skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Something didn't quite sit well with me the first time I saw this film. Maybe my expectations were skewed, as I loved Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, and I expected to love Be Kind Rewind just as much. Maybe I just didn't really pay attention to what I was watching (I think I remember wandering around my room as it was playing). But there was something about it that wasn't what I hoped it to be.
Watching it for the second time, however, was very different. For one thing, I now actually know who Fats Waller was, and that heightened my interest. I enjoyed hearing his music dotted throughout the film. I feel privileged that I can recognise the songs and it made me feel more affectionate to the film.
I like it when that happens, when you enjoy something more the second time around. It's like you weren't ready for it the first time around and it had to wait until you were in the right place. It leaves me wondering whether I'll enjoy The Science Of Sleep more the second time I watch it as well...
Final Thought: If you watch this on DVD, in the special features there is footage of Mos Def singing Fats Waller's songs in Paris. Watch it. It's only 6 minutes but it's great.
Up Next: Beauty And The Beast (1991)
The thing about Batman for me (and many others) is that he's a superhero who isn't a superhero. No special powers, no radioactive catalysts, no botched experiments, no mutations. Just a vigilante guy. And that's where much of the fascination with him lies, in the idea that, given the means, anyone could be him.
And what makes Batman Begins work for me is that it recognises that. We're not in a cartoon world, we're in a gritty, everyday but heightened reality that is almost believable. The punches have weight behind them and the falls hurt.
There's so many movies adapted from comic books now. I can understand why, there's so many stories all laid out already, a catalogue of complex characters and a fanbase at the ready. That raises the expectation though, so it's amazing that the number of good quality comic-based films is relatively high.
Final Thought: Gary Oldman should be in every movie, please.
Up Next: Be Kind Rewind (2008)
When I was a kid discovering music, I would pinch my father's CDs that I liked the most. My father listened to a lot of jazz and classical music, so that was where I started. Henry Mancini made an impression on me. I loved "Baby Elephant Walk" and "Pink Panther". There was another song on the same album called "Main Title from The Great Mouse Detective".
Being a child, and therefore prone to come up with my own definitions for things, I thought it cool that a composer my father liked had written a piece of music about an imaginary mouse detective. I thought it was just an idea that had occurred to Mancini one day; "Suppose there was this detective, but he was a mouse... I think his life would sound like this..." After all, he'd written music about baby elephants and pink panthers, so for me it wasn't much of a stretch. I loved the piece of music and was satisfied with my explanation for it.
Years later, I discovered the film Basil, The Great Mouse Detective at the video store. It had animals in it, so of course I hired it. When the opening credits started and the theme played, I froze. I knew that music! I scrabbled through my CDs to confirm that I was right, and sure enough, there it was on the track listing. I'd been listening to it for years and never learned that it was the theme music for a Disney film before that day that I'd hired it on a whim.
After I'd watched the film, I pulled out my CD and listened carefully to the title music several times. I heard it so differently having seen the film. I could picture the characters and their world. The piece seemed more emotive to me, knowing what it was created for. This was a piece that was part of my discovery of music. It wasn't something that I was told was good, it was a piece that I decided myself that I liked. I had made that choice independent of outside influence. I had listened to that album so many times growing up, I knew every little nuance of every track. And then, out of the blue, completely unwittingly, I'd discovered a whole new meaning to a piece that I thought I knew so well. It was an amazing experience to listen to a piece of music that I knew intimately, and hear it as though I was listening to it for the first time. Because it gave me that feeling, this film will always be special to me.
Final Thought: Hooray for mice with Scottish accents.
Up Next: Batman Begins (2005)
I know this film back to front. I have no idea how many times I've seen it. It's not one of Fred Astaire's better known films, in fact it's toward the end of his career as a dancer. For some reason though, of all the films that my father showed me from the Astaire catalogue, I watched this one more times than any other. I love the behind-the-scenes nature of it, and the in-jokes (such as the digs about Charisse's height or Astaire's career).
Astaire was in his early 50s when this film was made, and as a result his dance numbers are more on the restrained side. That's not to say that they're lacking in style or class, not by a long shot. It's odd I guess that my favourite Astaire movie isn't one that really showcases what he's known for.
Whenever I watched this film with my father, he'd be in raptures over the "Dancing In The Dark" number. And "Shiny Shoes" is a joy, and the closest in style to a young Astaire. The shoe shiner in that number was apparently a real life shoe shiner, known for his rhythmical technique, and my father always wished to see more of him. And I just can't take my eyes off Nanette Fabray. To me, vaudeville trained performers were incredibly engaging, in a very particular way that you don't see much in modern films. Their style wouldn't really suit modern film, to be fair, but there's something so refreshing about it that I wish it was more common today.
Final Thought: At the time of writing this, The Bandwagon is available on DVD in Australia, but, despite my searching, I can't find ANY of the Astaire/Rogers catalogue. They were released on VHS when I was a kid, but I don't understand why I can't get them anywhere today on DVD. It's beyond frustrating.
Up Next: Basil, The Great Mouse Detective (1986)
Within in the first five minutes of this film, I was struck by how gentle it is. I can't think of a better word for it. This film is gentle. This feeling stays throughout, even in the dramatic moments, because the protagonist is a shy creature and it wouldn't suit his story to present it in another way.
This was yet another Disney movie that I didn't see while young. So many people say that they were shocked and devastated when Bambi's mother meets her fate, but I already knew of her demise before I saw the film for the first time. As a result, I almost feel like I'm missing an essential part of what it is to watch Bambi, because her death wasn't a shock to me. For such a thing to happen in what is mostly such a peaceful film was quite traumatic for many viewers, I believe.
Although I didn't watch the film as a child, I once again must have somehow got my hands on it's related picture book, because I sure did know that I liked Thumper. I was actually thrilled on watching the movie for the first time to discover that Thumper's character is even more charming than I'd imagined.
The presence of man as an ever present but never seen threat is disturbing, and apparently didn't sit well with audiences in the original theatrical release. We're shown the idyll of Bambi's world, and then pretty bluntly told that humans constantly threaten to destroy it. In the current age this is more acceptable, with more people environmentally aware, but back then it would have been pretty confronting. In fact it's now common for hunters to be portrayed as villains, whereas back then it was quite a commercial risk to make such a connection.
Final Thought: I really love when animators take care to accurately portray the movement of animals.
Up Next: The Bandwagon (1953)
I was initially going to write two separate entries for these films, but each time I went to write it, I found myself wanting to put them together in the one post. I then kept questioning that impulse but ultimately decided that I am just going to go with it, because it's my blog and I can do what I want.
Part II: I never saw the second half of this film growing up. I possibly never even saw the first half. I certainly remember the moment of the shark hologram swallowing Marty, but I think that's because they enjoyed using that moment when advertising the movie, back when the gag of that many Jaws sequels was more relevant.
I find the second half of this film the most interesting, once they head back to the 1950s and have to dance around the plot of the first movie. The way that previously central plot moments can become peripheral when observed from the perspective of a parallel story is interesting to me. (I'm likely to go in to that in much more depth when I get to Rosencrantz And Guildenstern Are Dead in my collection).
Part III: And then, for me, here's where the series gets a bit weird. Throwing them in to the Wild West was a bit of a longshot, despite the idea being planted early on. I don't know what I would rather have seen though, I haven't given it enough thought.
Final Thought: The
Seamstress was accepting of every ludicrous plot point in these films,
only to take issue with a flying train. Because, you know, that's just
ridiculous.
Up Next: Bambi (1942)
Anyone who grew up in the 80s has seen Back To The Future stacks of times, purposefully or not. This movie, and its sequels, was screened on television so many times, it might as well have been part of the regular line-up (...perhaps it was...?) I saw fragments of this film in passing enough times that I could probably have pieced it together without having to sit down and watch it right through.
When I moved out of home, one of my housemates had the Back To The Future trilogy, and I decided to watch it to find out whether I had actually seen the films in full. And the answer was no. I had actually seen fragments of all three films, and stitched them together in to one giant film in my mind.
I think the reason the Back To The Future films work is that the time travel is the central plot point, with the rest of the events revolving around that, rather than the time travel being a means to catalyse the plot. As a result, the audience is less inclined to try to catch them out on any time travel mistakes, and more prone to wonder "Ooh.. I wonder what they're planning to do with that plot point..." I like a film where small details and lines are planted to recur and pay off later.
I also like a film with great music, but just how much is my opinion
of a film's theme music influenced by feelings of nostalgia? Because,
man, this movie has some great theme music. Music that heralds ADVENTURE!!
Final Thought: That comment above about the music heralding adventure got me thinking about other great sweeping adventurous music (Indiana Jones theme, Jurassic Park theme...), which then got me thinking about how those adventure movies died out somewhat after the 90s. I think they've been replaced with comic hero adaptations, which are often great, and I love them. But I loved those rollicking adventure movies... Bring them back.
Up Next: Back To The Future Part II (1989)
When I was in primary school, my mother would take me to a local library on the way home from school. It was a modest library, but with beautiful grounds overlooking the water, soft manicured lawns for skipping around in bare feet, ponds, fish, dragonflies, weeping willows and a sundial that fascinated me due to its being placed in the shade and therefore completely lacking in functionality. The slope of the library's location meant that it spread over two levels. The upper level was the main, adult library, and the lower level, to my delight, was purely for kids and completely separate from the (what I then considered to be) boring, adult section.
So I would roam the children's library without complaint, choosing books to add to my regular rotation for reading. If a book became a favourite, it would be borrowed pretty much whenever I had the opportunity, and at times I would take it as a personal affront if someone else had the nerve to borrow it before me.
My criteria for being interested enough to read a book for the first time was pretty simple: if there was an animal on the cover, I was likely to be interested. That is how I found "The Sheep-Pig" by Dick King-Smith. I can still remember picking it up and reading the blurb on the back for the first time. I was particularly drawn to this one as it mentioned sheep dog trials, and it quickly became one of my regular reads.
Having grown up with the book, I was naturally intrigued but tentative when I heard a film was being made. I felt protective of the narrative, and the fact that they'd changed the title did not sit well with me. If they were going to change that, for no reason that I could tell, what else would they change? As it turned out, the sheep password, which I had memorised from the book (Just in case. I hoped one day to be able to talk to animals like Doctor Doolittle), was also completely wrong. Unfortunately I can no long remember what the original was, but I still maintain my outrage from my childhood over that one.
Despite my hesitancy, this film is a pleasure. James Cromwell is perfect. So absolutely perfect, it makes me joyful. I quickly forgave the changes mentioned above, and reveled in the other little touches throughout the film (Singing field mice!). It's a beautiful, simple film and it will never lose its charm.
Final Thought: Were the opportunity ever to arise, I would snap up a chance to work with the animal trainers for this movie. It's really quite amazing what they did. Hint hint, Universe.
Up Next: Back To The Future (1985)
Not to be too much of a fangirl about it, but Joss Whedon's work is pretty great. I remember watching the original Buffy movie any time I had a sleepover with my friends as a teenager. Then when I heard that there was going to be a TV show, years later, I counted down the minutes until the first episode. I faithfully watched and recorded every show (I still have the collection of VHS) and, as it was moved to later and later timeslots, I enlisted my father to carry on the taping for me (though once I got a TV of my own, I'd sneakily watch it anyway in the middle of the night).
This loyalty carried on to Angel when it started. Then Firefly came, and I was skeptical, plus it screened at 1am on a school night in Australia, so I only got around to seeing that on DVD before going to see Serenity, and I wished I'd seen it sooner. Dollhouse took a few episodes to convince me, but convince me it did. And don't get me started on The Cabin In The Woods... I'll talk about that when I get to it in this project (which I am planning to time precisely to coincide with the DVD release so I can include it).
Anyone who is a fan of Joss Whedon has absolute trust in any project he takes on, occasionally blindly so. But in our defense, we're yet to be given a reason why we shouldn't.
Thankfully, The Avengers continued his trend of quality products.
It's oh so fun.
There was a lot of pressure, poor guy, because they've been setting up for this film for a long time, what with all the individual hero movies to introduce us to the characters.
I don't really feel qualified enough to comment much on the characters themselves, not having read the comic books. But I will say two things:
The last two incarnations of the Hulk have been so tortured - it's really nice to see the character romp around and have (violent) fun. I'm not an authority on the Hulk, but for me think that's why it works.
And, as an Aussie, I love how good Chris Hemsworth is as Thor.
Final Thought: Stan Lee's cameos just get better and better.
Up Next: Babe (1995)
This film is a bit melodramatic for what it is. There's a great deal of gazing in to the middle distance, much dialogue delivered in an is-he-about-to-cry-oh-I-guess-not fashion, lots of longing. That could be part of why I watch it with a degree of cynicism, because it takes itself a bit seriously. It presents itself with the sort of gravity you'd see in a film about cancer. The characters seem perpetually overwhelmed by something they're not quite explaining to us.
It's always frustrating for me watching a film where at least one protagonist is meant to be an accomplished musician, because the actors are rarely cast with that in mind. I've already ranted about this in my post about The Artist, though in that case it was related to dancing. But the same applies here. Musicians can tell when a performer is faking it, and it's sometimes insulting that filmmakers don't think we'll notice.
For instance, in this film, there's a moment when August encounters a piano for the first time, and in his fascination he plays three notes. The three notes we see him play ascend the scale. The three notes we hear descend the scale.
...Really?? Come on!
Prior to that moment, I was thinking that the actors did a decent job at playing their instruments. Keri Russell has
something of a cellist vibe about her, and I would hardly be surprised
if Jonathan Rhys Meyers strummed out songs on guitar occasionally. They seemed really mindful of trying to make it realistic, so I almost forgave whichever sound guy it was who on numerous occasions apparently thought it unimportant to sync up what we hear with what we see played*.
Despite his being the title character, I think I would enjoy this film more if the focus was more on August's parents. So why is it in my collection? I got it out of curiosity, because I liked some of the actors, who coincidentally happen to be the ones playing August's parents.
Final thought: Robin Williams' bitter Bono-inspired cowboy is not my favourite thing about this movie.
Up Next: The Avengers (2012)
*Call me crazy, but I would have thought that if you're making a movie about people playing music, you'd make note of how it's meant to look when music is played.
The
Artist is a gorgeous film. A work of art. I was excited enough by the
trailer for this that I marked the date of cinema release in my diary.
It manages to embody much of what I love about pre-1960 films. I do
love this film.
Honestly, if you think
about, and you don't even have to think very hard... the plot is
essentially the same as that of Singin' In The Rain. But with less
cheeriness, more angst and just as much grace.
I found the line about
audiences being tired of actors "mugging for the camera" to be an
interesting one in this context, because one of my favourite things
about this movie is how expressive the performers are. It seems these
days that it takes skill to be expressive performer without resorting to
mugging, and my preferred actors are those who are capable of it.
The
actors in this film are spot on. He is marvellously charismatic, in
true screen idol style, and she is captivating. Cromwell can break your
heart while barely moving a muscle, and Goodman has such a recognisable
voice that it's fascinating to see him working without it.
All that said, I do have a major issue with this film.
If your actors aren't dancers, please don't pretend that they are. Please.
Don't give them a dance number. It shatters the illusion for any dancer
in the audience, because the lack of skill is blatantly obvious and we just won't be convinced. Fred
and Ginger they are not. For a film set in the 1920s, the lack of a convincing charleston step is depressing.
I
appreciate that they worked on that final dance number for 5 months,
that's commendable. But that's exactly how it looks; it looks like
people who
learned some dance steps for the first time in their lives 5 months
ago. It made such an elegant film end
like someone clumsily tripping over their evening gown as they leave a
party.
Final Thought: Bring back the days of clever animal sidekicks!!
Up Next: August Rush (2007)
Yet another glorious Disney animated film. All it took for me to convince The Bassist to watch it with me was to describe it as "They're cats who play jazz." As a cat loving musician, he didn't need to hear much else.
As a kid, I had a cassette tape compilation of Disney songs, which I think is largely responsible for my assumption as an adult that I had seen a lot of Disney movies that I in fact had not. I would listen to that tape over and over again, and I knew the words to all the songs. "Everybody Wants To Be A Cat" was on there, and it was by far my favourite. That song is why I told The Bassist he should watch this film with me, and afterwards, the first thing he commented on was the score. So many of the classic Disney movies have wonderful music, both featured and incidental.
To be honest, I was surprised at how much The Bassist enjoyed this film. I had expected him to tap his toes along with "Everybody Wants To Be A Cat" (which he did), but that was about it. However, he chuckled at all of the little jokes, debated why dogs in France sounded like they came from the Deep South, and got frustrated at little Marie for constantly ending up in peril.
I didn't anticipate his getting so involved. He promptly fell asleep afterwards.
Final Thought: Seriously, Marie, stop falling off things. You're a cat for chrissakes.
Up Next: The Artist (2011)
After watching this film, The Bassist commented that it wouldn't have worked if the actors had been American. The idea that Australians are laidback and don't take themselves too seriously is a stereotypical one, but it's very true. And in a well made Aussie film, particularly in those by Working Dog, that is often the central feature of the film which makes the entire thing work.
Had this film been made in the American rom-com fashion, the entire premise could easily have been too trite. Guy has existential crisis and falls for girl, whatever. It needs that easygoing manner in order to not set your teeth on edge.
Josh Lawson's character reminds me very strongly of a dear friend of mine, so much so that the first thing I did after seeing this movie originally was to contact said friend and tell him as much. I received a rather bemused reply. I should check whether my friend has seen this movie yet in fact.
And Rachael Taylor is just plain wonderful. She's just so damn likeable, without resorting to being "adorable" or "kooky" or "clumsily cute" or any of those other slots that many female actors seem to unfortunately be allotted. She's intelligently likeable and relaxed, and there need to be more women in the movies like her.
Basically what I'm saying is that I'm a fan of the Aussie talent that is showcased in this film and I hope they do great things. The cast is ace.
I remembered liking this film in the cinema, but, despite it coming out so recently, I wasn't sure just how much I liked it, so buying it was a bit of a gamble. I'm glad I did.
Final Thought: I went to the same uni at Felicity Ward. She was bloody funny back then too.
Up Next: The Aristocats (1970)
There's a chance that the first time I saw this movie, I was sober, so I didn't quite get why it was "kind of a big deal". It was quickly forgotten.
The second time I saw this movie, I was drunk with my two lovely housemates of the time (The Sasquatch and The Bunny), and it became The. Funniest. Movie. Ever.
For the rest of our six month rental agreement, we probably watched this movie once a fortnight. With wine. It most likely began as a way of cheering someone up after a bad day, but before long, any excuse would do, and then it just became habit. And quite honestly, any day that we didn't watch it would still be filled with quotes from this incredibly quotable film.
Not having learned from my mistake, the first time I made The Bassist watch it, he was sober. He didn't think it was terribly funny. He did, however, appreciate the out of the blue, surprisingly well harmonised, a cappella rendition of "Afternoon Delight"
So, several months later, I got him drunk and made him watch it again. Success.
I have to make a note of how great Christina Applegate's comic timing is. Across anything I see her in, I really appreciate it. It seems a weird thing to make a point about, which I guess indicates to me that there's a lot of comedians out there whose timing just doesn't work for me. Too many comedians seem to resort to "LOUD NOISES" and think that equates to funny. Not if your timing isn't right.
I also admire performers who can hold a deadpan face. Steve Carell is the king*. I cannot keep a deadpan face if my life were to to depend on it. I have been challenged often, and I fail every time. Every goddamn time.
Final Thought: When The Bassist realised that I was up to watching this film for my writings here, he asked "Does this mean we need to get drunk again?"
I have the flu, so we did not.
Up Next: Any Questions For Ben? (2012)
*This
is a title I afford to him within the current crop of comedians. Out
of all time though, seriously, Leslie Nielsen. How did he do it?? The
man's face was made of stone!
Growing up, I always preferred Fred Astaire to Gene Kelly. Thinking about it tonight, I realised the oddness of that. Kelly is a more obvious choice for a young girl to swoon over, whether the focus be on his looks or his dancing. And, don't get me wrong, I was healthily obsessed with Kelly. But I think my father introduced me to Astaire first, so he always took first place. Plus, Astaire always seemed a bit more of a gentleman. Apparently Cyd Charisse once said that her husband could always tell which of them she had been working with that day - if she was covered in bruises, it was Kelly, if not, then it was Astaire.
Despite growing up with substantial exposure to the golden age of MGM musicals, I didn't watch An American In Paris as a kid. I didn't really feel the need to. I have a VHS of the documentary That's Entertainment (coming up later), which includes an edited version of the final ballet from this film. I'd heard that it was nearly 20 minutes long, and at that age I wasn't terribly interested in the whole thing. Plus, from what I saw, Leslie Caron wasn't a patch on Charisse. So why bother?
Consequently, I've only seen this film a couple of times. I must admit, I agree with those who say it's a bit of an overrated vanity piece. That's not to say that it isn't good, it's just not quite the masterpiece it seems to think it is. Visually it's a work of art, but where's the spirit?
Watching it tonight, it turns out that my favourite part of the whole thing is our introduction to Kelly in his apartment. His movements around the small space are so casually graceful, an elegant version of a morning routine, and I loved the subtlety of it. I actually thought to myself that it would be a shame if my favourite dance sequence was in the first 10 minutes, but it turns out that that was the case.
I almost feel that I'm betraying my love for Kelly by saying the above! He shines in this film, he always does. There's few things as delightful as Gene Kelly when he's delighted. He just seems to be taking himself a bit too seriously in this one. And Caron, to me, lacks the fire that it's fun to see Kelly up against.
Final Thought: There sure was a lot of vocal vibrato in the 1950s.
Up Next: Anchorman (2004)
I'll be honest: I bought this film because it has John Cusack in it. That's pretty much all there is to it. It's not an amazing film. To its credit, it has some amusing moments, but it's quite harmless.
These days I work in the entertainment industry (and that's as specific as I'll get for now), and this is the first time I have watched this film since getting my current job. I found it more amusing this time around as a result. Some of the situations are outlandish, but the way that the "talent" is constantly placated and handled is spot on. It's rather discomforting when you think about it.
Final Thought: Every time Hank Azaria's character popped up on screen, it set my teeth on edge. The accent is ridiculous, distracting and unnecessary. I don't know whether he's been on The Simpsons for too long, or what, but it didn't need to be that extreme. Unbearable.
Up Next: An American In Paris (1951)
I first saw Amelie on an awkward date. The cinema had bean bags rather than chairs, and we were stuck right down the front with an uncomfortable view of the screen. The cinema provided a buffet meal beforehand, which gave me food poisoning. And I couldn't determine how much chemistry I had with the guy, which lead me to pay much attention to any signal he gave off, and virtually no attention to the film. These factors combined resulted in my leaving the cinema after the film with very little idea of what had transpired on the screen.
It was probably six years before I watched it again, and it may as well have been for the first time. This second viewing was far more successful. It bordered on a revelation in fact. I had been living out of home for maybe a year, and I was a bit lost. Watching a French film, on my own, by choice, made me feel oddly independent. I saw it at a time when I needed to be reminded of the beauty of the small things in life. Pretty sure that I went out and bought it immediately, and watched it again as soon as I got home. Who wouldn't?
Final Thought: Dipping one's hand in a bag of grain is marvelous.
Up Next: America's Sweethearts (2001)
Whatever it was that I expected when I first watched this film, what I saw was completely different. I recall having quite low expections, and the reason why escapes me. So I was so surprised when I loved it.
I think it would have been very easy to tell this story using a narrator, as the film does lend itself to that device, and I am so glad that they didn't go that way. It would have ruined the subtlety of many moments and detracted from the spirit of many of the characters.
I love it when a film or a piece of music evokes memories and feelings of a particular time in your life. What I find interesting is when music or a movie evokes feelings that you can't quite place. Feelings or a frame of mind that are familiar, and moving, but the memory of the related experience is lost. Almost Famous is one such film that does this for me. It takes me back to the place I was when I first saw it, but I don't actually know where that was.
Final Thought: This movie makes me want to go on a road trip.
Up Next: Amelie (2001)
I can definitely remember going to the video store and looking for this movie as a kid. I would watch anything with dogs in it, so the title of this cartoon grabbed me as soon as I saw it. I can remember exactly how the video store was laid out, and I loved that the kids' section was an bit of an alcove that allowed me to browse the titles in peace.
I'm pretty sure that this movie was a regular on my rotation. But I must have grown out of it pretty quickly, because watching it again, I can't remember much of the story at all. However, the singing whippet sure stuck in my mind, presumably because little kid me thought that she was the prettiest. The rat race scene stayed with me as well. Thinking about it now, both these scenes occur early in the film, which makes me wonder about my attention span as a child.
I feel like this movie has a different rhythm to that of a Disney animated film (interesting, considering that the director was a Disney animator). I can't remember whether An American Tail or The Land Before Time (by the same director) follow a similar rhythm, and unfortunately they're not in my collection for me to find out. I'm not sure how to describe it except to say it feels a bit haphazard. Not necessarily in a bad way, it's just a different vibe to Disney, and it takes you by surprise a little. Characters talk over each other, the speech is relaxed, conversations feel less orchestrated, which at times is a bit confusing and at other times really adds to the story. It certainly fits with the character of Charlie.
Final thought: Despite centreing around the inescapable fact that Charlie is to go to heaven, and therefore die, the film manages to shield the audience from the reality of that.
Up Next: Almost Famous (2000)
I've no idea how I came across this film to begin with. Absolutely no idea. But Ewan McGregor sings in it, and that is often a good thing. I'm starting to wonder how often he is hired for this capability of his, and how often he just might throw it in there.
The Bassist joined me in watching this, and not long in to it he asked me whether it was meant to be a comedy. He did chuckle quite a few times, but at the end of it I was left wondering how comedic it was intended to be. It's not obnoxiously funny, it just has some enjoyable lines. And a very amusing montage of attempted ransom calls.
Neither McGregor nor Diaz were overly famous when this was made, which again leaves me wondering how I found it. Perhaps it was on TV at some point. The reason I'm trying to recall is that at the moment it feels like I've just always happened to have this movie in my collection, which obviously isn't the case. I just don't remember seeing it for the first time, nor deciding it would be worth purchasing, nor hunting it down on VHS and I can't even remember the last time I watched it. But I have seen it that many times that I was giggling at moments before they were about to occur (resulting in quizzical glances from The Bassist).
I guess it's just melded in to my teenage experience somehow.
Final Thought: Ian Holm and Stanley Tucci are fascinating, chameleon-esque actors.
Up Next: All Dogs Go To Heaven (1991)
I feel slightly cheated that, although I own this on VHS, there are no trailers. Why is it that trailers on VHS are enjoyable and part of the overall experience, but trailers on DVD are an annoyance? Is it just the nostalgia of it?
Harrison Ford as the president of the United States. A lot of actors have had a go at that by now. Ford's take seems to be that the president is just a normal guy, who wants to watch the football and spend time with his family. Which is somewhat refreshing.
For movie purposes however, he also conveniently has military training and is a war hero, which so many everyman action characters happened to have back in the 90s. So, inevitably, the time comes when our hero has to reluctantly draw from his old training to save the day.
Despite his supposed military training, Harrison Ford fights like he's in a bar brawl. Which I personally think is great. You can believe that he would actually fight that way. When he's hit, he feels it and you can tell. That makes you cheer him on all the more.
And is there any role that Gary Oldman can't play? The man is amazing.
Final Thought: When was the last time a fax machine saved the day?
Up Next: A Life Less Ordinary (1997)
I thought that I'd thought of all the movies I have on VHS from way back when, without actually checking in the box stored under my couch, but it turns out that I didn't do as good a job as I thought.
I forgot about Air Force One and A Life Less Ordinary.
So, although it will mess up my alphabetical order rule, I'm going to add these in.
If I were able to sneak these in manually and keep true to my alphabetical order, I would, but I think I'm trapped in chronological posts.
Dammit.
I used to insist that my father read Alice In Wonderland to me every night. When I got a little older, Alice Through The Looking Glass was one of the first proper books I read on my own. That may be why I've always liked Through The Looking Glass just a little bit more - I felt so proud to have read it all by myself, and I thought myself quite clever for that.
Disney's version of Alice mixes elements from Wonderland and Through The Looking Glass into the one film. And I must admit, this isn't one of my favourite Disney cartoons.
I don't find this film as elegant as some other Disney cartoons, but I'm having trouble pinpointing why. I thought it may be because Alice is just a bit too affected, but then she's supposed to be precocious and slightly bratty. Yet, something didn't quite translate from the books. She's always trying to act grown up, but she never quite feels obnoxious in the books, whereas she sometimes does in the film.
I do feel like story doesn't really follow a consistent path, but then neither do the books, and neither do dreams, so that lack of a path is merely a factor of the story itself. Most likely the fact that I'm so used to the books means that the use of elements from both of them disrupts the story for me. I wonder what I'd think if I didn't know the books so well?
There's also something that bothers me about the way the dream characters are drawn. Again, I'm having trouble specifying what it is. It just doesn't feel as lovely as 101 Dalmatians or Beauty And The Beast, for example.
There's been numerous attempts to adapt Alice for the screen over the years, and to me they never quite make it. (Tim Burton, as much as I like his earlier work, and if anyone could do it, you'd think he could. But his version was a disgrace and I don't want to talk about it). I think the problem with Alice is that the fact it mainly takes place in a dream world. No matter how extravagant you try to be when filming it, it will always seem that it's not fantastical enough.
Final Thought: It's nowhere in the books, but the scene in the film where Alice is trying to find a path through the forest and encounters various strange birds is actually my favourite part, as it turns out.
Up Next: All Dogs Go To Heaven (1989)
This is a Disney film that I know for certain I watched over and over again as a kid. This may have been the first Disney film I saw at the cinema, I'm not sure. The VHS is stored under my couch. I bought the soundtrack. I memorised all the lyrics. I even memorised the opening monologue and several of the scenes. I have since, somehow, misplaced that soundtrack CD, which is incredibly disappointing.
It's hard to imagine what this movie would have been like without Robin Williams as the Genie. I remember watching a couple of episodes of the spin off TV series one Saturday morning, and being tremendously disappointed. It just wasn't the same without Robin Williams. Any actor who took on the role after him was stuck trying to imitate what he did, which rarely succeeds.
This film sparked the trend for using big name actors to provide voices for animated films, thanks to the great job that Williams did. However, it quickly devolved to be based solely on the actor being popular, rather than their being a talented voice artist. I've ranted about this already, and possibly will again, because it's such a shame. Decent voice actors are so skilled, and the lack of that skill can make an animated film really bland to me. Without subtlety and nuance in the voice, the character just can't be convincing. In this case, obviously Robin Williams was a big drawcard, and no one could have played the Genie like him, but he was a factor of a film that was already so good. It falls apart when they start relying on the names to bolster a film that has a poor script and lazy animation. The voice work should enhance the story, not distract from it.
It's a severe pet peeve of mine, and I can't help but get frustrated about it.
Final Thought: Hooray for animal sidekicks who can't talk but totally sound like they can.
Up Next: Alice In Wonderland (1951)
I'm not sure what pulled me to watch this movie for the first time. I can't remember having seen the trailer, or having read a review, or anyone commenting on it to me. So far as I know, I picked it up at random. Apart from liking the stars (which, let's face it, is a starting point for most people when it comes to choosing films to watch), I took something of a gamble.
I find the concept interesting. It's not entirely a fresh take on who governs our fate, in fact it's a pretty easy step to take. It works for me because it's simple.
The idea behind it, so far as I can tell, is that perhaps those who guide us are just as caught up in bureaucracy as we are. Perhaps they are just as unsure of the reasons they do things, but they do them anyway because that's what they're told. It's easy to grasp the metaphor of the higher powers being just as corporate as those on Earth.
The soundtrack is quite lovely too.
Final Thought: Matt Damon is possibly the most likeable person in Hollywood.
Up Next: Aladdin (1992)
I think I was in my early teens when I saw this film for the first time. It played on television a lot in my teens, so I'd see a bit here and there, and after a while I made a point of watching the whole thing. Plus, I was oddly very keen on the Terminator films, which will come up later.
This is not a film to start watching after 10 o'clock at night, particularly if you plan to watch the special edition (which has an extra half hour of footage and makes more sense). I started watching this two nights ago, but realised there was no way I was going to stay awake for it, so I gave up and started again tonight. It is a very long film, the kind that James Cameron is partial to making. But it holds your attention. I'd forgotten how arresting some moments were.
I'd also forgotten that one of the characters has a pet rat, who happens to have a pivotal role. (This is interesting to me as a rat owner myself these days. You rarely see them featured as pets in movies).
I really quite enjoy James Cameron's movies, especially those from the 80s and 90s. I think I like his style - I find that he blends action, suspense and humour in the right proportions for my tastes. Little touches, like having one of those stuffed Garfield toys with the suckers on its paws stuck on a window in the rig (remember those?!), or having a fake pot plant on the rig because of course a real one wouldn't survive underwater... Those little touches show a thoughtfulness in the filmmaking that I appreciate.
This film does have an inaccuracy in it that I see in a lot of films and it really bugs me. Whenever someone is giving CPR in movies or on TV, they never tip the victim's head back properly so that they can receive air effectively. Why do they always get this wrong?? Is it on purpose? I've read somewhere that they always do CPR with bent elbows, instead of straight as you're meant to, on film because there would be too much risk of cracking an actor's rib if they got too enthusiastic about it. Is there some similar convention for the breathing side? I can't explain how much this irritates me. Well, I could, but it would be lengthy.
Final Thought: No one says "son of a bitch" like Ed Harris. He really makes the most of the "bitch".
Up Next: The Adjustment Bureau (2011)
I made The Bassist come with me to see this film at the cinema. He didn't like it. At all. I've watched a couple of times since, and each time I end up wondering whether I like it as well.
I think my main issue is that I can't get past the fact that I find the character of Summer incredibly unlikeable. I know that you're not supposed to warm to her a great deal, as she does our hero wrong, but I get stuck wondering why he's so infatuated with her in the first place. This film is tagged as a romantic comedy but I don't think that's accurate. You're watching someone allow himself to be toyed with and I get so frustrated that he just takes it.
But then I think, that happens. People have toxic relationships where they are used, all the while thinking that everything will work out if they are patient. Often friends are stuck in a position just like those in this film - waiting for someone they care about to finally understand that they need to get out of an unfair situation. So I guess this film is realistic in that way. The trouble is that it was advertised as a romantic comedy, when it really isn't in the traditional sense.
While watching it, I wondered why I'd bought it, to be honest. My discomfort with the film is pretty solidly focused on the fact that I can't stand Summer, and I reckon the creator intended me to feel that way to a degree.
Apart from that character, I find the film interesting. I like the way it is put together and I like the little touches like the dance number and the French film dream sequence and Expectations vs Reality. So, if you can put aside any frustrations with Summer, which I really, really try to do...
Final Thought: The saving grace for this film for me is Tom's sister. She's blunt and honest and more mature than anyone else in the film. Is that possibly a deliberate comment on the rest of the characters?
Up Next: The Abyss (1989) (Special Edition)
I love a well made, animated movie. There will be a lot of Disney and Pixar, a smattering of Studio Ghibli and Dreamworks, and some more random cartoons amongst these films I'll be watching.
About four years ago, I began a crusade to gather as many of the classic Disney films as I could, as well as the decent modern ones. Back when I was a kid, Disney would only release their films on VHS for a limited time, one at a time, every seven years (I learned this when I was working at a video store). Then after that limited time had expired they'd all be pulled from the shelves. So you'd have to snap them up when you saw them. When DVDs started to take hold they seemed to be doing the same thing for a while there, so when I began collecting them on DVD, I'd pounce on any I saw. These days they seem to be staying on the shelves for much longer, so the urgency has diminished somewhat.
Anyhow, it turns out that there's quite a few Disney movies that I just assumed I had seen as a child, but upon watching them as an adult, it turned out that I'd never seen them before. I think I may have been confused by the fact that I also had picture books of their films, and tapes of song collections so I knew many of the songs, or maybe I just couldn't remember much of it. But I was quite moved watching these films for what felt like the first time at the age of 24, and there were several occasions where I rang my partner (let's call him The Bassist) in a bit of a state over it. He'd hear my crying on the phone and be very concerned for my wellbeing, until I explained that the reason I was emotional was due to the exploits of an animated dog and then... Well, then he was just baffled. But to me that's the beauty of a classic film, regardless of whether it's animated or whatever. If it's done well, it moves you.
I also really love the old
Disney voice actors. There's a lot of animated films lately that seem
to count on using a big name movie star as a voice in order to get
attention. I suspect it may have started with the success of Robin
Williams in Aladdin, but I could be wrong. I feel like voice acting is a
separate art though, and while some of your big name actors seem to
understand that (Jeremy Irons, Ellen Degeneres, Rowan Atkinson...), most
of the time they don't. If you can't separate the character from the
awareness of who is voicing it, then I don't think it is entirely
successful. And I love that Pixar for the most part seems to be aware
of this, however Disney lost sight of it for a while there.
Back to this film.
So many people are so aware of the Disney movie that the fact it is based on a book gets lost. Dodie Smith wrote The Hundred And One Dalmatians, and its even lesser acknowledged sequel The Starlight Barking, and as a dog-obsessed child I adored them both. I read them over and over. That is possibly why I assumed I had seen the Disney film, because if I was that in love with the books, I must have sought out the film as well. But it seems that I didn't get around to it until four years ago.
101 Dalmatians is a beautiful movie. It strays from the book, as so many films do, but I forgive it because they've created their own lovely story. The music is great, the animation elegant, the baddies classic, and it leaves you feeling content. I'm so sentimental for great animated films, which is bound to come up every time I watch one on this project. Watching 101 Dalmatians makes me want to watch every other classic Disney movie in my catalogue immediately, but I must abide by my rules.
Final Thought: How great were old credit sequences at the start of films?
Up Next: 500 Days Of Summer (2009)
In conversation with The Bassist this morning, he commented that I don't seem to be talking as much about the films in my posts as he expected. My intention is not to review them, there's enough people out there who do that, successfully or otherwise. I'm giving my opinions, yes, but the idea of this writing project was different to that.
I was looking for some simple idea to prompt me to write regularly. I have so many movies that watching them and writing responses appeared to be a good place to start. Depending on how strongly I feel about my opinions on a film, some posts may tend toward being a review, but for me it's not about that. I'm just writing responses about whatever occurs to me. Recounting the first time I saw the film, or why I felt the need to buy it, or the sentiments it stirs up, or an opinion I have about a general subject regarding films. I'm just intending to write, not review. It's about how I relate to my movie collection personally. I can understand why The Bassist was confused, and most likely others will be too, if they read what I'm posting.
I'm not trying to review these movies, I'm just writing about them and whatever else I may be reminded of as a result of watching them.
It was a lazy, rainy day when I saw this film for the first time, and I went with very low expectations. A friend and I wanted to see anything at the cinema, and 17 Again seemed the most bearable option, but not terribly promising. I think I had some faith in Matthew Perry to be funny, but that was about it. I hadn't seen any of the High School Musical franchise, on purpose, so as far as I was concerned Zac Efron was just another piece of candy being marketing to young girls and I didn't expect him to carry a film.
I was so surprised by how much I enjoyed this movie.
Efron's comic timing is impressive and the boy can dance, which is somewhat randomly included in the film for no particular reason (but that's fine, I love a dance number). My friend and I were in almost hysterics at times, I think partly due to shock at the script actually being decently amusing.
To me, this film is far more enjoyable than you, the person over 16 years old, would think. It's harmless fun and bubble gum and it ends with a valuable lesson like the films you grew up with and there's nothing wrong with that. I think, for me, the reason those kind of films don't work sometimes is if you don't genuinely like the characters that you're supposed to care about. And in this film, you do like them. The hero is has made a mistake he needs to learn from, but you don't think he's stupid. The nerdy friend is nerdy but lovable and not unbearable, though you never quite understand why the hero chose him as a friend in the first place, except perhaps for thinking he was adorable? The stuffy principal is trying to be professional. Et cetera, et cetera, you get the idea.
So, I stand by this film. I don't care that it's fluffy and stars Zac Efron. It's fun, it means well, and it has some wonderfully timed lines that I wonder whether they were scripted or improvised.
Final Thought: The kid who plays Alex is a quiet talent and I'll be keeping an eye out for him in movies in the future.
Up Next: 101 Dalmatians (1961) - I've realised that, with all the remakes going on these days, for many films I'll need to list the date it was made in order to specify which version I'm talking about.
I had never seen this film before.
I ended up with this DVD due to a friend. We were browsing a secondhand DVD/music store and I think I picked up 12 Angry Men and commented that I hadn't seen it but had heard that the play was amazing. She insisted that it was brilliant and demanded that I purchase it. I protested that I don't generally buy films that I haven't seen, but she wouldn't take no for an answer. Being that the DVD was only $5, I figured "Why not?"
Thanks, friend.
It's a beautiful and classy film.
There's something different about actors pre-1960. There's a particular accent and melody to the voice, a certain deliberate-ness to the acting that manages to not seem overdone (when done well) and a sense that these films were made because someone was trying to create a work of art. Of course, there are those in the modern day film industry who are still trying to make works of art, but they are all too often drowned out by those who seem to think that movies are disposable and you just keep making them at random until you get lucky.
It sounds a bit snobbish, I know, and "they don't make 'em like they used to" and all that... But to a degree it's true. When you watch older movies, you can tell that things were done with care, at least in the ones I've ever been exposed to.
How likely is it that you would see a film like this now? Ninety-five percent of it consists of twelve men in a room, talking. What studio would take a gamble on that being successful? How would they believe that could hold an audience's attention? Craig Monahan did something similar with his The Interview, which itself is a very gripping piece of cinema that I highly recommend but unfortunately don't own.
For me, the joy of this film is watching things play out. Seeing the characters argue and use logic. Even the moments where a conclusion dawns on you just before it comes to the characters are wonderful. You know that the writer intended to give that lightbulb moment to the audience first, allowing us to realise "Of course!" and then watch hungrily for the characters to catch on.
Since I bought this film, I've had a number of people assure me that it's great. It's taken me three years to get around to watching it, but I have now and I agree.
Final Thought: I really enjoyed the revelation of why the final juror held out for so long, and love even more that it didn't occur to me earlier.
Up Next: 17 Again
So we begin with 10 Things I Hate About You. (In my organising, this is at the start as it is a number, so there you go).
Man, the 90s did teen movies well. I have no idea how many times I've seen this film. My gang at school loved it, so it came out at every sleepover. I did once insist that my high school boyfriend watch it, and he didn't enjoy it quite as much as I do. But what does he know, eh? It's entertaining, and it pretty much borders on being a parody some of the time (case in point, the introduction of the different cliques in the school. Cowboys??)
We all know it's a reimagining of The Taming Of The Shrew, as it's from that time in the 90s when Hollywood was looking to Shakespeare for its inspiration. For me, I much prefer them pinching ideas from Shakespeare over the current trend of "And another sequel! And a remake! And a prequel!" If you can't be original, at least be inspired by material that is rich, moving, timeless and complex. Don't make movies based on board games. Just because someone happened to get lucky with a movie based on an amusement park ride (which will also be coming up later), doesn't mean that such an inane concept will ever work again.
The serenade in 10 Things I Hate About You is still one of my favourite moments in a teen movie. Heath Ledger gained a lot of attention for Brokeback Mountain and The Dark Knight (which will be coming up later), but I think that even in this movie he showed flashes of subtlety that hinted at how great an actor he could be. Then there's Julia Stiles, Joseph Gordon-Levitt... And Andrew Keegan. Where did he go? This was the only movie I ever saw him in I think, but he was all over the teen magazines when I was a kid and I never really knew why. Was he famous in America?
Final thought: The Stratfords have an amazing house. I want that porch.
Up Next: 12 Angry Men
It has been such a long time since I've posted and life has changed dramatically.
But, I've missed writing. At the moment, in order to have the motivation to write, I need a reason. Something to write about. I've been waiting for a project idea to come to me, and, as I passed my shelves this evening, it finally did.
I'm going to watch all the movies I own. In alphabetical order.
It's not a groundbreaking project, I know.
But it's an easy place to start, and it should give me a fair bit of fodder for writing.
It's easy to feel connected to movies. It could be that you watched it after a bad breakup, or that you watched it every weekend as a child, or that it was introduced to you by someone who had an impact in your life.
I guess, in this project, I'm looking to entice these memories back to me, and use them as material to get myself writing again.
I have a policy that I don't tend buy DVDs that I don't feel I'd want to watch over and over again. That means that I only buy movies that have grabbed my attention in one way or another. Although, I must admit, there's some gambles in there as well. Some left me pleasantly surprised, and some left me not entirely convinced.
So that's my simple idea. I plan to write a post for each film I watch. I have a lot of DVDs... I don't even know how long this will take, what with having a full time job. Let's see how it goes.
_DVD_boxart.JPG)
