You blow'd up my job!

Star Wars (1977)

Adam’s rating: ★★★1/2  (out of 5)

Director: George Lucas

Rated: PG. 121 min.

No. 15 on AFI 100

No. 13 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 15 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Mark Hamill,
Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher,
Alec Guiness

"Star Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope (1977)":
No. 15 on AFI 100, No. 13 on AFI 100 (2008),
No. 15 on IMDB Top 250 

Like most nerds, I love this movie. It’s the start of the entire saga. It’s the start of something new in science fiction. It’s the hero’s journey. It’s one of the most iconic films – and start of one of the most iconic film series -- of our generation.

And it’s not even my favorite.

I understand this film’s importance in the lexicon of science fiction and I respect it; but, I feel that on these lists the movie is overrated for its landmark status and less for its technical quality, story, etc. Usually, the hero’s journey starts with the initiation and embarking on that journey and while this film has that, the story is nowhere near as exciting as its sequel “The Empire Strikes Back.”

In terms of special effects, they’re good for a small budget in 1977. However, the succeeding films have better effects and while I like to take into account the technology available when a movie is made, I don’t buy that argument for “Star Wars” because of movies like “2001: A Space Odyssey.” The only argument I buy for why the special effects are a little lacking at points in this film (and too 1970s) is because of the budget (“2001” was an epic film with an enormous budget; “Star Wars” wasn’t. OK. But seeing lines and stop-motion animation in scenes is annoying).

Aside from my gripes, I still like this film. I’m enamored with the overall story – even if I don’t like it as much as other parts of the trilogy. This film is the start of a new journey; it’s the start of an iconic film series that has left its mark and a legacy on film buffs, fans, the world and film-making as a whole. And it’s still entertaining to watch more than 30 years later.

A sweet love story ... without talking

City Lights (1931)

Adam’s rating: ★★★1/2 (out of 5)

Director: Charlie Chaplin

Rated: none. 87 min.

No. 76 on AFI 100

No. 11 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 58 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Charlie Chaplin,
Virginia Cherrill

"City Lights"; No. 76 on AFI 100;
No. 11 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 58 on IMDB Top 250

This might be one of the sweetest love stories I’ve ever seen. At its core, Charlie Chaplin portrays his signature character, The Tramp, and falls in love with a blind girl while trying to help her save enough money to have a surgery that will cure her blindness so that she might see him.

What ensues between their meeting and her cure is hilarious, slapstick comedy that was necessary in the silent-film era. But this movie doesn’t disappoint.

It’s common for the audience to fall in love with The Tramp because he’s always trying so hard – but through no fault of his own, screws up. And that’s how this film goes, as he gets ahead and finds himself in situations to help this poor girl, but then stumbles a few steps back with misunderstandings with the law.

When the girl finally can see again, the two run into one another and it takes her awhile to realize that the little tramp she’s laughing at is actually the kind man who helped her get her vision back and then the light bulb goes off in her head and there’s a sweet denouement to the struggle in the film.

I’m a big fan of this film. I really like it. Not as much as “The Gold Rush,” but this one is up there in terms of the moral of the story and the fact that, like most Chaplin films, it relies solely on action and performance than words – because it is silent.

This movie is better with the mute button on and "Dark Side of the Moon" playing on the stereo ...

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Adam’s rating: ★ (out of 5)

Director: Victor Fleming

Rated: none. 101 min.

No. 6 on AFI 100

No. 10 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 122 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: Judy Garland,
Frank Morgan

"The Wizard of Oz"; No. 6 on AFI 100;
No. 10 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 122 on IMDB Top 250
 
Exactly what my headline says.

Watching this movie is like going to a college football game or college basketball game where the visiting team is ranked higher than your team and your team blows them out and you join in with the entire crowd chanting, “Overrated!” in the final minutes. This film is super-overrated.

I remember watching this movie when I was four. My dad made a big deal about it because we had just got our first VCR and he had rented this movie on VHS and was ranting about how it was the first movie to be made in color and bla bla bla. And I barely remembered watching it. Until I watched it again as an adult.

The older I got, the more I watched it and the only scene I liked – as long as “Dark Side of the Moon” wasn’t accompanying the movie (note: start the album after the third time the MGM lion roars to start the movie to get the sync right) – was when the munchkin hangs himself.

And, the flying monkeys creep me out.

Why do I need to watch this movie? I've never understood it. I've never understood any of its redeeming qualities. I don't understand why the AFI rated this movie so high, although I do understand why it's one of the most beloved movies among older people.

 

Aside from my gripes, in terms of technical stuff, I feel like this movie gets a free pass because it is one of the first color films (similar to “Gone With the Wind”). It's like we're all supposed to drop what we're doing and admire what is really a terrible family film, with splotchy color on the Wicked Witch of the West, because this is the first movie to use color. And Technicolor was such a monumental achievement that somehow this a good enough rationale for ranking this film at the top of all of the best of, must-see movie lists? No, "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs" is a monumental achievement in the history of animation. I'm sure color is a big deal; but it's a much bigger deal -- and better executed -- in "Gone With the Wind," which in this case (and I can't believe I'm saying this) is a much better movie than "The Wizard of Oz."

See my headline.

The story is terrible – and completely taken out of context from the book it was based on, despite the fact that the book was one of protest for social change in turn of the 19th century America and the movie was somehow changed into a lovable kids film where all symbolism was lost on a stupid girl who runs away from home with a tornado coming.

Personally, I’d rather see the house drop on Dorothy as punishment for running away and being outside when the tornado comes. Then there would be no movie.

Busy, but watching new movies...

Life has been a bit hectic lately and not given me much time to write any reviews -- or blog posts.

But I watched two movies recently worth noting for quality filmmaking of 2010.

The first is "Winter's Bones," which I don't want to give away the plot so as not to give away the story, and the second is "Howl," a biopic told as if it were a documentary with real actors portraying real people and using their actual words during the period of the obscenity trial that followed the publication of the Allen Ginsberg poem by the same name.

Books I love in their movie form...

It's been a busy couple of weeks for me since Christmas. But after watching "Ramona & Beezus" last night, and being somewhat disappointed by the meshing of four books into one movie, I figured I have enough thoughts for at least two blog posts. Here is the first...

Books I love in their movie form.
1. The Last Picture Show (1971)
2. Rebecca (1941)
3. The Godfather (1972)
4. The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
5. East of Eden (1955)
6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
7. Of Mice and Men (1993)
8. Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (1998)
9. The Shining (1980) ... despite the fact that this version isn't as true to the book as it could be.
10. Friday Night Lights (2004)

There are more. But I figure 10 is probably good.

Now, there are some cases where good filmmakers can turn a great book into a good movie. Kubrick immediately comes to mind. But Hitchcock does well with film adaptations, too.

You'll also notice three John Steinbeck novels made into movies on my list. Why? Because Steinbeck wrote some really good shit that translates well into films -- especially my one anomaly, "Of Mice and Men."

The 1993 version with John Malkovich as Lenny and starring Gary Sinise as George, is leaps and bounds better than the old black and white version, simply because of what you could do in cinema in 1993 versus what you couldn't do prior to 1967.

Malkovich really brings Lenny to life in this film, but especially in the fight scene with Curly and the scene in which he accidentally kills Curly's wife. It's a very realistic film that is very true to the book but really makes it just pop on the big screen. It should be noted, however, that "East of Eden" and "The Grapes of Wrath" were equally impressive -- despite being made anywhere from 40 to 50 years prior to this remake. Of course, the impressiveness for "The Grapes of Wrath" has a lot more to do with John Ford and Henry Fonda... but...

I call "Of Mice and Men" (1993) my one anomaly, though, simply because the majority of the books that were made into movies that were actually good were often times done well before I was born and nine times out of 10, prior to 1960.

Small town predicts my fate?

The Last Picture Show (1971)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★★ (out of 5)

Director: Peter Bogdanovich

Rated R. 118 min.

No. 95 on AFI 100 reissue

Starring: Timothy Bottoms, Jeff Bridges,
Cybill Shepherd, Sam Johnson,
Cloris Leachman, Ellen Burstyn,
Randy Quaid

"The Last Picture Show"; No. 95 AFI 100 (2008)

“If she was here I'd probably be just as crazy now as I was then in about 5 minutes. Ain't that ridiculous? ... Naw, it ain't really. 'Cause being crazy about a woman like her is always the right thing to do. Being an old decrepit bag of bones, that's what's ridiculous. Gettin' old.”
– Sam the Lion

The Last Picture Show doesn’t get a lot of love from the film critics. It didn’t make the AFI’s list of the Top 100 American films in 1997 and it just snuck in at No. 95 in the 10th Anniversary list in 2008. Despite having a rating of 8.1 on IMDB at the time of this post and having the necessary minimum votes, it also doesn’t make the cut on the IMDB Top 250.

Either way, I don’t care.

This film is one of my all-time favorites. If you’ve ever lived in a small town -- and I have -- you’ll understand this film. And if you grew up in a small town, you’ll not only understand the movie, you’ll most likely be sympathetic to its characters, identify with the characters and – quite possibly – fall in love with the film, as I have.

Set in a small North Texas town in the 1950s, there are several stories going on in this movie. There’s the story of two teenage boys coming of age; there’s the story of the teenage prom queen, whose daddy is the richest man in town and her loose mother runs around on him; there’s the story of the local businessman, who owns the pool hall, the movie theater and the town’s only café; there is the story of the coach and his disappointed and lonely wife; and finally, there’s the town – which is slowly dying as people move away for jobs in the city that pay more money and help them better afford to raise their own families. 

But two of the films issues that resonate through this film -- and that I'd like to focus on -- are sex and, although well before its time, the plight of small town America. These themes also happen to be the film’s best social commentary.

And in 1950s America, sex is a rather taboo subject. And it happens frequently in this movie, whether it’s actual fornication or simple sexual exploration. To prove that I’m not all stuffy and high brow when it comes to movie-watching, let’s just say that if you absolutely hate this movie, it’s worth watching for seeing a young Cybill Shepherd’s fun bags.

Now, back to seriousness…

This film – and this is why it got the R rating – is really about a sexual revolution going on. There’s a lot you can say about the sex going on in this movie, but the most integral parts to the story, when it comes to sex, is main character Sonny Crawford’s (Timothy Bottoms) affair with the coach’s wife, Ruth Popper (Cloris Leachman); Jacy Farrow’s (Cybill Shepherd) experimentation with skinny dipping parties with her friends, which eventually leads to her having sex with her boyfriend, Duane (Jeff Bridges) as well as her willingness to have sex with Abilene (Clu Gallager), the man her mom is running around with; and Lois Farrow’s (Ellen Burstyn) affair with Abilene, while she is married.

While these aforementioned scenes are integral to the overall story and the overall theme for a sexual revolution, probably the single most important area of this film is the overall relationship between Sonny and Ruth (there are a lot of overalls in this sentence). All characters bring their own individual story into a film like this. And there are a lot of characters to choose from with deep stories. But the relationship between Sonny and Ruth is very dynamic and powerful basis for the coming of age and the understanding that needs to happen as Sonny goes from boyhood to manhood.

It’s really interesting how the relationship begins with Coach asking Sonny to drive his wife to the doctor’s office for an appointment. Then they see each other again at a town Christmas party and share a kiss when Sonny goes outside to help Ruth out with the trash. Before you know it, Sonny’s coming over to the Popper’s house to bump uglies with Ruth. And, being that it’s a small town, all the women in town know. But we don’t find this out until later well after Sonny has graduated, Duane has shipped off to Korea and Sonny stands Ruth up one night for Jacy.

Call it the mistakes of youth, but Ruth’s genuine love for Sonny and her reaction to being snubbed by Sonny and his complete disregard for her and her feelings in how the relationship ended is what earned Cloris Leachman an Oscar for Best Supporting Actress from this film (the film was nominated for eight Oscars and won two; Ben Johnson won the other Oscar for Best Supporting Actor and another trivia fact, Jeff Bridges lost his first Oscar nomination for this film).

But with the sex and the relationships, we also see the three main adolescent characters grow up as the film goes on. And the biggest growth, I feel, comes from Sonny in this movie. Sonny is on his own. He has a father and we don’t know where his mother is. Sonny’s father lives in the town, but we are only ever introduced to him once and from the introduction, it is obvious that their relationship is an estranged one. That leaves friend and mentor, Sam the Lion, to step in as a father-figure and show Sonny how to be a man.

Sam (Sam Johnson) plays an integral role in this part of the story, but Sam’s death forces Sonny to grow up quicker than he already has at about 18 years old.

In addition to the effect Sam’s death has on Sonny as he loses a mentor and a friend, Sam’s death also has an effect on the town and the stress it faces to survive. Upon Sam’s death, Sonny inherits the pool hall, Miss Mosey the movie theater and Genevieve the café. Not long after, Miss Mosey is forced to close the movie theater (and the last picture show she shows is John Wayne’s “Red River” – a little trivia tidbit). Sonny makes a run of the pool hall, but he’s still just a young man and once Sam’s son, Billy, dies, one gets the sense that Sonny is eventually going to close shop and leave the town to find his own way. The only person who seems set on keeping her inherited business open is Genevieve. And although the film closes the same way it opens – with tumbleweed and dust blowing down Main Street -- by the film’s end, you get the sense this town is on the ropes and the only thing keeping it alive is oil. (Although I haven’t commented on it yet, oil drilling is the predominant means for employment in this area; it’s how Jacy’s dad made his fortune and roughnecks are all around.)

For 1971, the social commentary on the death of small towns seems ahead of its time. But, it is also possible that the struggles of small town America have always existed? I’m not sure how many of these elements were in Larry McMurtry’s novel, of which this film is based, but Director Peter Bogdanovich proves himself as an auteur in this film by not only bringing the characters to life, but leaving his own artistic stamp on the film in its entirety.

The movie is shot in black and white and, while it could have easily been done in color, the imagery is all the more powerful by using an older style of film that brings out contrasts and grains for a dusty, rustic look. The use of Hank Williams throughout the film’s soundtrack – and always playing on the AM radio – also gives the movie a dated feel, as it is set in the early 1950s. It’s hard to say what the film would’ve been like had it been shot in color? But Bogdanovich was obviously going for a certain feel and he clearly achieved it with this film, which marks the pinnacle of success in his career (before several unfortunate flops throughout the 1970s and 80s).

The film is also much stronger than its sequel, 1989’s “Texasville,” which is set nearly 30 years later in 1980, when the predominant characters are all back in their small Texas hometown and reunite as adults. I caught this film on cable late one night a few years ago and it was terrible. Ass-tastic is probably more accurate to explain how bad this film was, but terrible will suffice. You can’t remake the thoughts, the ideas, the mood, the tone, or the feeling of a film like “The Last Picture Show.” You just can’t. It’s a one-of-a-kind piece of artwork and that’s why it’s one of my all-time favorite films, even if it doesn’t make a lot of the “best of” lists.

YOU ARE A TOY!!!!!!!!!

Toy Story (1995)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★  (out of 5)

Director: John Lasseter

Rated: G. 80 min.

AFI 100: none

No. 99 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 149 on IMDB Top 250

Starring (voice): Tom Hanks, Tim Allen,
John Ratzenberger, Don Rickles,
Jim Varney, Wallace Shawn,
Annie Potts, Laurie Metcalf,
R. Lee Ermey

"Toy Story"; No. 99 AFI (2008); No. 149 IMDB Top 250

This really is the film that launched the Disney Pixar empire of movies. And because of that, I pay homage.

I think when I first got into movies, I wrote this one off in particular as being kind of dumb and for kids. But the fact of the matter is that having seen a bevy of Pixar movies over the last 16 years, I've come to realize that 1.) Pixar’s animation team is top-notch, so the effects are state-of-the-art when you are watching one of their films; 2.) the story is always one that is compelling, interesting, will make you learn something, whether it is about a subject or yourself (and makes you want to watch it until the end) and 3.) humor. These movies make me laugh because they always have a one-liner or something that just makes you laugh (like when Potato Head says that his instructions clearly state that he is for ages 2 and up or when Woody tells Buzz he can’t say what he wants to call him because there are pre-school age toys present).

I think what has really hooked me on this film – as well as Pixar’s others – is the amount of attention my son is willing to pay to this movie. He’s only 18 months and he’s already obsessed with the entire series of Toy Story films (in addition, he loves “Cars” and “The Incredibles,” but his infatuation with “Toy Story” knows no bounds). It doesn’t matter if it’s this movie, the second installment or the recently released third movie … he LOVES them all. And as an adult, it is fun to re-watch these movies – even if I’ve seen them 300 times -- and see how excited and how much joy they can bring a little boy. I think that’s the lasting legacy these films have on me is thinking back to what it’s like to be a kid and having a wild imagination and just enjoying something SO much. And I’ve become attached to it as well. (It took me a while, Megan, but I think you finally got me.)

I think sometimes animated films are overlooked as being for kids or for family. Certainly, that could be the argument for why Toy Story was left off the AFI’s initial 100 years … 100 movies list in 1997. But, where this movie makes the 10th anniversary edition of the list is in the technology and sales. This movie was obviously a hit as Pixar exploded into a subsidiary of Disney and started making a bunch of high-quality animation movies. And the technology of computer animation helped make the Pixar movies capture a more realistic feel, which if you look at the AFI list – and it’s a pretty good measuring stick for the best movies in American cinema – all of the movies are revolutionary in some way or another.

And certainly this is one of the most revolutionary films of the 1990s. It’s just a shame that I can’t get John Ratzenberger’s name – or voice – into every review I write.

What does Marcellus Wallace look like?

Pulp Fiction (1994)

Adam’s rating: ★★★★  (out of 5)

Director: Quentin Tarantino

Rated: R. 154 min.

No. 95 on  AFI 100

No. 94 on AFI 100 reissue

No. 5 on IMDB Top 250

Starring: John Travolta, Samuel L. Jackson,
Bruce Willis, Uma Thurman, Ving Rhames,
Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Christopher Walken,
Eric Stoltz, Rosanna Arquet"te

"Pulp Fiction"; No. 95 on AFI 100;
No. 94 on AFI 100 (2008); No. 5 on IMDB Top 250

I have a major love/hate relationship with this movie.

I love the way Quentin Tarantino is able to weave through various stories of different people in his movies and have all of the separate stories intertwine somehow as the movie goes on. Sometimes, I even love the dialogue in his films. But I hate how long and drawn out the movie can feel at points. Tarantino is good at whetting your appetite with the action and violence that when you go into long spells of dialogue it’s like your brain wants to explode. Kind of like “Death Proof.”  But it happens in “Pulp Fiction,” too.

I hate how overrated this film is at times. Yeah, I like the movie, but it’s over-inflated. Every film buff you ever meet is going to recommend this movie to you as the best movie of the 90s, and while I agree -- it is good, unique, and all that -- I don't think it's "THE BEST." And if you want proof, take a glance at where it is on the lists. The AFI and IMDB are a good indication of how good a movie really is.

While the AFI can be a bit stuffy and omit excellent movies from its list, I feel that “Pulp Fiction’s” placement on both of these lists is somewhat fair and close to accurate. “Pulp Fiction” is good; it was a revolutionary movie for the 1990s. But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. It’s not “The Godfather,” as IMDB’s users might have you think by ranking it at No. 5.

“Pulp Fiction” is funny. It has some very funny lines. The scene where Jules and Vincent (Travolta) confront a group of would be drug dealers about “What Marcellus Wallace looks like?” and if they speak English in What? Funny. Christopher Walken’s vivid description about keeping a watch up his ass to keep it away from the Viet Cong when he was imprisoned in Vietnam … Funny. The dialogue at times is great. At other times it is boring as it almost feels like Tarantino is trying his hand at showing off his pop culture acumen or something? For example, the entire conversation about the Royale with cheese and mayonnaise with French fries ... it's funny; it doesn't make any sense and doesn't really relate to other parts of the movie, except a funny line later when Jules asks Brett why they call it a Royale with cheese, but it doesn't have to because it's funny. In contrast, the foot massage lines (although some find them funny) are kind of dumb; as is the whole coffee diatribe.

The movie is a guy’s movie. It has funny lines, it has action, it has violence and guys relate well to it. And like I said, I love the way that four or five different stories of different characters all interweave into one in this film. 

It was a very unique way to tell a story when this film was made and for that reason the technical aspect of storytelling is what makes this film revolutionary. Tarantino employs this trick in other movies, too. “Four Rooms” being the most obvious. And it’s a really good and interesting way to tell one big story through several people’s perspectives. I like movies like that. They’re interesting and intriguing and force you to pay attention.

But the downside is that it gets hard to pay attention when the dialogue gets dry and the action dries up.

And unfortunately, as much as I love this movie, I hate being bored by it.