hitchcock working at full power for at least the first half, we must turn to the cast and they do not disappoint. Aside from stone faced villain Judith Anderson, Lawrence Olivier is marvellous, which is no lazy complement. He’s one of the greatest actors ever, but more suited to stage and has been known to devour sets and co-stars alike! So it’s to his credit he keeps his performance in check and has a great chemistry with the timid and nervy Joan Fontaine. This is one of my favourite female roles. She’s absolutely lovely and conveys both the nervousness and later, the steel, the character needs. Other stand-outs include George Sanders who just couldn’t be any smoother or despicable. By the way, the DVD includes Hitch’s typical comments on other actresses testing for Fontaine’s part. ”More suited to the part of Rebecca…”, I think one said. Bear in mind we never see Rebecca! ;)

Essentially this is a ghost story, except Du Maurier’s wonderful story and Hitchcock’s brilliant staging generates a haunting without an actual spirit. Don’t watch it as an early example from one of cinemas greatest directors, but as one of the best adaptations of book to film, an exemplary display of screen acting, and as the immensely satisfying drama it is.

Title: Casablanca (1943) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 07, 2009, 07:09:46 PM

1943
Casablanca
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/cas.jpg)

There are two types of film fan in the world; those that need a synopsis of Casablanca, and those that do not. If you do, watch the film instead. You owe yourself that much.

I’m not going to waffle too much about this because there is no point. There aren’t enough superlatives to describe one of cinemas greatest moments. It’s a war-time thriller, with romance, comedy and music in perfect balance, delivered by a screenplay with dozens of one-liners and wonderful unforgettable characters played by a cast at the top of their game. I said Joan Fontaine in Rebecca was one of my favourite female roles and straight away I follow it with another. Ingrid Bergman as Ilsa. Obviously Bogart’s Rick is the reliable centre-point, but I wonder if Claude Rains as Louis might be the secret ingredient? Such a charming villain!

I often speak of the magic of movies and this is a perfect example. No-one set out to make a classic. It was a studio film, one of 50 in any given year and called Casablanca simply because an earlier movie had been so successful called Angiers. Angiers? Never heard of it!  ;)

Some say this is the best screenplay ever and they may be right, but the script, based on an un-produced play, wasn’t even finished to the point Bergman had no idea who her character was actually in love with. That classic ending like everything else was written on the fly. That it is in many ways the equal of the meticulously engineered Citizen Kane proves that there are no rules in movies. Just be in the right place at the right time and it’ll work. Easy!  :laugh:

If you like it, you’ll love it, and it’ll get under your skin and never leave. It’s been a huge influence on cinema for the past 60+ years.

I’d never noticed before, but I’d say that includes Star Wars. Stop laughing! The atmosphere is a given- desert town, multi-national refugees, threat of an Empire. But switch Laszlo for Luke and Rick for Han, then tell it from Han’s perspective and you’re on the right track. It’s the pacing and editing, especially so entwined with the music that finished it for me. There is a shot near the start of a plane landing and it felt just like Star Wars.  :shrug:

Title: All About Eve (1950) ****
Post by: Najemikon on February 09, 2009, 10:41:57 PM

1950
All About Eve
4 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/eve.jpg)

Actress Margot Channing (Bette Davis) has a dedicated fan in Eve (Anne Baxter) who she gives a job to out of pity. But it soon becomes clear that there is far more to Eve’s ambition. And just how far will she go, whoever gets hurt?

1950 and there is a wind of change. So far all the winners I’ve reviewed have been rather typical of the output from Hollywood in this period. But now studios are aware of the threat coming from TV and maybe they’re being braver, more self-critical. The result is All About Eve, willing to cast a very sharp look at showbusiness and nominated for a record breaking 14 Oscars, winning 6. So the biggest winner in this marathon so far is the only one to try and bite the hand that feeds it. It may be set in the theatre world, but its target is obvious.

Scripted by Joseph Mankiewicz, brother of Herman who wrote Citizen Kane, it follows that films flashback method of framing and although not as smooth, there’s a tangible air of regret and nostalgia from the start as we are introduced by voiceover (George Sanders’ Addison DeWitt) to the small cast of characters whose lives were turned upside down by the manipulative Eve, who will stop at nothing to achieve stardom. Amongst them is Bette Davis as Margot Channing, a 40-year old actress, holding onto fame. It is a monumental performance, captivating and forceful. There are no actresses today who could handle a similar part with as much relish and vigour. Her put-downs are legendary in a film that whizzes along with fantastic, poetic dialogue.

The rest of the cast are frequently, if not consistently, her equal, especially Celeste Holm as Karen. For me, the only weakness was actually the title character. It’s not the wonderful Anne Baxter’s fault, but I felt her opening and very important scene in Margot’s dressing room was unconvincing. It’s the same Eve we see at the end, but with just a funny hat and overcoat to show us how poor she is. Mind you it’s still a great scene and Thelma Ritter is wonderful in it. You may know her similar character in Rear Window. She doesn’t have anywhere near enough time for my liking, but she was still Oscar nominated. The male Best Supporting Actor winner was George Sanders, who is simply marvellous as the venomous critic.

It’s a very cynical story, but the line between on and off screen is very blurred. Bette Davis had been in the wilderness for a couple of years and comes back to a part of an actress fearing her career is over. And the phenomenally gorgeous Marilyn Monroe in her first, brief, role plays a starlet manipulating men to give her auditions. Pretty much what she actually did! Manipulating men is the order of the day in this very female orientated story. It wouldn’t have worked with predominantly male characters though, simply because Hollywood has an awful record for treating older actresses. Mind you, it's the perfect showcase of talent here. The performances as a whole are fantastic.

It’s audacious and entertaining, frequently funny, if a little obvious. I think it’s more of an important film for when and why it was released, as much as standing on its own merits, which are, nonetheless, remarkable.

"Curtain down, the end"

Title: On the Waterfront (1954) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 10, 2009, 02:07:28 AM

1954
On The Waterfront
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/water.jpg)

Terry Malloy (Marlon Brando) works in the mob-controlled waterfront, perpetuated by a culture of silence. Guilty over his small part in the death of another worker, his conscience comes under pressure from the man’s sister (Eva Marie Saint) and a priest (Karl Malden). On the other side, his brother Charlie (Rod Steiger), who is the boss’s right-hand man. To testify is the right thing to do, but the last thing he can do.

It’s interesting doing this marathon in order because you see the change in attitudes from the Academy, along with the shift in styles from the filmmakers. The whole Film Noir movement seems to have been ignored (although there haven’t been any Westerns yet either and Hollywood was built by the cowboys), but On The Waterfront is nevertheless a child of those European influenced times and directed by Elia Kazan, who made classic noirs Boomerang and Panic in the Streets. It’s another do-the-right-thing story like Casablanca, but grittier and with a more tangible threat, especially for the times, with an understated score from Leonard Bernstein to match. The Academy seems to be looking a bit further now, away from typical studio fare. And is this the first Method actor to be honoured?

When you start taking an interest in film, certain accepted facts will come to the surface pretty quickly and there should be a healthy tendency to be cynical, block out the hype and make your own mind up. Is Citizen Kane really the greatest film? Or The Godfather? Is Marlon Brando really the greatest screen actor of all time? On this evidence and others, emphatically yes. I didn’t enjoy A Streetcar Named Desire and struggled to understand the appeal of that performance, but I had no such trouble here. He is truly magnificent. The “I coulda been a contender” speech stands out for a reason. Even within the film, it’s so passionate and driven, where Terry is otherwise awkward and, quite frankly, a bit thick. It’s the moment we really understand him just as he starts to understand himself. It’s such a well-rounded, real character.

It wouldn’t be any good without sparring partner Rod Steiger, who is often unfairly forgotten, particulary in that scene. He’s Brando’s equal and there’s no doubting the conviction. Also forgotten is Karl Malden, whose rousing speech at the dockside is another stand-out. All this was written by Budd Schulberg whose screenplay is very challenging for the times, asking hard questions and giving even harder answers. The rest of the cast is very good too, with Eva Marie Saint in the only prominent female role. Makes a change, this whole marathon has been very girly up until now!

Despite being so bleak, it's also pacy and watchable. Despite controversy over his own telling-tales episode which may have influenced his take on the story, Elia Kazan crafted an outstanding film, with or without Brando. With, it became exceptional.

Title: The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 11, 2009, 01:50:46 PM

1957
Bridge on the River Kwai
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/kwai.jpg)

British prisoners are forced to build a bridge for the Japanese, but their commanding officer (Alec Guinness) has an unusual attitude. Meanwhile, an American successfully escapes and is recruited to a commando team tasked with destroying it.

At last! Colour! Cinemascope! Sub-text! This is a very different beast to the previous entries in this marathon. David Lean’s first epic is also far more complex than you may think. Epics have a habit of being rather predictable, ticking off the various elements of their particular story in a determined fashion.

The story is straightforward enough, but it’s actually about the absurdity of warfare and protocol there-in. It’s frequently funny though played serious and never feels absurd like Dr. Strangelove. As an anti-war film it works just as well as Kubrick’s.

Alec Guinness is amazing as the loopy Colonel Nicholson and his scenes with Sessue Hayakawa as the camps also probably loopy Colonel Saito are wonderful as he breaks the Japanese officer’s resolve with sheer stubbornness. Afterwards Saito is more subdued, but their continued relationship is strangely touching as Nicholson rewards him by not only agreeing to work on the bridge, but to also completely redesign it and make it better! They both become so trapped in their isolated existence that they completely lose any sense of proportion.

In the midst of all this is William Holden, who manages to escape to a brief life of luxury where a secret is uncovered and he’s forced to join a team of British commandoes to return to the bridge and destroy it. That he is absolutely essential to the mission and then spectacularly not is just one of the many ironies underlining just how daft warfare can be, especially when they’re observing ranks and procedures to a fault.

The story has upset some people for several reasons. The original bridge really was built by British prisoners, but they actually did everything they could to slow the production down and never willingly helped the Japanese (this is shown early on at least). Also, thousands upon thousands died building the bridge at the hands of Japanese brutality, yet here they have a fairly easy time of it, relatively speaking. Finally the bridge was destroyed, but not until much later. So it’s easy to see why it’s thought as trivialising an awful event.

However I think those complaints are unfounded as they rather miss the point. And the true story can be just as absurd. After all, no matter how brutal the Japanese really were, the real people on whom Saito and Nicholson were based became close friends after the war and despite the best efforts of the prisoners, the bridge was completed just the same.

At over two and a half hours, it impresses by never losing pace. It’s one of the most intelligent and original war films ever made.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 13, 2009, 02:03:26 AM

Well, I tried, really I did. I was going to commit to Ben Hur, but I just didn't have four hours to spare in one sitting. Especially as I definitely wanted to see Lawrence of Arabia, a far better way to spend those four hours.  :bag:

Title: The Apartment (1960) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 13, 2009, 02:25:29 AM

1960
The Apartment
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/Apart.jpg)

C. C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) has an apartment, but he rarely gets chance to use it in the evenings. His colleagues use it regularly for affairs, while promising him promotions. His boss (Fred MacMurray) gets to hear of it and joins in, taking his current “ring a ding ding” Fran Kubelik (Shirley Maclaine). Unfortunately Baxter is very fond of Fran himself…

This is a very good film indeed from Billy Wilder. I adore Some Like It Hot, but this is more ambitious. That said, I do struggle a little with Jack Lemmon’s character and the premise; he’s such a wimp! No-one can possibly be that gullible.

However, that premise allows for a wonderfully performed and subtle screenplay that just can’t be ignored. It could so easily fall one way into farce or the other way into mawkish sentimentality, but it keeps the balance perfect throughout, especially in a late sequence where comedy is abandoned entirely for a hard-hitting dramatic twist that will leave unprepared viewers reeling. That it can go so dark and come back, all the time feeling absolutely authentic, is a testament to the first rate cast and writing.

Jack Lemmon is great, somehow making his utter wimp of a character funny and moving. Shirley Maclaine is less showy, but she’s incredible at being sparky and vunerable at the same time. By the way, the picture on the cover is the moment one of the best lines is delivered... ;)

Calling this a romantic comedy seems to sell it short and under false pretences.

Title: Lawrence of Arabia (1962) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 13, 2009, 03:21:43 AM

1962
Lawrence of Arabia
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/loa.jpg)

T. E. Lawrence (Peter O’Toole) is a romantic, enigmatic idealist, who doesn’t seem like the sort to become a hero. A legend even. But that’s exactly what he becomes when he unites the Arab tribes against the Turks. At first appalled by their brutality, he comes to love the people and the desert. The politics of the situation might just break him though.

The epic to judge all others by and one of the most magnificent films ever made. I said when reviewing The Bridge on the River Kwai that epics tend to be sort of predictable, but David Lean’s film had found an interesting angle to play instead. Here Lean has fashioned a more typical telling of a largely true story, but his hero is so much larger than life and so perfectly played by Peter O’Toole that it still manages to challenge and enthral in equal measure across its huge running time.

My favourite film of all time is Dances With Wolves, but it’s taken a long time for the penny to drop that that story has much in common with Lawrence. :bag: An idealistic officer joins the natives, helping them to fight their cause and risking becoming one himself, while failing to uphold the policies of his own people. It doesn’t stand much more comparison than that, if only because Lawrence has the support of the British army (albeit with ulterior motives perhaps) and returns home eventually.

The cinematography is the best you’ll see, taken for the most part from the actual locations. Today they’d cheat with CGI, but you’d miss the fantastic shot of Omar Sharif riding in from a mirage about one mile away. The shots are simply gorgeous and what widescreen and colour film was made for. O’Toole’s sharp blue eyes and blonde hair are such a contrast to the landscape and the blood, in one particularly harrowing sequence, one of the best battle scenes ever.

Historical accuracy is pretty close apparently, but it isn’t a blow-by-blow account and Sharif’s character never even existed. He’s essential though as he embodies the country, its morals and its reactions to this incredible man (embodied by his tearful comment when he agrees he is Lawrence’s closest friend, but he doesn’t love him; he fears him). Other supporting characters are played with similar skill, including Lean regular Alec Guinness. Much as I love Star Wars, it is truly a travesty that he is best remembered for that role.

Also a possible travesty is O’Toole missing the Oscar for Best Actor. It’s a crime softened by knowing it went to cinematic icon Atticus Finch, but still, this is lightning captured in a bottle, not just a performance. It’s about the man more than the events and Lawrence was a fascinating character. O’Toole captures all of Lawrence’s qualities, good, bad and possibly a couple he never had! All contrive to present a very complex, often downright arrogant, man who doesn’t seem to belong anywhere. He even has a feminine grace, further complicating the image.

For all Lean’s skill in the huge sequences, it’s his ability to capture the smaller moments that perhaps impress most, especially when Lawrence was beaten at the order of Jose Ferrer’s Turkish officer. Lean suggests what actually happened without being explicit. Neither shall I, but suffice to say it changed Lawrence dramatically.

That change brings about the perfect moment for an intermission! This isn’t just Lean pressing pause to allow the audience to ease some life back into tired arses. When the film returns, it is with new perspectives. It’s almost a different film with a powerful new angle. I felt that Lawrence was now suffering from being taken advantage of and everyone would have to realise the consequences.

Anyone who wishes to understand cinema at its most pure and powerful should watch this film. And get no closer to an answer! It was a massive undertaking, yet everything is note perfect, from cinematography, to performances and right down to Maurice Jarre’s haunting score. It’s an absolute gem. 

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 13, 2009, 03:26:16 AM

Good grief. I don't half go on!  :bag: And I know I'm throwing full marks around like sweets, but these really are some of the greatest films ever made. Of course, the Academy often gets it very wrong, but that's why I didn't buy those! Otherwise this marathon would be a bit more balanced... :training: Hopefully Richie will keep going with some of his more abrasive (and usually wrong :devil:) comments.

I'm going to have to watch something incredibly shit soon as an antidote. Time to blow the dust off Last House on the Left or Judge Dredd, I reckon! ;)

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Jimmy on February 13, 2009, 05:13:00 AM

Quote from: Jon on February 13, 2009, 03:26:16 AM

I'm going to have to watch something incredibly shit soon as an antidote. Time to blow the dust off Last House on the Left ;)

:redcard: Hey I like it :(

Title: In The Heat Of The Night (1967) ****
Post by: Najemikon on February 14, 2009, 08:30:39 PM

1967
In The Heat Of The Night
4 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/heat.jpg)

Virgil Tibbs (Sidney Poitier), a black homicide detective from Philadelphia is travelling in the deep south when he is arrested for murder, based simply on the colour of his skin. When the bigoted chief (Rod Steiger) realises his mistake, he is forced to accept Tibbs’ equally unwilling help in catching the real killer. 

This otherwise ordinary police thriller is given a lot of character by the mood, setting and above all the fantastic cast. Race is the driving force of the plot, but it is handled more subtly than you might assume. Sydney Poitier is brilliant as the quiet, but confident Virgil. Rod Steiger probably has the harder role as the Chief and he is fantastic, better even than his work on On The Waterfront. He’s bigoted, heavy handed, but also vulnerable and intelligent. He clearly wrestles with his own and his towns’ horrible views, while realising Tibbs’ is essential. The interplay between these two men is enthralling, first as they come to an understanding and then eventually to something that could almost be a friendship, or mutual respect at least.

American cinema has always done very well at interpreting foreign methods and tailoring them for their own ideals. This is a looser style to previous entries and likely reflects the French New Wave. It’s ideal for the moody, fractious, character driven environment and this is the first in this marathon I’ve noticed using songs for the soundtrack alongside a traditional score.

Steiger got a well-deserved win for Best Actor, but I was disappointed that Poitier wasn’t at least nominated. It was also nominated for screenplay and I’m a bit torn there. Characterisation and dialogue as I’ve been saying are beyond first rate and there are several stand-out scenes with wonderful language, but the murder plot is weak and some thugs a bit obvious. I might be being very picky, but I can’t buy that the police are quite that stupid as to arrest the wrong people twice. Actually, no, three times counting poor old Virgil himself! Although it importantly uses the racism as an effect, rather than a cause, it concerns me that no-one ever solves a crime correctly there! I did like that Virgil is briefly shown to be prejudiced as well though. The audience would love to see him “bring the fat cat down off his hill” of course, but life isn’t that neat.

The concerns about the plot are very small. This is a fantastic thriller that has stood the test of time and is possibly still relevant and the central performances are captivating.

By the way, Poitier starred with Richard Widmark in No Way Out some years before this. It deals with similar issues (Poitier's plays a Doctor treating a bigoted white man responsible for race riots) and is also very good indeed.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 14, 2009, 08:40:36 PM

This marathon just ain't big enough for:

The French Connection (1971)
The Godfather (1972)
The Godfather Part II (1974)

I've only seen them recently. All three are amongst my favourite films, but there's too little time to watch them again now! Suffice to say, The French Connection, based on a true story, contains Hackman's best performance with one of the greatest car chases ever (though technically not chasing a car) and it brings us well into the 1970s gritty, mumbling, independent style. I love it! And what hasn't been said about The Godfather films? Utterly magnificent, though there are a couple of people on this forum who do actually disagree! Scientists will be studying them to find out what's wrong...  :tease:

Title: One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 15, 2009, 01:36:35 AM

1975
One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/nest.jpg)

McMurphy (Jack Nicholson) is a petty criminal who’s playing the insanity card to get an easy stint at the local loony bin. There he meets an assortment of people with mental problems and Nurse Ratched, whose routine he is determined to mess with.

1975 was an excellent year. One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s got a well deserved Best Picture oscar and I was born. :D

Jack Nicholson gives one of his signature roles as McMurphy and he is superb throughout, as is the stone faced Nurse Ratched (Louise Fletcher) and their little battles are great fun.

I can’t think of another film that can so easily and successfully switch from being exhilarating to heartbreaking in a single scene. The fishing trip is a massive highlight as is the basketball game with the wonderful Chief. Of course setting it in a loony bin helps. All extremes of human emotion are played out by an excellent cast of character actors including Danny DeVito and Christopher Lloyd at various stages of being completely nuts. The strange score, played out on glass rims and saw blades somehow works very well to evoke just the right mood.

The contrast of emotions is no more vivid than in the films legendary final moments. It’s just a beautiful experience from start to finish. Somehow I want to liken it to The Shawshank Redemption and while that doesn’t feel quite right, I do think you will enjoy this if you liked Shawshank.

Title: The Deer Hunter (1978) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 15, 2009, 01:37:13 AM

1978
The Deer Hunter
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/deer.jpg)

Three men from Pennsylvania go to Vietnam. Captured by Vietcong, they are forced to play Russian Roulette and the experience changes them forever. Returning to their old lives is impossible in many ways.

The Deer Hunter is very long and not a lot really happens. It tests the viewer by refusing to bow to any convention and sticks rigidly to a steady pace. But by the end of the three hours running time its power should be obvious. This is hard to like, but then it never tries to entertain you. This is no ordinary war film. In fact, this is no ordinary film full-stop.

It starts with a group of friends leaving a steel mill. Three of them will soon be on the way to Vietnam, but first one of them is getting married and there is a hunting trip to fit in too. Finally they retire to a bar where one of them plays the piano and without warning we cut to Vietnam.

This has taken well over an hour, but it very importantly pulls us into their lives and routine, mundane and normal though it may be, complete with random moments that have no bearing on the plot. The jolt to the horrors of Vietnam must be exactly how it felt. There is little to the Vietnam sequences, aside from the harrowing Russian Roulette game and the three getting split up, but this is a film about the three men and the contrasts in their lives. Throughout, the gorgeous theme (Cavatina I think it’s called) evokes the right note of emotion. How it wasn’t even nominated I find very odd.

Only Michael (Robert De Niro) returns from the war. Steven (John Savage) is in a military hospital and Nick (Christopher Walken) is still in Vietnam. Michael returns to get him after trying to briefly to fit back into the old routine.

De Niro is incredible as Michael. I think this is his most honest and real performance and it’s a shame he missed the Oscar. Jon Voight got that, but I haven’t seen Coming Home so can’t comment. At least Walken got a deserved award for his supporting role. I’m not sure he’s ever been better which is a hell of a thing to say considering it’s Christopher Walken! The rest of the cast including Meryl Streep are excellent too and help make this the most emotional of all the Vietnam based films. Most of those movies like any war film have agendas; either about the war or about the return back home, but only The Deer Hunter treats it as real.

It can be ponderous. The 70s is my favourite period of filmmaking, but many from that era do have the habit of not speaking properly; shrugs and murmurs makes for a conversation! I’d have also liked to have seen a lot less at the wedding (just why so much innuendo about the bride?) and a lot more of the beautiful hunting sequences (two, which frame the plot brilliantly). Overall though this is one of the closest times that film has come to pure art, and an excellent study of humanity.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 15, 2009, 01:47:26 AM

One dose of Vietnam is enough for one marathon! Unless I was doing a Vietnam marathon of course... ??? So, anyway, Platoon can sit this one out, as I've only seen it quite recently anyway. In comparison with the Deer Hunter though, it doesn't try in anyway to present these men as having normal lives to return to. Stone's movie is about the raw conflict and there are few better. Well, he was one of the few filmmakers actually to have been there and it makes a difference.

I'm also missing two of my favourite movies, Dances With Wolves and The Silence of the Lambs, again because I've only seen them recently anyway. The latter is one of the best thrillers ever, a very intelligent film and has two amazing performances. By the way, the "Ultimate Edition" is amazing quality. First DVD I played on my new Blu-Ray player and although the BR would be better, I can't see the need of an upgrade in this case. It looks gorgeous.

Costner's epic was slated by some because it denied Scorcese his Oscar. Tough titties. Dances With Wolves is far better than Goodfella's and while I do like that film, I also find it blurs the line a little in Scorcese's career between true brilliance and slight indulgence. So there.  ;)

I just realised that means I've missed the 80s entirely. Ah, well. The 80s was an odd decade, art wise. Everyone went a bit shit for a while, especially music and clothes... :2cents:

Title: Unforgiven (1992) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 17, 2009, 03:21:06 AM

1992
Unforgiven
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/unforgiven.jpg)

William Munny (Clint Eastwood) is a retired outlaw with a terrible reputation, tempted out of retirement by a young gunfighter (Jaimz Woolvett) on the promise of a bounty that would help support his two young children.

Clint Eastwood is one of my favourite directors. He has a wonderful old fashioned style rooted in good stories with well drawn characters. While Hollywood was built on the Western, they’ve usually neglected the genre come awards time, so it seems fitting that it’s Clint who should finally do it with a film steeped in tradition, yet defying every convention.

As it was there was little against it that year. Eastwood should have got a Best Actor award too, but he was against stiffer competition there; Al Pacino was playing a blind man and while I hate to be cynical, the Academy does love the afflicted. Thank goodness Gene Hackman came through for his powerful supporting role as sadistic sheriff Little Bill (against A Few Good Men’s Nicholson, no less) as I’ve always enjoyed his work and this is one of his best. I can’t understand why it wasn’t nominated for score as it’s wonderful. It’s on the DVD menu and I couldn’t bring myself to select an option before it finished a cycle! Pathetic, I know, but it’s so bound to the film, setting a mood of regret from the start that cuts through the violence.

And it is violent. The first real difference with most Westerns is the fact people die and with consequence. The characters are layered and challenging: though he is trying hard to stay the right course, set by his late wife, Munny is a tortured man capable of the worst human qualities; the sheriff, while upholding good and defending his town, is a sadistic bully; and the only truly redeemable man dies needlessly. It’s a sophisticated and adult screenplay by David Webb Peoples that asks difficult questions about the nature and consequence of violence. In an interview on the DVD, he mentions Taxi Driver as an influence and strangely, it does share themes.

Not that an opinion of Taxi Driver predisposes you to this. It is a Western and of a more old fashioned time... Although, if you haven’t seen many Westerns, I recommend you see some others first. Unforgiven works best as a late chapter in the genre.

Eastwood comments that he feels a film’s quality is often marked by its smallest characters and so all his supporting characters are well-rounded, especially Richard Harris as English Bob, a gunman exaggerating his legend while Munny is trying to bury his. Little Bill’s character assassination of him and Bob’s parting words are very funny.

The Western is an unfairly neglected genre and many called this the best one. It isn’t, but it’s certainly in the top drawer. Others said it’s the best Western for twenty years, but that’s lazy journalism in such a barren field. It really only comes up against Eastwood’s own films and this is certainly his best. Qualities such as wonderful cinematography, score, and characters with dialogue you can chew are a tribute to his historical career, while the themes are powerful and relevant enough to be ahead of his time and mark him as one of cinemas greatest directors. His recent output only confirms what Unforgiven promised. Actually, Play Misty For Me promised it, but this made it impossible to ignore.

Title: Schindler's List (1993) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 17, 2009, 10:29:59 PM

1993
Schindler’s List
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/list.jpg)

Tells the story of Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson), Nazi party member and war profiteer who nevertheless went on to save the lives of over 1100 Jews, right under the noses of officers like Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes).

There is little I can or should say about Schindler’s List, but you know me! I’ll find something. It is the only film I have seen that is above criticism because it’s too important. What do you need to read if you haven’t seen this film? That it’s well acted? Well written? Has a great score maybe? It has all those qualities and more, but none are a good enough reason to watch it. It is directed brilliantly and the director was finally rewarded for a successful career, is getting somewhere, but still, you should see it because it will humble you and you will tell lots of people about the story and maybe this atrocity will never be allowed to happen again. All because this film in a small way is an “absolute good”. It at least led directly to the Shoah Foundation which isn’t just important, it’s essential.

I hope we can assume that merely watching it is a moot point, so it’s better to speak about what happened in its wake, because there was criticism, as there should be. Schindler was no hero to begin with and an unattractive prospect to start a story. He was a Nazi party member and sympathiser who would profit from the war. He was probably the last person that the Jews thought they could get help from, but they did get help and how is an inspirational development.

How apt then that it should be directed so personally by the person least expected to pull it off. It’s hard to imagine now, but Steven Spielberg was unfairly dismissed by many critics as a glorified popcorn seller who would never produce something truly important. In the same year as Jurassic Park, how he proved them wrong! And I can’t think of any film that could be more important. Maybe Ikuru, but even then, Schindler’s List relates to such a huge event that to even call it a film does it a disservice.
 
Some didn’t like that it concentrates on the 1100 that lived, not the 6 million who didn’t. I can’t agree at all, because it’s important to that no matter how bad things get, there is always a glimmer of hope. But it’s a weak criticism anyway because you’re never in doubt of the scale, not for an instance. Some sequences seemed like hell itself to me. And it’s no small victory when the direct descendants of the Schindlerjuden (6000) outnumber the Jews left in Poland (4000). Schindler was a great man, of which there should be no doubt.

Like any film of an historical event, it has to dramatise some things, but facts like that one above prove its validity. Anyway, the story is much worse than depicted of course. For instance, the train of women accidentally rerouted to Auschwitz were trapped there for nearer three weeks than the mere hours depicted. Spielberg is an entertainer at heart and though this is him at his most brilliant and raw, there are brief moments that you may think are indulgence, such as Oskar’s final scene. His judgement in moments of black humour, even during a devastating “Ghotto Liquidation”, is beyond reproach though. It’s an astonishing achievement and when he speaks of being profoundly changed by making it, I believe him. You might be profoundly changed by merely watching it.

We sometimes talk of films making you think for days after. This will make you think and feel for years. It is a devastating experience that will nonetheless leave you with a glimmer of hope.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: goodguy on February 18, 2009, 02:02:02 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 17, 2009, 10:29:59 PM

It’s hard to imagine now, but Steven Spielberg was unfairly dismissed by many critics as a glorified popcorn seller who would never produce something truly important. In the same year as Jurassic Park, how he proved them wrong!

Ironically, one of the most vehement critics of the movie was Claude Lanzmann, whose Shoah influenced Spielberg in the first place.

My main problem (aside from my deep dislike for Spielberg) with the movie is that the Holocaust is not a redemption story, but the movie essentially is. The black and white pictures and the camera work suggest a false authenticity, which is made bearable for the viewer by its combination with the kitschy melodram, happy ending inclusive. Thanks to Spielberg, everyone now knows how bad it was with that Holocaust stuff - but at least something good (a glimmer of hope) came out of it. Imre Kertész (Holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate, author of Fateless) called that the new Auschwitz lie.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 18, 2009, 08:17:26 PM

Quote from: goodguy on February 18, 2009, 02:02:02 PM

Ironically, one of the most vehement critics of the movie was Claude Lanzmann, whose Shoah influenced Spielberg in the first place.

I read about that at the time. I should say I was speaking strictly of film critics who generally couldn't agree on whether Spielberg would ever deliver on his early promise. I always found it an odd view, considering he'd already done Empire of the Sun.

Quote from: goodguy on February 18, 2009, 02:02:02 PM

My main problem (aside from my deep dislike for Spielberg) with the movie is that the Holocaust is not a redemption story, but the movie essentially is. The black and white pictures and the camera work suggest a false authenticity, which is made bearable for the viewer by its combination with the kitschy melodram, happy ending inclusive. Thanks to Spielberg, everyone now knows how bad it was with that Holocaust stuff - but at least something good (a glimmer of hope) came out of it. Imre Kertész (Holocaust survivor, Nobel laureate, author of Fateless) called that the new Auschwitz lie.

"Deep dislike"? Goodness, that's strong! Sounds like fuel for a decent thread elsewhere. ;) No love for Jaws? Duel? The Sugarland Express, even? He certainly isn't as potent as he once was, but how about Munich in recent years?

I know we differ immediately on Spielberg's talents, but with this story any director would have been the same if so committed and passionate. Most aren't. I have seen other work, including Night and Fog, the acclaimed documentary by Alain Renais. Is it better? Does it matter? Much as I respect Claude Lanzmann's opinions, ask the average guy on the street who he is and they'll have no idea. Ask them if they've seen Schindler's List, more than likely. Let's be honest, that same average guy would never get anything from Night and Fog. Spielberg knows how to communicate with a mass audience and he goes straight for the heart. And has Lanzmann's work led to something on the scale of the Shoah Foundation?

But your main problem seems to be with the fundamental story, so the real culprit is surely Thomas Keneally. First I strongly disagree that it's purely a redemption story. Schindler is our guide, not our focus, which is why his final scene seems indulgent.

 I can only go by my own reactions and bear in mind that my generation, here in England, had no connection with WWII. I'd been taught about the Holocaust at school, briefly, but our curriculum was pretty bad and concentrated on WWI and local Victorian history. I'd read more about it since though, and before Schindler's List. It never seemed real and Schindler's List for the first time made it real. The first time I saw it I had no feelings of hope, I was devastated.

So in one sense, by concentrating on Oskar Schindler, it helps the entirely ignorant understand the bigger picture (I include myself and would appreciate if Eric doesn't comment! :laugh:). I for one never thought he in any way alleviated the situation or offered an explanation or even a vague promise it wouldn't happen again. By concentrating on the 1100 who lived, it goes some way to humanising what was lost and making it impossible to ignore how huge it was. "Whoever saves one life, save the world entire" indeed. That's the important message and it doesn't remotely dilute the Holocaust.

I don't know why I'm so apologetic for it though. What was the alternative? To not tell the story of those survivors?  :shrug:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 18, 2009, 09:01:24 PM

I hate to dump a Gump in the middle of this, but it has to be done!  :hysterical:

Title: Forrest Gump (1994) ****
Post by: Najemikon on February 18, 2009, 09:01:42 PM

1994
Forrest Gump
4 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/gump.jpg)

Forrest Gump (Tom Hanks) is the most innocent of figures and we see a generation of America develop through his eyes.

Criticising Forrest Gump is like kicking a puppy in the face. Well pucker up, Pooch! I’m gonna have a go… oh what’s the use? That’s the thing about Gump. To continue the puppy analogy, he just keeps coming back until he eventually makes you laugh by leaving a turd on the carpet or trying to hump your leg. It is a lovable film that has many good points, but it’s as dumb as its hero when it comes to delivery. Maybe that’s the point though. That it is in all respects, a simple, unassuming tale, representing something much bigger than its hero. Black Beauty then. Sorry, first puppies, now horses. Keeping up? :bag:

Tom Hanks is marvellous as Gump, but Oscar worthy? He was for Philadelphia, but considering the incredible talent he was up against, here I’m not so sure. As I said once before though, Oscar loves the afflicted and they obviously see being thick as a disability! Best Film no excuse though because I should have been watching The Shawshank Redemption tonight. It’s the first time I think the Academy truly lost all common sense.

Although as subtle as a sledgehammer, it is fundamentally clever. Gump has nothing but an iron clad sense of right and wrong instilled in him by his “momma” (Sally Field) and that’s how he sees everything good and bad America has to offer through several decades. Told in flashback as he sits on a bench waiting for a bus, his habit of simplifying huge events is endearing and unavoidably stark. Some of the effects work when he appears in original footage is incredible (though the John Lennon sequence was misjudged). His effect on people is wonderfully uplifting, tempered by a strong sense of irony that crops up occasionally. The best sequence is in Vietnam and can represent the entire film; he barely has any idea of why he’s there or why anyone’s there. He’s just dealing with it, along with his friends, the equally dumb Bubba, whose stories about shrimp are hilarious, and the brilliant Gary Sinise (whatever happened to him?) as soon to be disabled Lt. Dan. EDIT: As Jimmy reminded me, the soundtrack throughout is amazing, evoking the perfect mood for each era. I wouldn't normally edit a review because of comments, but it really is that good and so important.

The other big influence on his life other than his mother, is Jenny (Robin Wright), the little girl who is the only one to show him kindness and whose life runs parallel to Gump’s. While he is like the feather at the start, just letting the breeze take him everywhere, she seems constantly in search of something, always refusing his devotion. I thought this was the films weakness, because like everything else, you have no idea where she’s going to end up, which in itself is fine, but then they kind of shoehorn in the last chapter. I didn’t like how she came across and I didn’t like that it was almost an afterthought. It was too much to tack on as an epilogue when the rest of the film was on the bus stop bench.

The bad points are largely inconsequential. You’ll love it or hate it, regardless. It is an original film with a good heart and a fiendish sense of humour. By the end, I was sold on the character and even the theme stopped annoying me!

However: “Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you’re gonna get.” Read the card, you pillock. ::)

Title: Re: Forrest Gump (1994) ****
Post by: Jimmy on February 18, 2009, 09:46:27 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 18, 2009, 09:01:42 PM

Criticising Forrest Gump is like kicking a puppy in the face.

I'm like you here. This is a film that I've liked the first and only time I've watched it, but I'm not sure that a second viewing will do anything but decrease my oppinion about it. This film is such an happy sugary one that I was surprised to like it even if it was force on me (my girlfriend at the time choose the movie we watched together).

One thing that you've forgot to mention : the soundtrack is really amazing, imagine the cost to buy the right for each one of these song...

Title: Re: Forrest Gump (1994) ****
Post by: Najemikon on February 19, 2009, 12:48:32 AM

Quote from: Jimmy on February 18, 2009, 09:46:27 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 18, 2009, 09:01:42 PM

Criticising Forrest Gump is like kicking a puppy in the face.

I'm like you here. This is a film that I've liked the first and only time I've watched it, but I'm not sure that a second viewing will do anything but decrease my oppinion about it. This film is such an happy sugary one that I was surprised to like it even if it was force on me (my girlfriend at the time choose the movie we watched together).

One thing that you've forgot to mention : the soundtrack is really amazing, imagine the cost to buy the right for each one of these song...

 :bag:

Stupid is as stupid does. I'm a idiot! That soundtrack is one of the best points of the film and I had meant to mention it. Those sort of soundtracks seem rare in Oscar winners.

If you enjoyed it once, Jimmy, give it another go one day. This was the second time I'd watched it properly and at first I was struggling. It's so damn nice I expected a bloody flower to grow out of my telly! Urgh. But then I started to see the ironies that are razor sharp and it gave the film a little bit of a backbone. Not much of one, but it's there all the same.  ;)

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Dragonfire on February 19, 2009, 06:04:34 AM

I've seen all of Forest Gump once.  I did like it..but I haven't wanted to watch it again.  I think the biggest reason is because Jenny ticked me off.

(click to show/hide)

I didn't like how Jenny took him for granted.  She would just drift in and out of his life whenever it suited her and she didn't stop to consider how it impacted him or how he felt about her just taking off yet again.  It really bugged me when she showed up and stayed with him for a while..even slept with him..and then took off again and didn't bother to contact him for years.  It seemed like she wouldn't have bothered to ever let him know that he had a son if she hadn't gotten sick.  Not that I was happy that she was sick.  I just didn't think she treated Forest right and that has always bothered me.  And yes I know it is just a movie. lol  Things like that bug me at times.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Jimmy on February 19, 2009, 06:35:12 AM

Quote from: Dragonfire on February 19, 2009, 06:04:34 AM

(click to show/hide)

I didn't like how Jenny took him for granted.

(click to show/hide)

I was in the same genre of relation for 3 years, so I know this feeling. She knows very well that she was a goddess in my eyes, so she came and went in my life everytime she needed me. I've finally understand that she was not for me when I've lost many good friends and a job for her. The worst is that after 5 years I'm not certain that I could resist if she would suddenly reapears today. I know that it's lame, but sometimes we are weak :-[.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 19, 2009, 02:56:32 PM

Quote from: Jimmy on February 19, 2009, 06:35:12 AM

Quote from: Dragonfire on February 19, 2009, 06:04:34 AM

(click to show/hide)

I didn't like how Jenny took him for granted.

(click to show/hide)

I was in the same genre of relation for 3 years, so I know this feeling. She knows very well that she was a goddess in my eyes, so she came and went in my life everytime she needed me. I've finally understand that she was not for me when I've lost many good friends and a job for her. The worst is that after 5 years I'm not certain that I could resist if she would suddenly reapears today. I know that it's lame, but sometimes we are weak :-[.

That's exactly the bit I meant, Dragonfire. And it might have still worked had it not been after most of the film had been told in flashback from the bench. It was such a neat plot device; they should have got him off the bench earlier or made the final section much shorter. Similar films normally have just a small scene to finish off the story after a long flashback like that.

(click to show/hide)

there are worse ways to be weak, Jimmy. It'll be a test of character should she come back. Just don't let her marry you, Gump style... ;)

Title: Braveheart (1995) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 19, 2009, 08:12:40 PM

1995
Braveheart
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/brave.jpg)

William Wallace (Mel Gibson) avenges his wife’s death and in doing so starts a war with the English. A war for freedom.

This is a magnificent film, a throwback to the old-fashioned epics. In the Battle of Stirling, it contains one of the very best battle scenes ever staged. Surely an influence on Gladiator, we desperately need more of its kind. Mel Gibson took a lot of criticism but he’s perfect as William Wallace, channelling past roles like Mad Max and Martin Riggs into the passionate hero who isn’t afraid to lop a few limbs off here and there. His accent falters a couple of times, but no-one else was trying to make this film and it’s an important story.

It’s a well written tale, very character based, with plenty of humour in the early stages at least. A great villain in the late Patrick McGoohan as Edward I and both key women are fantastic (Catherine McCormack and Sophie Marceau). The film feels muddy and grimy, while the landscapes are wonderful, just right for a story about a band of scrappers who gave the English a bloody nose. The final scenes of torture are gruesome without showing much, which is commendable considering Gibson must have a fetish about such things! Just look at his work since and even Lethal Weapon. It’s always there! The music is pretty good, stirring stuff one second, poetic the next, but James Horner does have a habit of ripping off his earlier work and over-using synthesisers.

Because it’s such fantastic, passionate entertainment, because Gibson was the only one willing to put everything into the film and most importantly, because I hadn’t heard of Wallace (blame my schooling. :bag: ), I can forgive the huge problem with the film and still give it full marks. But its attempt for historical accuracy is a joke!
 
This issue often comes up and I usually side with the films (except for U571), because it’s important to tell these stories in any form and through drama, you can evoke more feeling than a super accurate documentary and understand the ‘why’ as much as the ‘how’. Most historical stories can’t just become screenplays; there has to be concessions for pacing and emotions. Just as long as the viewer is impressed enough to find out more, it’s ok.

Braveheart really pushes that though! Its one thing to simplify a character to remove murky politics and morals that may alienate a viewer (Robert the Bruce), but it’s quite another to use characters who were not there (Isabelle didn’t arrive for three years) and kill off others that had a long way to go yet.

I would like to see a film about Edward II. Braveheart depicts him correctly as a wimp and he made a fair mess of things after taking over from his father and Isabelle would plot against (I can understand why they wanted such an enigmatic character here). But even Gibson might back off from showing how he was finished off!

(click to show/hide)

There was a plot to murder him, but it was important no visible marks were left. So they used a red hot poker inserted into the rectum. I bet that stung!

Title: Re: Braveheart (1995) *****
Post by: Jimmy on February 20, 2009, 04:49:44 AM

Quote from: Jon on February 19, 2009, 08:12:40 PM

Most historical stories can’t just become screenplays; there has to be concessions for pacing and emotions. Just as long as the viewer is impressed enough to find out more, it’s ok.

This is what happen when I've watched Michael Collins the first time. I've wrote one of my better works at the university because of him in a 20^th century European history class ;D

My best one was my final project about the chance of success of a secessionism movement.

Title: Re: Braveheart (1995) *****
Post by: northbloke on February 20, 2009, 02:04:06 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 19, 2009, 08:12:40 PM

I would like to see a film about Edward II.

I can't vouch for it's historical accuracy as it's based on Christopher Marlowe's Elizabethan play, but one of Derek Jarman's last films was Edward II (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0101798/), and does include poor Edward's "ending".  :devil:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: goodguy on February 20, 2009, 02:35:43 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 18, 2009, 08:17:26 PM

I know we differ immediately on Spielberg's talents, but with this story any director would have been the same if so committed and passionate. Most aren't. I have seen other work, including Night and Fog, the acclaimed documentary by Alain Renais. Is it better? Does it matter?  Much as I respect Claude Lanzmann's opinions, ask the average guy on the street who he is and they'll have no idea. Ask them if they've seen Schindler's List, more than likely. Let's be honest, that same average guy would never get anything from Night and Fog.

Of course it is better, and of course it matters. In Night & Fog, the problematic nature of recalling these events is part of the film itself. The same is true for Lanzmann's Shoah, which goes even further and completely refuses the depiction of terror, setting hours of verbal testimony against the contemporary locations of these events. Spielberg purposefully eliminates these differences.

As for the average guy (and sorry Jon, you don't qualify): what is gained by given him a false sense of comprehension and closure by trivialising the terror within a conventional and manipulative narrative? I wouldn't be offended by the movie so much if it only tried to be a character study about Schindler. But Spielberg wanted to make a movie about the Holocaust and the general public perceived it as such. That makes it probably worse than last year's "The Reader" (which I haven't seen yet).

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: richierich on February 20, 2009, 03:29:58 PM

Many millions of people will have viewed Schindlers List, will have purchased it on dvd, and at least have been made slightly more aware of the atrocities committed, in addition as has rightly been said entertained as well.
Very few would have watched Shoah, and even fewer will own it.

The only realistic way of better educating 'the average guy' would be through an in-depth documentary, but 'the average guy' wants to be entertained as well and will not watch such a documented piece.

I never felt the subject matter was trivialised in Schindlers List,  but accept it was adapted for entertainment purposes

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 20, 2009, 07:42:13 PM

Exactly, Rich. And I believe the film is often used in school curriculums as a springboard to a wider discussion. Thanks for saying I'm not average, Matthias,  ;) but when I saw it for the first time, I was very ignorant of what had happened. You mention the word closure, but do you honestly believe that's what people get from the film? I didn't and no-one I ever spoken to about it has ever said that. Schindler comes across like a pebble in a stream and it's where the stream starts and ends that people rightly discuss. Munich is similar in that it offers little opinion or judgement on either side, just a depiction of what happened so the viewer can consider the reaction and what it meant.

Spielberg is an entertaining technician, like Hitchcock was in many respects and Kubrick could be to a fault. He doesn't do internal dramas or subtexts; it is what it is, so I can understand other work being more incisive and powerful, but it's all for nothing if no-one sees them. For real change of any kind, you have to educate crowds and that's what he does best.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 20, 2009, 11:32:30 PM

Oh dear, I've missed the boat...  ;) I did actually want to see Titanic as I haven't watched it for a long time. I will still have a quick slagging off session though. :devil:

1997 is the year the Academy screwed up. Perhaps not with Best Picture, you'll be surprised to hear me say, as Titanic is far from a bad film and evokes the glitzy old fashioned Hollywood. Such optimistic, love will overcome nostalgia was bound to win. L.A. Confidential is the much better film, but it's a throwback to film noir, a genre long neglected by Oscar. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen Good Will Hunting win, but at least it got a very much deserved screenplay award along with Robin Williams for Supporting Actor. Now Helen Hunt is a decent actress, but come on! I'd have actually accepted Kate Winslet snagging that one instead, but the real winner should have been Judi Dench for Mrs Brown.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Dragonfire on February 21, 2009, 12:20:08 AM

Quote from: Jon on February 20, 2009, 11:32:30 PM

Oh dear, I've missed the boat...  ;) I did actually want to see Titanic as I haven't watched it for a long time. I will still have a quick slagging off session though. :devil:

1997 is the year the Academy screwed up. Perhaps not with Best Picture, you'll be surprised to hear me say, as Titanic is far from a bad film and evokes the glitzy old fashioned Hollywood. Such optimistic, love will overcome nostalgia was bound to win. L.A. Confidential is the much better film, but it's a throwback to film noir, a genre long neglected by Oscar. Personally, I'd have liked to have seen Good Will Hunting win, but at least it got a very much deserved screenplay award along with Robin Williams for Supporting Actor. Now Helen Hunt is a decent actress, but come on! I'd have actually accepted Kate Winslet snagging that one instead, but the real winner should have been Judi Dench for Mrs Brown.

At the time, I thought Titanic should have won...now I'm not so sure.  I'm thinking that L.A. Confidential should have gotten it instead.  I did like Bassinger and Williams deserved to win for supporting actress and actor. 
I never thought that Helen Hunt should have won.  I don't care for her that much and think she is very over rated, especially since she won the Oscar.  I know a lot of people don't agree, but I thought As Good As it Gets was very over rated too.  I didn't really care for it, and I wasn't that fond of Nicholson in it either.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 21, 2009, 12:45:52 AM

Nicholson's always worth a look, but that film was just kind of, nothing. :shrug: Compare it with romantic comedy dramas like The Apartment and it falls way short.

The Academy would always choose Titanic. I think some of them still remember the days of the Hays Office and the studio system. Titanic is similar to Casablanca in story (huge disaster dooms the perfect love affair), and it's the perfect balance for the ideal Academy film. That it is a bloated sugary mess doesn't matter unfortunately. I hasten to add that Casablanca is one of the greatest films ever made and Titanic isn't fit to even think about being in the same league, it's just that basic formula is similar... :-[

Title: American Beauty (1999) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 22, 2009, 03:01:50 AM

1999
American Beauty
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/beauty.jpg)

Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey) is married to Carolyn (Annette Bening) and they have a daughter, Jane (Thora). This seemingly typical family are like any other in suburbia, except their marriage is loveless, Jane is obsessed with her body and Lester is obsessed with Jane’s friend, Angela (Mena Suvari). All will unravel with the arrival of their new neighbours, the Fitts. They have a few problems of their own. Perhaps they’re all more typical than they think?

American Beauty has a similar idea to Fight Club, about escaping the trap that society creates, although this has more scope and subtleties than David Fincher’s film, which is more concerned with masculinity, and it is also easier to identify with the characters. Not only is it possible that you know people like these, you might be people like these. Therefore I hope I don’t insult anyone with my next statement!

I have an inherent issue with both this and Fight Club; they’re about people with no real problems so they have to look for things to be annoyed about. Affluent and successful, they can choose to be unfulfilled and spend “20 years in a coma”. Teenagers like Jane are one thing as they’re supposed to be emotional wrecks, but the adults have no excuse. If you do see yourself in its mirror, wake up and sort yourself out! If you don’t, join me on my high horse while we have a good laugh at everyone else. ;)

Of course, this is actually the point. Watching Lester pull himself together by blackmailing his boss and buying his dream car is wonderful. His journey from slightly pervy to enlightenment is quite brilliantly put together. It is possibly closest aesthetically to The Apartment in that it is an emotional drama, yet also frequently hilarious and razor sharp. In between it has moments of real darkness.

Because it is more a drama than anything else, in another directors hands it could be a high class soap opera and nothing more, but Sam Mendes’ visual flair means it never loses vibrancy. He perfectly balances the elements that can swing from real to surreal, via farce. He’s helped in no short measures by Conrad Hall’s gorgeous award winning photography and Thomas Newman’s elegant score. It can be whimsical for the dream sequences and, like Shawshank, achingly moving (he lost to The Red Violin, which I haven’t seen, but must be superb). There are some sequences that truly earn the title phrase and justify Ricky’s (Wes Bentley) dreamy philosophies.

The final piece of the puzzle is the cast and they are all excellent, especially the haunting performance of before mentioned weirdo Wes Bentley, observing everything and giving the viewer an important outsiders perspective. He is the most normal character, and ironically the one with a history of drug abuse and hospitals! But this is Kevin Spacey’s film. I’ve always liked him, even when he’s on auto-pilot. Here he injects every moment with energy. A real tour de force, his obsession with Angela is painfully funny. Mena Suvari has never been better than this and I hope she finds similar work eventually. Whether they raise their game to match Spacey, or Spacey raises his to match them, the rest of the supporting cast are fantastic. Chris Cooper excels in a role that could have been so easily misread. Bening is especially good, and so help me, I knew someone just like her. And just like Carolyn, she would nip home at lunch times to clean and strip to underwear while she did it… erm. So she told me… Allegedly…  :-[

All the promises the film makes are sealed in the confident ending, albeit one Lester tells us about in the opening scene. It’s possible up to this point you may have found the film too distant, but attention is rewarded by a truly moving end that packs a punch. That said, I’m not sure about the message:

(click to show/hide)

If you have a moment of clarity and feel truly happy, pray for a quick death because it isn’t going to last? Nice. And is just me, or is Ricky an excellent advert for drug use?  ???

Confidently ironic to the end, you’ll come back to American Beauty time and time again. Look closer indeed. Everything, including what may be my perceived "problems" with the film, has two sides in this watertight screenplay.

Title: Gladiator (2000) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 22, 2009, 06:49:24 PM

2000
Gladiator
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/glad.jpg)

At the end of a long brutal campaign Emperor Marcus Aurelius (Richard Harris) wishes for peace and to restore the “idea of Rome”. To that end he offers General Maximus (Russell Crowe) the chance to be heir. Reluctant, he would prefer to return home to his family and treasured farm, but both are destroyed following the murder of Marcus by his jealous hot head of a son, Commodus (Joaquin Phoenix), and Maximus is taken into slavery. Soon he will be a Gladiator, and with it a chance to face the new Emperor.

Gladiator is the first Best Picture of the millennium and possibly still stands as the most deserving since. It is a grand old Hollywood story, told in huge operatic brush strokes, brought to life through Ridley Scott’s huge vision of Rome and Hans Zimmer’s Wagnerian score.

It owes a debt to Braveheart whose huge success made epics viable again and shares several motifs with that story, but has the advantage that the story is largely fictional though some names are true, and it shares other similarities with the story that inspired Spartacus. That and Ben Hur are the real heart of Gladiator, a throwback to the old Hollywood that has been far too quiet. Sadly, despite several attempts to keep the momentum going, including Scott’s own Kingdom of Heaven, none have the passion especially in the face of the Lord of The Rings trilogy.

Rome has always been a rich mine for Hollywood and without pesky historical accuracy or shoe-horned in religion, probably a requirement in the 50s, it really cuts loose producing an extravagant and opulent piece of pure entertainment. It doesn’t have the humour of Braveheart, but that’s a mere observation because there’s no room in the wonderfully, rich dialogue full of quotable growling one-liners. “Are you not entertained?”, yells Maximus. Yes. Honest, please don’t hurt us. He hurts everything else, taking on multiple armoured foes or even bloody tigers! The early battle scenes don’t match Braveheart’s recent benchmark, but the real war is in the arena. A wonderful device that allows only the imagination to set limits.

It is a monumental performance by Crowe, who I’ve often though a little overrated, but he commands the screen here and demonstrates his dependable range in the brief scenes with the boy, Lucius (Spencer Treat Clark) and his mum (Connie Nielsen). It’s nice to see support from the very sadly missed Richard Harris and Oliver Reed. The latter is especially great fun as the grizzled Proximo. Joaquin Phoenix got a deserved nomination for Best Supporting, though he had little chance against Benicio Del Toro’s wonderful turn in Traffic. That film also snagged Best Director, which I think was fair, despite Ridley Scott doing a marvellous job here. He can be inconsistent, so a great Scott(!) ;) movie should always be celebrated. They could never have got away with the surreal moments in the original epics and I thought he might overstretch himself, considering the mess that was Legend, but he took the opportunity to be a bit weird and added to the fantasy that is Roman legend.

There’s a lot of CGI used and it’s pretty seamless. I suppose you could mean and say it needed more random crowd shots which they couldn’t do because there was no crowd. And probably no seats even! But that really is picky, because this is CGI used at its best creating some wonderful vistas. Nine years later, you can see some joins, but it holds up well and should always.

With tools like that and a cast to match, Gladiator proves Hollywood should keep visiting that mine and seeing what they come up with. We’ll have to suffer more Troy’s and Alexandar’s, but sooner or later it has to work and there is little more that is gloriously entertaining than ancient world battles.

Title: Re: American Beauty (1999) *****
Post by: goodguy on February 23, 2009, 03:12:57 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 22, 2009, 03:01:50 AM

American Beauty
5 out of 5
...
He’s helped in no short measures by Conrad Hall’s gorgeous award winning photography and Thomas Newman’s elegant score. It can be whimsical for the dream sequences and, like Shawshank, achingly moving (he lost to The Red Violin, which I haven’t seen, but must be superb).

Thomas Newman must be the most Oscar-nominated composer who never actually got one. I really like his work and I have bought some movies just because he did the score.

Quote from: Jon on February 22, 2009, 03:01:50 AM

There are some sequences that truly earn the title phrase and justify Ricky’s (Wes Bentley) dreamy philosophies.

I agree. And those are the parts that still hold up well on repeat viewing, whereas I get more and annoyed with the exaggerated farce, especially the Bening character.

Title: Re: American Beauty (1999) *****
Post by: DJ Doena on February 23, 2009, 04:52:17 PM

Quote from: goodguy on February 23, 2009, 03:12:57 PM

Thomas Newman must be the most Oscar-nominated composer who never actually got one.

8 times (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Newman#Awards_.26_Nominations).

The cinematographer Roger Deakins (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Deakins#Awards_and_nominations) was also nominated 8 times and also never got one.

Title: Re: American Beauty (1999) *****
Post by: Najemikon on February 23, 2009, 09:26:35 PM

Quote from: goodguy on February 23, 2009, 03:12:57 PM

Quote from: Jon on February 22, 2009, 03:01:50 AM

American Beauty
5 out of 5
...
He’s helped in no short measures by Conrad Hall’s gorgeous award winning photography and Thomas Newman’s elegant score. It can be whimsical for the dream sequences and, like Shawshank, achingly moving (he lost to The Red Violin, which I haven’t seen, but must be superb).

Thomas Newman must be the most Oscar-nominated composer who never actually got one. I really like his work and I have bought some movies just because he did the score.

Quote from: Jon on February 22, 2009, 03:01:50 AM

There are some sequences that truly earn the title phrase and justify Ricky’s (Wes Bentley) dreamy philosophies.

I agree. And those are the parts that still hold up well on repeat viewing, whereas I get more and annoyed with the exaggerated farce, especially the Bening character.

Thomas Newman not having an Oscar, while James Horner does (and for Titanic, too!), is one of the Academies great mistakes.

Much as I enjoy the scenes of the affair, Bening's performance was definitely starting to annoy me more this time. She seems like a caricature, whilst Spacey is so subtle. I thought her best moment by far was on the sofa ("There's a lot about me you don't know, Mr. Smarty Pants") and I wish she could have kept that smoothness throughout.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on February 23, 2009, 09:41:52 PM

I had really hoped to be able to finish this marathon with my last couple of owned titles: Million Dollar Baby and Crash. The first I adore, as with most of Clint Eastwood's later films, he just has a wonderful touch at directing.

Crash, is controversial, but honestly I did think it was more deserving than Brokeback Mountain which confusingly is probably the better film. But while it was essentially a very good love story, Crash was trying to capture a snapshot of time and features Sandra Bullock in a pretty good performance outside of silly rom-coms.

I'll get around to them eventually and maybe some of the others I missed, plus one day, Slumdog Millionaire, I hope. I'll add them here whenever I do.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2009, 10:03:46 PM

Thought I might as well keep this open now I can add this years winner! ;)

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2009, 10:08:24 PM

2008
Slumdog Millionaire
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/slumdog.jpg)

One question away from winning Who Wants to be a Millionaire, Jamal (Dev Patae) is aggressively questioned by police. How has he cheated? He must have. He’s from the slums. Jamal relates stories from his life in those slums, with his brother, Salim and a girl, Latika, who still haunts his memories.

Finally I have seen one of this year’s nominations for best film! That means I still can’t say for myself whether it deserved to win, but the others have got to be very good indeed for this is a wonderful film. A vibrant, romantic fantasy (and encompassing all the various meanings of those words) brilliantly delivered by director Danny Boyle with the similar passion he brought to Trainspotting.

There isn’t a lazy moment in the whole film. Every frame bursts with noise and colour. Even the subtitles are a bit radical! And the soundtrack is great as you'd expect from Boyle. It’s based on a book called Q&A by Vikas Swarup and I’m not sure if that is in chronological order, but the screenplay at least maintains a breakneck pace by framing events within events: Jamal defending himself in a police station; answering questions on the show; and flashbacks to his childhood, all linking beautifully together while all he actually wants is to find Latika.

It’s a lot of plates to keep spinning but it is never confusing and always enthralling. I suppose that if you don’t enjoy the film, you would think you could spot several weaknesses, like a contrived impossible premise or implausible conveniences, but this is a fantasy, a metaphor for human spirit and I loved it.

It isn’t all fantasy. The slums of Mumbai are very real and an awe inspiring sight. The first scenes include an incredible pursuit of the young Jamal and his friends through the narrow streets of the slums. Without the Who Wants to be a Millionaire bits, this would be a companion piece to City of God. I like the touches of humour and links to the UK (discussing Eastenders, or an Indian call centre taking calls from Scotland!).

The kids who play the young versions of the characters were actually from the slums and they were great, really throwing themselves into it. Their scenes have the biggest contrasts between funny and heartbreaking and they make you believe every moment. The adults are brilliant too, especially Dev Patel, who I know from the UK series Skins. That shows whole cast were amazing, so I can’t claim to have known he’d make it this far this fast, but he deserves his place on the big screen. It’s a very good performance. The older Latika, the girl he spends much of his life searching for, is played by the gorgeous Freida Pinto. I hear she’s in the running for a Bond girl part. She certainly has the looks and then some, but I hope it’s a substantial part because here she proves she is far more deserving than window dressing for Daniel Craig.

There was a lot of controversy following this film, including snotty insinuations that it seemed to get distribution through blind luck because it was a very small film. Well bollocks. It was always going to find an audience. I think most of it was sour grapes, because it’s one of the best films of last year.

Trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AIzbwV7on6Q)

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Touti on March 15, 2009, 10:17:31 PM

I haven't seen the movie yet.  I don't know if I want to because to me the base of the story doesn't isn't credible.  For those who havent' heard these comments here's what Salman Rushdie had to say about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/salman-rushdie-slumdog-fu_n_169068.html

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 15, 2009, 10:35:09 PM

Then Salmon Rushdie goes on my list of people who probably didn't like the film, are looking for things wrong and are on their way back to Sainsbury's to return some grapes he bought because they're off... ;) It's A Wonderful Life features an angel who can traverse dimensions, but the premise and the conclusion are more important that the method. Just saying.

But actually I'm making excuses when there isn't one needed. He wasn't paying attention and could actually be dismissed as a bit thick...

Quote from: a thick bloke called Salmon Rushie

characters wind up at the Taj Mahal _ 1,000 miles from the previous scene.

I've only seen the film once. Maybe I'm wrong and have missed something and will apologise for calling him thick if so, but for now: The "previous scene" was one of several showing the young kids on trains, scamming the passengers in various ways. At one point they are almost caught and end up falling off the roof. They roll down a bank and when they get up... they're teenagers! A clever visual trick, implying a huge passing of time, the implication being they have spent years working the trains, or at least have kept coming back to them. Covering the whole of India would not have been implausible in such a conceit so finding themselves at the Taj Mahal? Doddle. And it leads to an intriguing moment where the two brothers are in awe of the building and have no idea what it is. Tourists know about the Taj Mahal, but the Indian children never knew it was there...

EDIT: Reading some of the comments on that link, I see others have problems with it too. Mainly, I think they're failing to see which parts of the film are supposed to be pure fantasy, or to give them more credit, they do understand, but don't agree it should be presented that way. Well, ok. I addressed that above and I think it's important to watch this as an ode to life, and its setting is secondary. However, one comment caught my attention though because they were very offended that Boyle was presenting "an American romance" in a country whose culture would never accept it. That's interesting, because it's kind of the point and I think the film and probably the book was well aware of the irony. These kids have been abandoned by their country, so why should they follow the rules? They had no chance of being accepted in an arranged marriage. The film showed several times how they were trapped.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Touti on March 15, 2009, 10:58:48 PM

I can't really say anything until I've watched it.  Maybe I'll rent  :yucky: it sometime this week or next week-end.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Achim on March 16, 2009, 06:00:26 AM

Since when is Salmon Rushdie a trusted source of film criticism...? :headscratch:

Like, that "characters wind up at the Taj Mahal _ 1,000 miles from the previous scene" comment. What's supposed to mean for a film? Western films have that all the time and most people, even from the country where it was made, won't ever know. I remember seeing Moving Targets(?; spy film with Gene Hackman and Matt Dillon) where at some point they were running up the stairs of the train station in Hamburg, Germany, and when they turn around the corner at the top they suddenly are in Lübeck, Germany, some 50km away... :laugh:


Anyway, Jon, you point it's based on a book. Do you know if that book is supposed to be based on real events?

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 16, 2009, 02:44:58 PM

I'm pretty sure it isn't true. It would be nice if it was, but it's more a sort of parable.

Funny you mentioning Moving Targets. I saw it start on TV last night! Just called Target though, I think. Probably a UK thing. Looked pretty good; like a forerunner of Bourne...

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Achim on March 16, 2009, 06:10:11 PM

IMDb is your friend... So, yeah, Target (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090130/) is right.

I haven't seen Bourne, any (:-[), but I remember Target being a decent action flick as well.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: richierich on March 16, 2009, 06:18:41 PM

Quote from: Achim on March 16, 2009, 06:10:11 PM

IMDb is your friend... So, yeah, Target (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0090130/) is right.

I haven't seen Bourne, any (:-[),

 :o :o

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Achim on March 16, 2009, 06:22:04 PM

Quote from: Rich on March 16, 2009, 06:18:41 PM

:o :o

So, you mean, I should...? :hmmmm:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 16, 2009, 07:11:49 PM

 ???

I'm really surprised, Achim! I would have thought you'd seen Bourne Identity at least. In fact, it's Jimmy isn't it? You're using Achim's login!  :tease:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Jimmy on March 17, 2009, 04:56:43 AM

 :hysterical:

I've the first 2, not as good as the book (in fact they have absolutly nothing to do with the books) but a good time waster. The fact that Matt Damon and Brian Cox (the best Hannibal Lecter) are in them are certainly a + for me, but I can't watch them without pause (way too fast and headache inducing for me :laugh:).

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Achim on March 17, 2009, 05:13:57 AM

I think I may have seen about 50% of the first film on HBO.

O.k., o.k. If even Jimmy owns the first 2 I shall place the first one on my wish list.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: richierich on March 17, 2009, 10:08:06 AM

Quote from: Achim on March 17, 2009, 05:13:57 AM

I think I may have seen about 50% of the first film on HBO.

O.k., o.k. If even Jimmy owns the first 2 I shall place the first one on my wish list.

 :clap: :clap:

Look forward to the positive reviews  :P

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Touti on November 07, 2009, 11:20:14 PM

Oh gimme a break Jon.............it only took me 8 months  :whistle:

Quote from: Eric

I haven't seen the movie yet.  I don't know if I want to because to me the base of the story doesn't isn't credible.  For those who havent' heard these comments here's what Salman Rushdie had to say about it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/23/salman-rushdie-slumdog-fu_n_169068.html

Quote from: Jon on March 15, 2009, 10:35:09 PM

Then Salmon Rushdie goes on my list of people who probably didn't like the film, are looking for things wrong and are on their way back to Sainsbury's to return some grapes he bought because they're off... ;) It's A Wonderful Life features an angel who can traverse dimensions, but the premise and the conclusion are more important that the method. Just saying.

But actually I'm making excuses when there isn't one needed. He wasn't paying attention and could actually be dismissed as a bit thick...

Quote from: a thick bloke called Salmon Rushie

characters wind up at the Taj Mahal _ 1,000 miles from the previous scene.

I've only seen the film once. Maybe I'm wrong and have missed something and will apologise for calling him thick if so, but for now: The "previous scene" was one of several showing the young kids on trains, scamming the passengers in various ways. At one point they are almost caught and end up falling off the roof. They roll down a bank and when they get up... they're teenagers! A clever visual trick, implying a huge passing of time, the implication being they have spent years working the trains, or at least have kept coming back to them. Covering the whole of India would not have been implausible in such a conceit so finding themselves at the Taj Mahal? Doddle. And it leads to an intriguing moment where the two brothers are in awe of the building and have no idea what it is. Tourists know about the Taj Mahal, but the Indian children never knew it was there...

EDIT: Reading some of the comments on that link, I see others have problems with it too. Mainly, I think they're failing to see which parts of the film are supposed to be pure fantasy, or to give them more credit, they do understand, but don't agree it should be presented that way. Well, ok. I addressed that above and I think it's important to watch this as an ode to life, and its setting is secondary. However, one comment caught my attention though because they were very offended that Boyle was presenting "an American romance" in a country whose culture would never accept it. That's interesting, because it's kind of the point and I think the film and probably the book was well aware of the irony. These kids have been abandoned by their country, so why should they follow the rules? They had no chance of being accepted in an arranged marriage. The film showed several times how they were trapped.

So I just finished watching it.  I'm not writing a review cause I don't really know what I could say that hasn't been said before but it's a good movie, very good actually.  I have to agree that Rushdie was a bit thick calling the Taj Mahal thing, either he didn't get something or he really was on a mission to bash the movie.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on November 08, 2009, 01:17:00 PM

 :thumbup:

Thanks for finding the old thread, Eric, and I'm glad you liked it. Especially because what with director Danny Boyle being British, it having British actors and featuring a call centre servicing Britain... I think we've just found a British film you like!

 :devil:

Sadly of course, the key to you liking it was not setting it in Britain...  :bag:

By the way, I noticed you have The Wrestler in your banner. What did you think? I've finally ordered the Blu-Ray thanks to Northbloke finding HMV's bargains.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Touti on November 08, 2009, 03:06:12 PM

Jon,

I think you got something wrong, it's not British movies I dislike, it's British movies from the 70's but I dislike them no more and no less than any other movies from the 70's.  I have reviewed a few americam movies from that period and didn't like them much either.  There's something in the style of the 70's that just doesn't work with me most of the time.

The Wrestler:  I don't want to say too much not to spoil it for you but I think you're gonna like it.  There's really not many wrestling scenes, the movie shows us the real life of a top wrestler at the end (of after) his career.  On my version of DVD there's a discussion in the bonus material with Lex Luger, Randy Piper and 2 others I don't remember right now, if you have it it's worth watching.

We can talk about it more after you've watched it.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on November 08, 2009, 03:27:43 PM

Good stuff. I'm hoping it arrives in time to be "W" in the alphathon.  :thumbup:

Title: The Hurt Locker *****
Post by: Najemikon on March 13, 2010, 11:08:29 PM

2009
The Hurt Locker
5 out of 5

(http://www.jonmeakin.co.uk/images/hurtlocker.jpg)

From visionary filmmaker Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker is an intense portrayal of elite soldiers who have one of the most dangerous jobs in the world: disarming bombs in the heat of combat. When renegade Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner - 28 Weeks Later, The Assassination of Jesse James (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,886.msg73730.html#msg73730)) takes command of a highly trained bomb disposal unit, he frequently risks the lives of himself and those around him with his suicidal methods and a complete disregard for danger. Caught in the middle are his subordinates Sergeant J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie - Half Nelson, We Are Marshall) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty - We Are Marshall, Jarhead), who can only watch as their leader descends further into addiction: an addiction to war.

The Hurt Locker is a powerful and tense thriller. And to be specific, an Action-Thriller before it’s a War movie. Maybe that’s why it has struggled to find an audience outside of critics, because it really isn’t what you might expect. One popular criticism I have seen repeated is the naive statement, “it doesn’t know what it wants to be”. Oh, it does. It knows exactly.

It is important to note that Kathryn Bigelow, albeit with a short C.V. in this respect, is one of the action genres most important directors, not least because of her fascination with the male psyche; her characters are usually men addicted to danger, which makes her work a nice counter-point to her ex-husbands, whose speciality is strong women. Interesting that she released Point Break in the same summer as Cameron’s Terminator 2 and now steals the Oscar from Avatar. And really, while T2 is utterly superb and Avatar is a heck of a ride, which director has grown?  I question Avatar’s distinction in the media as a “game-changer” because I see technology growing regardless, but it takes a different kind of talent and faith to change a genre. Cameron is happy making our eyeballs bleed and I thank him for it, but he is repeating what we already know. Bigelow has shown subtleties in The Hurt Locker that can only come from an inherent understanding of action cinema and what the audience is willing to accept (she may need a bit more time on that score, sadly!).

Acid test: I spent most of Avatar fiddling with my stupid 3D glasses and most of The Hurt Locker forgetting to breathe.

Much of the success is down to the superb Oscar winning screenplay by Mark Boan and Jeremy Renner’s deservedly nominated role. Many action movies are ruined by trying to contrive set-pieces, but here, Renner’s Sergeant James is the plot and Iraq is the perfect place for him to develop from a maverick rule-breaker to someone who accounts for and thrives in his unique environment of what is probably the most dangerous job you can have. Renner is marvellous in a role that could so easily have been ‘Martin Riggs goes to war’. There is an especially fine moment where the team get embroiled in a sniper battle alongside British mercenaries, which ironically is where many people say it really failed!

Some are calling this one of the best war films ever made and that's difficult to call, but it's definitely one of the most interesting, at least since Tigerland (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5638.msg98264.html#msg98264), also a low-budget, gritty and realistic drama, that ironically has a very similar character to Renner, played by Colin Farrell.

If you are looking for an insightful commentary on Iraq, this is the wrong film (if that’s the case, the excellent BBC drama Occupation (http://www.dvdcollectorsonline.com/index.php/topic,5406.msg90362.html#msg90362) covered some similar ground last year and is worth looking up instead). The Hurt Locker is an adrenaline rush, if you allow it. The only thing wrong with it is timing and hopefully it will eventually find an appreciative audience. For now, at least the Academy have recognised the sheer, extraordinary quality of this film.

Read the full review at http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/blu-ray/The-Hurt-Locker-Blu-ray/1096446.htm

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Antares on March 14, 2010, 01:25:21 AM

Good review Jon.  :thumbup:

I loved this film, and it did deserve Best Picture honors.

This reminded me of a film I saw back in the late 80's about the Vietnam war, called 84 Charlie Mopic (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096744/). It was a low budget film about a company of soldiers being filmed for a documentary about the war. Told in documentary style, you are put right into the action and day to day struggles of this squad of soldiers. Just as you are beginning to get to know them, they start to get picked off in combat.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 14, 2010, 02:36:34 AM

Thanks, Antares. I love it when everything you hear about a film tells you you'll probably like it and then when you see it, it's even better! I'm looking forward to seeing it again.

84 Charlie Mopic sounds great. I just saw a very brief clip on YouTube in the middle of another video and it looks clever. Wonder why no-ones picked it up for DVD? The director at least went on to do Courage Under Fire, which I always liked, again because it was trying something different.

Title: Re: The Hurt Locker *****
Post by: Achim on March 14, 2010, 04:26:21 AM

Quote from: Jon on March 13, 2010, 11:08:29 PM

It is important to note that Kathryn Bigelow, albeit with a short C.V. in this respect, is one of the action genres most important directors, not least because of her fascination with the male psyche; her characters are usually men addicted to danger, which makes her work a nice counter-point to her ex-husbands, whose speciality is strong women. Interesting that she released Point Break in the same summer as Cameron’s Terminator 2 and now steals the Oscar from Avatar. And really, while T2 is utterly superb and Avatar is a heck of a ride, which director has grown?

:thumbup:

Great point you make there. Although, it sounds like we're saying Cameron is stuck in a loop, which isn't exactly true either. Why "grow" if you like what you're doing and think you can still entertain people doing it. I mean, sometimes I wish Peter Jackson would "un-grow" a little and go back to his roots; same is true for others.

I have liked all of Bigelow's films I have seen. I haven't seen her first and I avoided K-19 like the plague. I am looking forward to see The Hurt Locker soon, will order the Blu-ray later today. But then I also liked every one of Cameron's films, only not having seen his first (Piranha II :laugh:) and his documenty(/ies).

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on March 14, 2010, 12:31:49 PM

Quote from: Achim on March 14, 2010, 04:26:21 AM

Quote from: Jon on March 13, 2010, 11:08:29 PM

It is important to note that Kathryn Bigelow, albeit with a short C.V. in this respect, is one of the action genres most important directors, not least because of her fascination with the male psyche; her characters are usually men addicted to danger, which makes her work a nice counter-point to her ex-husbands, whose speciality is strong women. Interesting that she released Point Break in the same summer as Cameron’s Terminator 2 and now steals the Oscar from Avatar. And really, while T2 is utterly superb and Avatar is a heck of a ride, which director has grown?

:thumbup:

Great point you make there. Although, it sounds like we're saying Cameron is stuck in a loop, which isn't exactly true either. Why "grow" if you like what you're doing and think you can still entertain people doing it. I mean, sometimes I wish Peter Jackson would "un-grow" a little and go back to his roots; same is true for others.

I have liked all of Bigelow's films I have seen. I haven't seen her first and I avoided K-19 like the plague. I am looking forward to see The Hurt Locker soon, will order the Blu-ray later today. But then I also liked every one of Cameron's films, only not having seen his first (Piranha II :laugh:) and his documenty(/ies).

It's not that I think he needs to grow, because you're absolutely right, his films are fantastic and he is one of the best mainstream directors around. Also, there is room for everyone and all sorts of different styles, but I think the real progress is made by smaller films that don't try to be liked. But the fact Cameron continues to push as hard as he does when he could get away with coasting along is fantastic. My problem is with media perception of where his work is positioned in relation to others like Bigelow. The blinkers are on and the general opinion seems to be we should worship him as the new cinema messiah!

But there can only be one poster boy (or girl) and that means that everyone else gets swept aside. I am so pleased she won the Oscars, because that is an important statement from the Academy. Of course, thanks to the media again, her achievement is getting slightly dismissed as being less important than the fact a girl won, which is interesting at best, but what she did with that film is personal to her and important for the genre. That should be what they are talking about and try to open peoples eyes to a film that was largely ignored.

It's a weird business. I named Tigerland in the review and that was made by Joel Schumacher after his Batman and Robin disaster. Possibly his most interesting work only happened because he imploded and it does make me think that Cameron and others, like Jackson, should try it themselves. Just switch all the computers off, cut up the credit cards, find an 16mm camera and sod off for two years. Lets see what they come back with!

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on April 17, 2010, 12:03:34 AM

 :dance: :yahoo:

http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/news.aspx?news=469 (http://www.find-dvd.co.uk/news.aspx?news=469)

Again with the... :yahoo: and now with a :yu:

Obviously names spelled wrong on this occasion can be ignored...
 ;D

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: snowcat on April 17, 2010, 12:14:25 AM

 :o

JON!

I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU WON THAT!

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on April 17, 2010, 01:08:37 AM

I KNOW!  8)

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Kathy on April 17, 2010, 01:14:53 AM

 :bow:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: northbloke on April 17, 2010, 02:21:00 AM

Congratulations Jon, what are you going to buy us?  :devil:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Jimmy on April 17, 2010, 03:41:13 AM

Jon can I suggest you this (http://www.play.com/DVD/Region_1/4-/3441228/Mario-Bava-Collection-Vol-2/Product.html?ptsl=1&ob=Price&fb=0)?

(click to show/hide)

You will be able to end the Mario Bava marathon this way and since my recommandation for the first set wasn't a bad one  :whistle:

or this (http://www.play.com/Music/CD/4-/12920826/Various-Alvin-And-The-Chipmunks-2-The-Squeakquel-Original-Soundtrack/Product.html)?

(click to show/hide)

OK this one isn't serious, but get my first suggestion

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on April 17, 2010, 09:12:53 AM

Thank you, Jimmy, I will certainly consider it! :thumbup: Northbloke, I will happily buy for you either of the suggestions Jimmy made up to the value of £5.

 :devil:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Jimmy on April 17, 2010, 04:45:02 PM

Quote from: Jon on April 17, 2010, 09:12:53 AM

Northbloke, I will happily buy for you either of the suggestions Jimmy made up to the value of £5.

What a lucky guy! The second sugestion cost only £3.99 :laugh:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: addicted2dvd on April 17, 2010, 05:00:36 PM

Congrats Jon!  :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: snowcat on April 17, 2010, 08:06:21 PM

Quote from: addicted2dvd on April 17, 2010, 05:00:36 PM

:thumbsup:

...Does that smiley make anyone else want to say "Ayyyyyyyy"

...It makes me think of the Fonz  :P

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: addicted2dvd on April 17, 2010, 08:10:27 PM

 :laugh: I haven't watched Happy Days in years! That is another series I really should get the DVDs of!

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Achim on April 18, 2010, 09:54:30 AM

Awesome, Jon! Congratulations. Keep reviewing for more winnings in the future :thumbup:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Jimmy on April 29, 2010, 10:04:03 PM

Jon another recommandation if your prize isn't all spend already...

The Stendhal Syndrome (http://www.play.com/DVD/Region_1/4-/3386539/The-Stendhal-Syndrome-Special-Edition/Product.html?ptsl=1&ob=Price&fb=0) : I think you would appreciate this films, the visual is really impressive and it's the best movie made by Argento since Suspiria.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on April 29, 2010, 10:11:45 PM

I'll add it to the list of potentials, Jimmy! Thank you.  ;D I've been quite predictable so far, with a few Blu upgrades like 2001, Zulu, Casablanca and The Searchers, which are all jaw-droppingly good by all accounts.

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: karmesinrot on April 29, 2010, 11:12:18 PM

Well done on winning that Jon! always good to make some money back off your hobby  :clap:

Title: Re: Jon's Best Picture Oscar Marathon
Post by: Najemikon on April 29, 2010, 11:18:40 PM

Thank you! Heck of a nice surprise, but you're right. A great feeling too, I'd encourage everyone to give it a go.