Random – December 29, 2009
December 29, 2009
Hello all.
My unofficial vacation is over. I took a bit of time off from everything: obviously this site, work, and writing in general. Seeing as how today I returned to work, it only makes sense to continue everything else. In this post I would like to set out what I am attempting to get accomplished with this website in the New Year and any other general information I want to put out there.
Naturally, the “project” system I have gone by will stick, and hopefully I will be consistently better about getting through new films but at the same time, I want to start reviewing newer films occasionally and put forth my opinions on some film-related topics. As it stands, I will be starting back with the “Year 2000 in Film” project on Wednesday and will be looking to have that done as soon as I can.
I am slowly establishing my New Year’s Resolutions and only one has to do with film so I thought I would put it out here. Last year, I decided to try and watch three hundred and sixty-five movies in 2009, a goal I have passed by nine, as I am re-watching The New World as we speak which puts me at three hundred and seventy-four. This may be the most beautiful film that I have seen on Blu-Ray to date, keep in mind I have yet to pop in either Inglourious Basterds or District 9. I could not be more excited for The Tree of Life and Criterion’s BD release of Days of Heaven. My Resolution is that of reducing that number to around one hundred and fifty (certainly not a limit but I am honestly hoping that I do not reach three hundred next year). We’ll see how it goes.
My holidays were great and I hope everyone else’s was too. Thank you for the brief, but great, 2009 we have shared together. I look forward to the new year/decade and what it has to offer.
Thank you for reading!
High Fidelity (Stephen Frears, 2000)
December 20, 2009
Hello all.
I still need to finish off the Best Picture nominees from the year 2000 but High Fidelity came from Netflix and I wanted to watch something lighthearted that evening, so it won out. I love this film, although I have only seen it two or three times. My first viewing really should not count because I was twelve and unable to understand a good bit of the humor or substance. I think this may be the first time I have ever discussed the film in any way; I really do not think I have before whether it be in conversation or my other blog.
I am not typically a fan of films that are “narrated,” except for situations where it is necessary and/or makes the film that much better. This film is certainly an example of that case (another film that comes immediately to mind is Layer Cake) due to the personal aspect of the film. The viewer is learning as much as possible about Rob Gordon, and there is no better source than Rob Gordon himself. High Fidelity has so many great quotable lines, but one of my very favorites is not as funny as most of the main ones, but an extremely sharp point, I suppose it helps that I agree with it. “I agreed that what really matters is what you like, not what you are like… Books, records, films – these things matter. Call me shallow but it’s the fuckin’ truth, and by this measure I was having one of the best dates of my life.”I sat on this film for a few days after watching it. I wanted to reflect on what the film means to me at this stage in my life. In the past, I have appreciated it as a great film (I consider it at least an eight out of ten) but seeing at this point in my life is definitely different. I was concerned that it would affect, most likely negatively, my judgment of the film.
High Fidelity is such a great look into a personality that I am all-too-familiar with. I am not like Rob Gordon but I have known and do know several people who are extremely similar (and even some who are similar to Dick and Barry, Gordon’s employees). I unfortunately have not read the book but I have added it to my list of books to read in 2010. I have seen this film pop up in several decade lists so far, but interestingly, I have seen the film that High Fidelity beat out to get here even more frequently (and much higher on people’s lists). For this reason, I am considering expanding this year to sixteen films in order to eliminate the possibility of a glaring omission.
This is a great film, and if I were to make a list of Top Film Characters of the Decade, I would be inclined to include Rob Gordon on that list. He is entertaining, at least sort of relatable (more importantly, this connection is far from necessary), and interesting. I am interested in other people’s thoughts on this film as I am a definite fan but as I said before, I have never discussed it with anyone.
Thank you for reading!
Late Thursday Thought (12/17/2009)
December 18, 2009
Hello all.
Sorry this came so late, I spent the majority of my day working through films on my daunting list that grew longer and longer as the semester grew on. I have also finally started on the third season of Dexter. I hope to catch up by the end of January. Fortunately, it’s only twenty-four episodes and they are extremely addictive. For instance, I flew threw three episodes tonight (even with the movies and other TV I watched tonight). I really have to get back to reading, I have been terrible about it this year and that needs to change soon.
On that, I have started setting out my New Year’s Resolutions, and I have a great track record with keeping up with them. This is due in large part to keeping these goals short and simple, and most importantly doable. They are all these things plus of course necessary changes in my life. I will be sure to keep you all updated over at my personal blog.
I stumbled upon this today, it’s an interactive guide to all of the decade lists coming out, a way of quantifying the results. My personal favorite list so far has been Time Out New York’s extremely interesting list. It is not only an interesting list but it also has what is the closest I have seen to my top five. And once I finish The New World, who knows, that may actually be my top five. As of right now, that top three stands for me. The way I am going about my list (which won’t be ready for MONTHS) is I am writing a list of definitive films, no more than a 100, slowly cross off 50 and then start to rank them. It actually could not be anymore fun. I have a bunch of films from this decade that I still need to watch (one of the other reasons I am doing the “Year in Film” project) thus the list won’t be ready for some time.
I love this time of the year. The time in-between semesters is always good but this time is especially good. Plenty of family time, interesting weather, good football, winter meetings (!), and of course, NBA/NHL goodness. It will be a bit strange not returning to school in January, and I need to get on the ball on law school applications. I can’t believe it is Friday already, everyone have a great close to the week.
Thank you for reading!
P.S. I am dying to see Avatar!
Erin Brockovich (Steven Soderbergh, 2000)
December 16, 2009
Hello all.
I could not express my love for Steven Soderbergh any more than I already have (see my various entries into my personal blog and Tweets over the summer). I put off seeing this film for years, and I finally gave in during my Soderbergh-exploration last summer. One of the principle points of this project is that of determining whether or not the five Best Picture nominations were correct. Naturally, I am not asserting that my personal opinion of the nominations is greater than the Academy’s, but I always find it fun/interesting to compare my thoughts to theirs. That, of course, assumes that the Palm D’or was rightfully picked, I would not dare venture into that area.
It is hard to pinpoint exactly why I stayed away from this film for so long. I suppose that the fact that it came out when I was twelve was most likely the largest factor. That is to say that it would be atypical for a young male of that age to desire to see a film with the premise of Erin Brockovich (let alone be able to understand the film). I am sad I missed out on it for so long. Soderbergh made two great films in one year. The previous is not solely a subjective statement due to the fact that both were nominated for Best Picture and extremely well-received. I have this bizarre tendency when discussing films of Soderbergh’s; I end up talking more about Soderbergh himself than the actual film. I have a strange obsession with him. I love his style and ambition, both of which shine in all of his films. I have discussed it before in my other blog, but the sharp dichotomy in people that love or hate Schizopolis has always been fascinating to me. The reason it is so fascinating is that the groups are split between those that love film/are involved in film and those who are at best casual viewers. I am not saying that those that love film must love film and vice versa (as my previous sentence may imply), but it is an apparent , and as I have said, interesting disunion.
On the film itself, very simply put it is an outstanding “feel-good” film. Everything builds up, from the small scale stuff with what happens with her/her family to the large scale stuff that involves the lawsuit, all for the emotional climax. Unfortunately, I am unable to comment on whether or not Roberts deserved her Best Actress award due to the fact that I have yet to see You Can Count on Me or The Contender. Out of the three other performances that I have seen, Roberts definitely deserves it. As great as Roberts’ performance is in this film, I would have to say that, albeit in supporting roles, Finney and Eckhart are equally as good. This may stand out for me because of the amount of time that Roberts is on-screen and my mind begins to wander and think of other great aspects of the film. I still believe both of their performances are at least noteworthy, but as a viewer, I personally do not expect any less from Finney or Eckhart. Soderbergh takes the viewer for a ride throughout, exploring at first Roberts’ struggles and then moving on to the grand scale problem of the townspeople. This “ride” is what leads the viewer to feel good, be uplifted, and ultimately enjoy the film.
This may end up as the number one film of the five nominees that I will eventually rule out as deserving of its nomination. I have to first finish my exploration of the year in film, but something tells me that that previous assumption is not far off. Remember, I am a huge fan of both the film and its director, so please do not think that I hope the previous to true, I simply have a hunch that it is. I only have one nomination left, a film I have not seen in at least eight or nine years. I am excited to revisit it.
Thank you for reading! `
Unbreakable (M. Night Shyamalan, 2000)
December 14, 2009
Hello all.
I am breaking the chain of Best Picture nominees and writing about a film that I watched last week. I love this film, and Shyamalan for that matter, as a big fan of all of his films outside of the abysmal The Happening. I am aware of all of the hate surrounding Lady in the Water, but I love that film, in fact, it’s the only film of his that I own. On Unbreakable, in my opinion, this is Shyamalan’s best film, given The Sixth Sense is easily the most popular but I think that this film is crafted at a much higher level and the lead, even though both films feature Bruce Willis, gives a better performance. On top of that, the film itself is much more enjoyable and as a viewer I am more inclined to revisit this film than I am The Sixth Sense.
One thing I have never noticed about this film until viewing it in a critical manner is that it feels so much like a Hitchcock film. I am not saying that its quality is on par with that of the big Hitchcock films, but everything within the film, from the framing to the brilliant pacing, gives it a similar feel to those films. One could make the argument that the film plays out like a mystery and Hitchcock’s films that I am referring to are also mysteries, which could be where I am drawing that connection. I would have to disagree insofar as the connection I am drawing comes from the way in which the film is constructed, not necessarily what it is about.
The way in which both Bruce Willis and Samuel L. Jackson are portrayed in this film is paramount in further appreciating the story as a whole. Even though it is carefully and deliberately explained in the film, it took me repeated viewings to understand the aforementioned statement. Jackson tells Willis, in reality the audience too given the point-of-view given during this sequence (sort of away from Willis’ character but not enough to where the audience ever directly feels as if Jackson is talking to the viewer but enough to where it can be called into question), of the importance in the way superheroes and supervillains are presented, yet even with the final scene’s reveal, I never realized that it holds completely true in the film as well, not just comic books. Then again, one of this film’s most brilliant, and at the time, unique aspects was that of its comic book-like structure. Again, the framing is crucial here, during important scenes the main character is framed in a box-like image, just as in a comic book.
One more thing that I never realized, this is a film for everyone. Ultimately, it’s a bizarre take on superheroes, or their real-life equivalent, but so much more takes place. The film is not isolated to one audience. That is to say that even though it has a comic book feel to it, it is not distracting thus people who are not fans of the subject matter are able to enjoy an expertly created film. For those of you who do not keep up with my Twitter, I have added a new guideline to the “Year in Film” projects. It did not affect the previously picked fifteen films for this project as to the fact that I already intended on watching the film. I will, in addition to the five Best Picture nominees, be watching the Palm D’or from each year. This means that six spots out of fifteen are locked, no matter what, leaving me with nine spots to fill.
Thank you for reading!
Traffic (Steven Soderbergh, 2000)
December 9, 2009
Hello all.
Steven Soderbergh’s Traffic is yet another that can be filed under “films that I saw at much too young of an age.” Surprisingly, it was my grandmother who made me watch this, I assume now (had no idea at the time) that it was an attempt to quell any desire for drug use? I am still a bit confused by it, because even though it is not the most graphic movie, I would have never guessed my grandmother would have thought it appropriate for me. It’s a great film, one that I own and cherish. I watched it a few months ago while exploring Soderbergh’s beyond interesting filmography. I have not seen the mini-series for which the show is based on and to be honest, I most likely will not ever.
I love this film’s ambition. Soderbergh tells a story in a wildly interesting way with the use of numerous great actors and various parallel and ultimately intersecting storylines. It is obviously a film targeted at the War on Drugs but it, in my opinion, is much more informative and interesting than it is preachy. It is informative insofar as it sufficiently goes through each layer of the drug trade or the “trafficking” of drugs. Soderbergh effectively presents numerous perspectives on the topic. The viewer is given the view of a family struggling with an addicted daughter while the father of that family is a politician leading the War on Drugs. I think the father’s profession is not even necessary in that case, just a way for Soderbergh to minimize the number of stories going on. That being said, I have to admit that that correlation also makes the final scene of that storyline. If you have seen the film, then you know what I am talking about. The viewer also sees the origin of the drugs and how it affects the people in the region that they are coming from.
Each of the main characters are extremely well-defined from an early point in the film. Without a clear definition, this film is nowhere near as good or effective as it is. The viewer’s ability to sympathize/relate with the characters is crucial for the experience of Traffic. The viewer feels the father’s pain, the daughter’s addiction, Del Toro’s character’s indecision, and Helena’s (the pregnant wife of the drug kingpin) quick shift, one I want go into detail about because it is important to the film. On that storyline, that is by far my least favorite of the bunch. I understand that it’s a key piece in respect to the rest of the film, but in my opinion it is the least believable and most “messy” for lack of a better word. The character’s definition and presence alongside the film’s wonderful cinematography are what make this film what it is, an outstanding film that deserves any and all praise it gets.
On yesterday’s lack of a post, I would like to apologize for not writing anything. I have been a bit busy with preparation for my final exams and have been either sleeping or studying all week. I took some time out today to make sure I write a decent update and I should have done the same yesterday. There is good news though. After tomorrow (Thursday, December Tenth), I will be consistently posting at least five times a week, and I have some ideas for posts outside of projects as well. Bear with me this week for there is good stuff to come.
Thank you for reading!
Chocolat (Lasse Hallstrom, 2000)
December 7, 2009
Hello all.
This is one of just a handful of the films on this list that I had not seen leading up to this project. To be honest, I most likely would have never sat down and watched it simply due to a lack of interest. Even going into it, I kept telling myself I would not enjoy it because of the premise and what I have heard about it over the years. I ended up enjoying this movie quite a bit. It isn’t the strongest of films in terms of quality but it is cheerful and wholesome. It gets a bit ridiculous here and there but the viewer is rarely left without a smile on his or her face.
The director starts off early and clearly makes the statement that this is a film about characters. This is an obvious statement but important nonetheless. From the first words uttered out of the main characters, the mother and the daughter, the viewer learns that the mother is forgetful and whimsical and the daughter is silly and aimless (the mention of her imaginary friend, a kangaroo at that, is a sign of this). I believe the first twenty minutes of the film is spent describing the characters central to the story. The viewer learns a great deal that ends up being important later on: the mayor and his seriousness, the priest’s inexperience and ability to be molded, Josephine’s awkward, nearly insane demeanor, and what we need to know about the landlord (Judi Dench’s character). The atmosphere of the town is constructed to a point where the viewer understands the circumstances that the townspeople live in and the newcomers are coming into.
The film’s central motif, in my opinion, is that of the film’s title (chocolate) and how it translates into passion/temptation/ any other related feelings. Admittedly, this gets a bit tiring after awhile due to the fact that it is reinforced numerous, and I mean numerous, times throughout the film. I understand that it is both the film’s title and the main character’s passion but to be honest/simple about it, it just gets old. I take careful notes throughout each of the films that I watch for these projects, and early on, I wrote “CHOCOLATE = PASSION??” and I think I went back and checked it about fifteen times. This is not a shortcoming on the film just an annoying aspect for me as a specific viewer.
The second entry into the project The Year 2000 in Film is complete. I have three more Best Picture nominations to get through and then ten more films that are typically seen as the best of that year and a few of my personal favorites. By my calculation, depending on well I do with this while on vacation, I should finish this project a couple of days before the New Year which means most of these films will be approaching their ten year anniversary. That is astonishing to think that a new decade is about to begin.
Thank you for reading!
Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
December 6, 2009
Gladiator (Ridley Scott, 2000)
Hello all.
It is sort of amazing to think that Gladiator is just about ten years old, isn’t it? This was always a favorite of mine throughout middle school and high school, my copy of it on VHS was one of the very few movies I owned at the time (Dogma, Tommy Boy, and a film to later be featured in this project were the others). It’s a great film, I know many people mainly give it credit for how cool it is, but it is a film with an outstanding atmosphere and well-crafted action scenes. The two and half hours literally fly by each and every time I watch it, a number that could be nearing about thirty times by now.
I have a hard time labeling this film as an epic film. Of course the film can be described as epic, in its enormous landscapes, wide shots of the Roman Empire, and just the subject matter of the film. The label that this film is generally given, as an epic, is most likely right but for some reason as the viewer, I become some obsessed and engrossed in Crowe’s character that I am forced to look at it on such a small scale. I say that the label as an epic is correct due to the fact that it’s almost always labeled as such and once I take a step back from the film, it’s impossible to say it is anything else. This is not a shortcoming of the film, just an interesting observation that I keep coming back to.
Gladiator is a film that is defined entirely by a handful of scenes. The scenes/moments in-between the bigger ones are still great, but even after dozens of viewings, I still sit back and wait for the big ones. I am of course referring to the opening sequence and all of the “matches.” The presentation of Crowe in each of these scenes is fantastic and leads to the aforementioned obsession of his character. These scenes, short of the opening battle sequence, unintentionally (in all honesty it could be completely intentional but I still hold that this is a true action film) puts forth huge statements in terms of spectacle. The problem of the full-on display of violence and the pleasure the spectator gets from that display are being unconsciously dealt with this in the film.
This film is extremely fitting for a start of this project as to the fact that not only is it the Academy’s best film of the year but it started off a decade on a high note. For the years that followed Gladiator, many epics were released but none got close to the quality of the one that brought the epic back into the picture. It was an outstanding film to start the decade on, the winner of five Academy Awards, and one that you rarely hear anyone say they dislike (outside of this who have a distaste for violence).
Thank you for reading!
#027 – Thursday Thought (12 – 3 – 2009)
December 3, 2009
Thursday Thought – December 3, 2009
Hello all.
The end of the year has arrived, or we are at least close enough, so I must begin compiling a year end list. I am sort of confused as to where I will put the list because for the last two years I have put it in my personal blog. I suppose I will just put my Top Ten Movies of the year in here and in my personal blog, I will put that plus my picks for top music of the year.
Last year, seven out of the ten movies on my list I did not see until close to the end of the year. The three others were The Dark Knight, In Bruges, and the surprising Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Not that the concept of the best movies come out at the end of the year is anything new but it’s worth noting as to the fact that his year may be different. I will be shocked if movies such as Moon, Inglourious Basterds, Up, The Limits of Control, and Star Trek aren’t on my list. Not to mention I still have not seen The Hurt Locker, which from all I hear it should definitely be in the conversation. This leaves only five spots for the best time of the year for film releases. I am very interested in seeing other people’s lists, especially with all of these “Best of Decade” lists out there. I will keep you all updated and I hope you do the same. Oscar season is my favorite time of the year.
Thank you for reading!
#026 – Introduction to the Project
December 2, 2009
Introduction the Project
Hello all.
I would like to awkwardly start this next project off by stating that I had so much fun with the last one. It is time to move on to a type of project that this site will be centered on for a few weeks. I will be actively exploring the year 2000 in film. The first five films will be the Best Picture nominations from that year followed by ten films that I carefully chose about two months ago. Unfortunately, only four of these films I have never seen before but the four are films that I have been dying to give a chance.
You all will see a break from the previous project that was much more personal into this project being much more about the film itself. I am excited by this project but at the same time reluctant due to the enormity of fifteen films from ten years. To clarify, I plan on interjecting years after a few of the other projects (for which I have quite a few ideas, one of which was recommended to me in the Comments, and I urge you all to do the same). The overall goal is to be able to adequately assess and compile a decent and comprehensive “Best of the Decade List,” which realistically won’t be finished until mid to late next year.
On the last project, I would like to put forth some honorable mentions: The Conformist, Apocalypse Now, The Conversation, and 2001: A Space Odyssey. That’s it for now, the first entry will be written and posted by Sunday afternoon.
Thank you for reading!
