208. The Snake Pit (1948)

Running Time: 108 minutes
Directed By: Anatole Litvak
Written By: Millen Brand, Frank Partos, from novel by Mary Jane Ward
Main Cast: Olivia de Havilland, Mark Stevens, Leo Genn, Celeste Holm, Helen Craig

ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST - THE ALL FEMALE VERSION

My wife has been urging me for months now to watch "The Snake Pit", as she liked it so much that she recently bought it. It arrived the other day, so last night I finally succumbed to her pleas and spent a Saturday night with her and Olivia de Havilland.

When the film opens, we're right in the thick of things and we are immediately introduced to Virginia Cunningham (de Havilland). From the get go, we are witnessing Virginia as she struggles with trying to understand and figure out why she's in a mental institution. At first, Virginia has no recollection of being committed or even what month it is. She doesn't remember her husband, Robert Cunningham (Stevens) and in fact, she doesn't remember very much at all. She simply believes that she isn't sick and that she doesn't belong in Ward 5 of Juniper Hill State Hospital. She works with her doctor, Dr. Kik (Genn) and in flashbacks we see that she met her husband in a whirlwind romance in Chicago. All of a sudden, Virginia seems to lose it and abruptly skips town and moves to New York. Robert never forgets her and when he, himself moves to New York, he meets up with her again. There they're married, but on May 12th Virginia has a major nervous breakdown and lands in Juniper Hills. Through the use of electro-shock therapy and hypnosis, Dr. Kik begins to make some real progress with Virginia, but the hospital intends to release her, citing that they're already overpopulated. As the film begins we slowly start to see the origins of Virginia's illness through the use of flashbacks.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I liked "The Snake Pit" and will most likely give it a decent enough rating, but I'm going to gripe, so beware. In my opinion, I never really was able to make an emotional connection to the character of Virginia. When the film opens, the first shot shows her already in a state of mental disarray and therefore, to me, she was never more than just another patient at the state hospital. Had the film maker's, instead, shown us Virginia in her normal life, prior to her nervous breakdown, I think it would have given us (or "me" rather) a chance to make a connection with her and she would have taken on more personal qualities, giving me the opportunity to feel for her that much more when she was being shocked into realizing her illness. I was ultimately able to find a little emotional attachment to her, but not as much as I could have if the film had been presented differently.

Olivia de Havilland pours her heart out in "The Snake Pit" and if you're a fan of hers, then this is essential viewing. She really wraps herself up in the role of Virginia Cunningham and shows what a dynamite actress she could be. In fact, kudos to the whole cast who did a fine job, including Leo Genn. I kept thinking that Virginia and the good doctor were going to strike up a love affair, but then again, that may have been a little too slimy for my liking...or anyone's for that matter. I think another thing that will keep this film from appealing to me as a favorite, is the fact that the patients don't interact as much as I'd like to. I'm a big fan of "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" so any film set in a mental institution always gets compared to that, in my head. There just weren't enough colorful characters floating around. Really, the entire flick is intended to tackle why Virginia's sick and helping her, which is fine, but I would've enjoyed MORE interaction between her and the other patients.

Yeah I griped a lot, but when a film's not a '10', then I feel the need to nitpick. Doesn't mean "The Snake Pit" wasn't a fine film, I just find myself focusing more on the negatives sometimes, rather than the positives. This is a good picture and like I said, Olivia de Havilland puts on a hell of a show with her portrayal of Virginia Cunningham.

RATING: 7/10 It was able to get into that "really good" tier (by a hair), but I couldn't, in good conscience, kick it into greatness territory.

MOVIES WATCHED: 315
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 686

August 7, 2011 12:08pm

357. Saturday Night and Sunday Morning (1960)

Running Time: 90 minutes
Directed By: Karel Reisz
Written By: Alan Sillitoe, from his novel
Main Cast: Albert Finney, Shirley Anne Field, Rachel Roberts, Hylda Baker, Norman Rossington

CONTINUING MY TREK THROUGH THE 60s

I mentioned last month how my next 100 films would feature a heavy focus on the decade of the 1960s and continuing on with that idea, we come to "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" - a film that made me realize the greatness that is Albert Finney.

To be honest, there's really not much of a plot in "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning". The film revolves around Arthur (Finney), a factory worker living in Nottingham. When the paycheck comes in on Friday, Arthur likes to have some fun ("What I'm out for is a good time - all the rest is propaganda). Arthur gives a few pounds to his mother and father, but enjoys kicking back at his favorite bar or club and throwing back a few cold ones. Arthur also enjoys women, most notably Brenda (Roberts), a married woman who Arthur doesn't mind sneaking around with, just so he gets to enjoy her "company". In fact, Brenda is married to one of Arthur's co-workers. One day while grabbing a beer at the local pub, Arthur meets Doreen (Field), a beautiful young woman, whom he instinctively chats up and gets himself a date with. Now Arthur must juggle two women, his job and still find time to quench his thirst on the weekends. Arthur seems to have the life, but problems arise when Rachel winds up pregnant and Rachel's husband figures out that his wife is entertaining more than just him.

SPOILER ALERT!

I didn't LOVE "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning", but I didn't despise it either. It was a prime example of a movie that just kind of lingers in the middle, neither offending or winning me over. My main gripe with this picture is the fact that not a lot happens. Now granted, I don't mind a little subtle film making, in fact I'm an advocate of it. I'd much rather watch a film that revolves around an interesting or intriguing character, than one that merely provides climax after climax. But what I'm talking about is the fact that nothing profound ever happens to Arthur. He never learns a lesson, he simply drinks and causes trouble and at the end of the film he ends up engaged to a beautiful woman. He gets a married woman pregnant, but that never becomes an issue. She simply seems to disappear, after making the decision to keep the baby. The movie simply begins and ends with our main character in the same situation (plus an engagement) as he started. I kept waiting for the shoe to fall and for something to actually happen to Arthur and it just never came.

On the other hand, we're still presented with an interesting enough character and Albert Finney does a bang up job bringing him to life. Finney was a firecracker as Arthur Seaton and I kept saying to myself, "I can't believe this is the same old man who's still making films today". That's not a knock on Finney, as I enjoyed him even before I watched this film - it's just that he looked so different and when I see an actor now and then watch something of theirs from when they were younger, it's always so hard to believe that it's the same person. Shirley Anne Field was a knockout and not a bad little actress either and with the combination of good acting and the sub-par story, it all evened out to an enjoyable enough time at the movies. I'll leave you with a question:

Are British film posters always designed horizontally, or is it just a coincidence that I've noticed several lately that are? Both "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" and "The Servant" both had horizontally designed posters and I just got curious. Anyone know?

RATING: 6.5/10 I consulted the book to see if there was any more Albert Finney films that I could sink my teeth into and the only other one is "Traffic", of which I don't remember him having that big of a role.

MOVIES WATCHED: 314
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 687

COMING SOON:
Gertrud (1964 - Carl Theodor Dreyer)
Breakfast at Tiffany's (1961 - Blake Edwards)

August 5, 2011 10:03pm

926. Saving Private Ryan (1998)

Running Time: 170 minutes
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: Robert Rodat
Main Cast: Tom Hanks, Tom Sizemore, Edward Burns, Barry Pepper, Matt Damon

SPIELBERG WEEK: THE FINAL CHAPTER

Concluding "Spielberg Week" (or two weeks) is "Saving Private Ryan" - a film that I initially dismissed, when I first viewed it many years ago, as just another war epic. I was wrong and I'm here to admit that.

The plot is pretty simply and probably barely enough to stretch into a full paragraph. The film is set during World War II and kicks off with the Normandy invasion, in which American troops land on Omaha Beach and are immediately met with artillery fire from German forces. Captain John H. Miller (Hanks) is at the helm, leading his men in to battle and trying his best to get control of the situation, as he watches soldiers pacing the beaches, looking for blown off limbs and smelling the stench of death all around him. Eventually American forces take over the situation and we switch gears. Mrs. Ryan has just been informed that three of her four sons taking part in the war effort have been killed in combat. The forth son, James Francis Ryan (Damon), is ordered to immediately be brought home and the word is passed down the chain of command until it lands in Captain John Miller's ear. Miller will lead a squad of seven men on a mission to find Private Ryan and make sure he is returned home safely. The rest of the film follows the crew as they search for James F. Ryan.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I intended to watch "Saving Private Ryan" tonight and then get back to the blog tomorrow to write about it. However, I couldn't hold my thoughts in for that long and felt that if I did, I'd only corrupt the quality of my own writing, probably forgetting some points that I wanted to make. I'm not a fan of war movies, whether they're long or short. So many times I've been told about a war movie so good that even a person who doesn't like the genre wouldn't be able to resist. Time and time again, I'm disappointed as movies like "Platoon" and "Patton" do nothing to turn me on to the idea of a good war movie. However, with the exception of "All Quiet on the Western Front", I feel confident enough in my own opinion to brand "Saving Private Ryan" with the title of "Greatest War Movie Ever Made". I may get a lot of flack for that statement, but seeing as how I'm not an aficionado on the subject of war film, don't let it ruffle your feathers too much.

A lot of times Spielberg gets painted with an unfair brush, but I've gotta' say that I think he made most of the right decisions when it came time to make and edit "Saving Private Ryan". The pale, desaturated film stock that was used to color the film reminds you constantly of the dark and horrific reality that is death and war. Spielberg didn't hold back when it came to showing violence and blood shed and made sure we realized that war isn't pretty and that there is never a winner and that it ALWAYS brings out the bad in people. A haunting line from the movie, that is still echoing in my ear is when an American soldier screams out, "Don't shoot, let them burn!", following the torching of a German bunker. A man pacing back and forth, picking up severed limbs and trying to identify his own missing arm - haunting. Blood spurting from the throat of a wounded soldier and the gurgling noises that he makes as he leaves this Earth, all while an American soldier fights off a German. A long take (something Spielberg isn't really known for) during the final battle scene at Rammelle bridge, as Americans ascend a staircase, ready for combat. Captain John H. Miller (Tom Hanks) getting shot, our main character getting his fatal, final blow and Spielberg not even accompanying it with any close-up or any music. Just letting us witness it from afar, reminding us that even the greatest heroes go down in the blink of an eye, when in combat.

The opening scene is something to behold and even if you don't want to take my word for it, you owe it to yourself to at least watch the Normandy invasion sequence. Of course, the joke will be on you, because following that sequence you'll probably be unable to turn the movie off. Spielberg didn't shove music down our throats here either, and just let John Williams conduct his score softly in the background, only allowing it to make it's presence known when absolutely necessary. Honestly, I could've done without a score entirely and just let the actions and images speak for themselves. Speaking of images, Spielberg captures some breath taking ones. Some may be ugly and gruesome, but there's no denying that on a movie screen their either beautiful or harrowing, sometimes both. Spielberg also coaxes some really good performances out of the unlikeliest of places, as this marks a landmark movie where a Vin Diesel appearance doesn't make me want to toss my T.V. into the street. Add to that good - great performances from Edward Burns, Adam Goldberg and Jeremy Davies and the always great Tom Hanks and you have a fantastic cast.

When it came right down to it, I couldn't deny "Saving Private Ryan" it's due. It's a war film, something I don't normally care for, but this isn't your normal war film. For me, it stands head and shoulders above most other war pictures and earns an enthusiastic nod from me. I rarely nitpicked and for the most part I was simply stunned at some of the choices Spielberg was making and how "balls to the wall" he was being. You could tell that this was a subject that was very passionate to him and he didn't shove it down our throats or anything. He didn't make it a three hour long salute to America. He simply told us that war is never good, but that the brotherhood that one can find while in such a hell on Earth, is priceless. And that at the end of the day, whether the battle was worth fighting for or not wasn't necessarily the important thing, but rather or not you made your life worth living and was your life worth saving?

RATING: 10/10 I know, right? Gotta' be the best war movie ever made, for my money. "All Quiet on the Western Front" is great too, but even it didn't get a '10' from yours truly.

MOVIES WATCHED: 313
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 688

A WORD ABOUT STEVEN SPIELBERG

I think a lot of times Steven Spielberg gets painted with an unfair brush. Perhaps (if I may make an analogy), he's like the high school quarterback, the one who always had the girls hanging off his arm and the load of friends sitting around his lunch table. The one that you always secretly called a "jerk" and chastised for being "that guy". But then one day, your standing in the lunch line and I'll be damned if you didn't misplace your .75 cents and this guy spots you the change so you can buy a carton of chocolate milk and you say to yourself, "Hey, that guy's not so bad after all". Spielberg is always going to be the prettiest girl at the ball. He represents Hollywood and he made a reputation out of making blockbusters, using special effects and catering to people who drool for sole entertainment. But, when you get right down to it, he's actually good filmmaker too. Spielberg wouldn't have gotten as far as he did, if he was a talentless hack, like so many "film buffs" like to write him off as. Sure he's made some stinkers - "Raiders of the Lost Ark", "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" and probably a few that weren't even included in this text. However, he's also made some really good movies. "Jaws" is one of the most fun times I've had at the films and contains genuine suspense, "Schindler's List" would make a stone cry and "Saving Private Ryan" is not only a violent war epic, but it also oozes artistic value as well. You can write off Spielberg all you want, but that's not going to make him disappear. The best thing to do is to realize that he has been named Homecoming King of Hollywood, but at least he knows how to direct a good picture. He's not getting an automatic pass to the top of my favorite director's list or anything, but I have no problem giving credit where it's due and Spielberg deserves some credit.

August 4, 2011 2:39am

860. Jurassic Park (1993)

Running Time: 127 minutes
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: Michael Crichton, David Koepp, from novel by Michael Crichton
Main Cast: Sam Neill, Laura Dern, Jeff Goldblum, Richard Attenborough, Ariana Richards

SPIELBERG WEEK: CHAPTER 7

Finally a working copy of "Jurassic Park" arrives from Netflix and I got the opportunity, last night, to settle down and give it a look. It's a film that I hadn't seen in it's entirety since it was released on VHS back in the day and it somewhat holds up and for the most part, serves it's purpose.

John Hammond (Attenborough) has just opened Jurassic Park, a theme park filled with real dinosaurs that were re-created from DNA, extracted from mosquitoes that were preserved and fossilized in amber. When a worker at Jurassic Park is killed while unloading one of the new creatures, the financial investors of the park get wary of the entire idea. Hammond proposes that he fly in a few scientists to give the park their seal of approval and get the ball rolling on opening Jurassic Park. Enter Dr. Alan Grant (Neill) and Dr. Ellie Sattler (Dern), a paleontologist and paleobotanist respectively. Hammond flies to Montana where the two are digging and offers to fund their dig for the next three years, if they'll accompany him to Jurassic Park for a few days. They agree and are joined by mathematician Ian Malcolm (Goldblum), who dresses like a rock star, but talks like...Jeff Goldblum. The group arrive in Jurassic Park, but couldn't have picked a worse weekend. One of the chief technicians of the park, Dennis Nedry (Wayne Knight), has picked this weekend to scam the park out of their embryo samples and sell them to a corporate rival. In doing so, Nedry shuts down the entire park (including the electrified fencing that keeps the dino's from running wild) so that he can get what he need, unnoticed. Soon the dinosaurs are running rampant over the park and the scientists, along with Hammond's own grandchildren, must outrun, outwit and outlast the prehistoric beasts.

This shouldn't take long. "Jurassic Park" is neither very good, nor very bad. And actually, it's intent is served, so I guess 'ol Stevie accomplished his mission here. There's no denying that "Jurassic Park" has to be considered at least a little bit fun, if not a whole lot of fun. I had fun watching CGI dinosaurs running wild and they actually looked really good to boot. But unlike his first feature "Jaws", which provided fun and quality, I'd argue that "Jurassic Park" isn't all that quality of film. The actors are hit and miss with me, with Jeff Goldblum and Richard Attenborough rising head and shoulders above their co-stars and Sam Neill and the kids just irritating the crap out of me. When you get down to the bare facts of it though, it's the special effects that are the real stars of this movie, as without dinosaurs you got nothing and that was really the whole appeal of the film from the get-go. There's really nothing else here going on, that doesn't have to do with the dinosaurs, and even before they show up, it's just a wait to get to the meat of the movie. In fact, when I was watching this last night I noticed how relatively quickly the dino's show up and realized that it must have been because the film maker's knew that everyone would just be chomping at the bit to see them anyway.

Another gripe is the fact that the script was far too detailed. Did we really need the Wayne Knight character scheming to steal the embryos? Couldn't we have just blamed the power failure on the storm and/or "Hey, it's a new theme park, we haven't worked out all the kinks yet". Did Sam Neill really have to be forced to learn a life lessons about the joy's of children all in the midst of fighting off a Tyrannosaurus Rex? To me, this is the type of film where less is more. The less riff raff you make me wade through to get to the meat and potatoes/the main attraction, the better. Don't make me follow hollow characters on life lessons and hear about intricate deception plots. It's a film about the cloning of dinosaurs, how they get loose from their cages and the characters that are forced to survive. That's it.

EDIT: I almost forgot. I also wanted to just briefly mention John Williams' score and say how much I loved it. I'm not the biggest advocate of big budget blockbusters, but when I see one, this is the type of score you want. The "Jurassic Park" score is fantastic and really oozes Hollywood and gets you pumped up for a big adventure story.

RATING: 6.5/10 I'm going to try my best to get "Saving Private Ryan" watched today (in it's entirety) and so "Spielberg Week" should be finished tomorrow.

MOVIES WATCHED: 312
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 689

August 3, 2011 4:31pm

414. The Servant (1963)

Running Time: 112 minutes
Directed By: Joseph Losey
Written By: Harold Pinter, from novel by Robin Maugham
Main Cast: Dirk Bogarde, James Fox, Sarah Miles, Wendy Craig

DON'T CALL ME JEEVES!

Last night, in need of a movie to watch and still waiting on the "Jurassic Park" replacement disc, I decided to fire up the Blu-Ray player and check out "The Servant" via the streaming portion of Netflix. It's one that I've been eyeballing for some time now and I can say that I was neither disappointed, nor thrilled with it.

When the young and wealthy Tony (Fox) moves into a new house, he decides that he'll need to take on a man servant to keep up the day to day duties of maintaining a household. When our tale begins Hugo Barrett (Bogarde) is on his way to Tony's new residence, preparing himself for his initial interview. The interview goes well and Barrett gets the job and the two actually hit it off quite well. Barrett proves to be a capable and reliable man servant, going all out with the "Yes Sir's" and "No Sir's", keeping up with all of the cleaning and the cooking. The only problem that presents itself at first, is the fact that Tony's fiance doesn't care too much for Barrett. Susan (Craig) sees Barrett as a nosy, unneeded pest around the house, but Tony sticks up for him and insists that he stay on. When Tony shows interest in taking on a maid as well, Barrett brings his sister in from out of town, stating that she'd be a good candidate for the new maid position. Tony agrees and now both Barrett and his sister Vera (Miles) are working at Tony's residence. Vera proves right away that she's not as irreplaceable as Barrett, but is kept on for Barrett's sake. Soon, however, Tony and Vera begin a little fling, sneaking off in the middle of the night to make love and making sure that Barrett doesn't find out about it. But does Barrett already know? And are Barrett and Vera even really brother and sister?

SPOILER ALERT!

The positives that came out of "The Servant" were more subtle than obvious. I was totally taken by the score. There are several absolutely hypnotizing scenes between Tony & Susan and especially Tony & Vera, that are accompanied by the sweet jazz melodies, slow dialogue that barely escapes the lips of the actors mouths and camera angles that totally entranced me and sucked me into the odd world of the picture. In fact, the camera angles were quite extraordinary, as the camera seemed to seek out and find what it wanted, rather than waiting for it to come. Very tight shots seem to be the agenda for the camera operator and it worked to really get across that sense of claustrophobia and invasion of space. Bogarde and Fox were also terrific actors and I'd like to say the same for Sarah Miles, but she more annoyed me than anything else.

But, what was the ultimate message in "The Servant". Or rather, what is ultimately happening in "The Servant". If you read synopsis, they'll tell you that this is a story about a servant and his master, who ultimately switch roles. But that fact really wasn't conveyed very well to me. Some fans and studiers of the film will tell you that there are definite homosexual undertones between the characters of Tony and Barrett, but I didn't pick up on that at all. I'm not denying that fact, simply saying that it didn't enter into my head until the film was over and I was scouring a message board dedicated to this movie. What actually happens in the end of this film? Well, I suppose I could interpret my own opinions.

Everything seems pretty copacetic up until Tony realizes that Barrett and Vera aren't brother and sister. Up to that point, we simply have a pretty engaging tale about a man and his servant and the fact that the man is having an affair with his maid, who just happens to be the servant's sister. Throw into that the fact that the man's fiance hates the servant and all of the great, natural qualities of the film (cinematography, music, acting) and you've got yourself a pretty intriguing little picture. However, the whole time that this is all playing out, there's a feeling of uneasiness and I had the feeling that something bigger was waiting in the horizon. So now then, you've got Tony who now knows that his lover and his servant are actually engaged and they're out on their ears. Tony retreats to his room and cries it out, because obviously he's just been handed some heavy news, plus he's all alone now.

Later on, Barrett and Tony meet up in a bar and Barrett apologizes and says that he'd really like to have his old job back. Tony agrees and Barrett comes back. But that's where things get strange. The very next scene that is shown, shows Barrett and Tony bickering, because Tony has apparently made a mess and now Barrett has to clean it up. Barrett never raised his voice to Tony before, but now that he's on thin ice with his boss he's raising his voice? I mean, the guy just forgave him and gave him his job back and now Barrett's showing some disobedience? Doesn't make sense to me. Plus it all just happened so fast. One minute Barrett is a perfect man servant, the kind you read about in Man Servant Monthly, then he's out, then he apologizes and now he's mouthy - just like that? Then we get a scene of the two eating dinner together (something else we never saw pre-argument) and they're being fairly quaint. Then a scene of the two playing ball on the staircase. It just seems like such a quick turnaround and everything is all of a sudden totally different. It definitely had me going through all sorts of "WTF" moments.

Is it possible that everything post-Tony collapsing on the bed in tears (after throwing out Vera and Barrett) is a dream? If Tony really did have sexual feeling for Barrett, then everything after he meets Barrett in the bar is kind of like what would happen in a perfect world. He meets him in a bar, Barrett buys him a drink, he rehires him, they sometimes bicker and sometimes have nice dinner conversation. They play ball together and now they're equals. Maybe that's what Tony wanted all along.

OR maybe it wasn't a dream. Maybe the desires of Tony and Barrett were so strong, that things just turned out the way they both wanted. Of course, they wanted these things for different reasons. If Tony really did have feelings for Barrett, then his fantasy would be for the two to become equals and share the home together. Barrett, as a servant, would probably wish he was Tony's equal too, because then he wouldn't have to clean house, cook dinner and he'd have a few dollars to throw around. They both wanted the same thing, but for different reasons - so, in turn, that caused the role reversal to happen. Hmmmmm....now I'm just rambling, so I'm gonna' call that a review.

RATING: 7/10 I can't in good conscience go higher than a '7' and by rights, I should've gone '6.5', but when I type that much ^ - then you know the film has really perplexed me and yet, intrigued me...so that's always a good sign.

MOVIES WATCHED: 311
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 690

August 2, 2011 4:19pm

July 2011 Recap

In case you're unfamiliar with this feature, each and every month, I take a look back to the previous month and re-think my filmic choices and ratings. Some ratings stay the same, some change and I also take the opportunity to talk about NON-1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die films that I saw. Here we go...

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in July 2011
1) Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 - Met Stuart) 7.5/10 - I went way gaga over this one upon first viewing. Yes, it's very good and probably one of the best children's flicks I've seen, but it's far from a full blown '10'.
2) Naked Lunch (1991 - David Cronenberg) 2/10 - Not the worst thing I've ever seen, but it just flat out wasn't for me.
3) The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975 - Jim Sharman) 6.5/10
4) This Is Spinal Tap (1984 - Rob Reiner) 7/10 - I short changed it earlier this month. I'm still not convinced it's one of the greatest comedies ever made, but it's funny for sure.
5) Stand by Me (1986 - Rob Reiner) 7/10
6) The Story of a Cheat (1936 - Sacha Guitry) 8.5/10
7) The Princess Bride (1987 - Rob Reiner) 8/10
8) Audition (1999 - Takashi Miike) 8/10 - This came extremely close to making the "Ten Worth Mentioning" section of the recent TOP 20. I just felt that my inability to fully understand it upon first viewing and forcing myself to go look up an explanation, kept it from being included on a list of my favorite films of the 100.
9) Detour (1945 - Edgar G. Ulmer) 7.5/10 - Another one that came oh so close to making the "Ten Worth Mentioning" section of the recent TOP 20. I thought it was great, but it's short running time made it more easily forgettable when scouring through the candidates for the list.
10) When Harry Met Sally (1989 - Rob Reiner) 6/10
11) Hoop Dreams (1994 - Steve James) 8/10 - Again, I went a little overboard during my initial review of this one. Maybe a '10' as far as documentaries go, but I'd drop it down a peg or two on an overall scale.
12) An American Werewolf in London (1981 - John Landis) 5.5/10
13) Caravaggio (1986 - Derek Jarman) 5/10
14) Picnic at Hanging Rock (1975 - Peter Weir) 3/10
15) Zero Kelvin (1995 - Hans Petter Moland) 8/10 - See the TOP 20: #202 - #301 for updated thoughts.
16) The Cook, the Thief, His Wife and Her Lover (1989 - Peter Greenaway) 8/10 - Another one that came extremely close to making the "Ten Worth Mentioning" section. Great film!
17) Rabbit-Proof Fence (2002 - Phillip Noyce) 6/10
18) The Big Heat (1953 - Fritz Lang) 8.5/10 - See the TOP 20: #202 - #301 for updated thoughts.
19) The Naked Gun (1988 - David Zucker) 4.5/10
20) Secret Beyond the Door (1948 - Fritz Lang) 6/10 - Probably the most forgettable film of the last month and I say that in the nicest of ways. Bad movies aren't forgettable because they're so bad, and good ones are to good to be forgotten, so this one just kind of lingered somewhere in the middle.
21) Heavenly Creatures (1994 - Peter Jackson) 6.5/10
22) Moonstruck (1987 - Norman Jewison) 9/10 - See the TOP 20: #202 - #301 for updated thoughts.
23) The Gleaners and I (2000 - Agnes Varda) 6/10
24) Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould (1993 - Francois Girard) 4.5/10
25) Kiss of the Spider Woman (1985 - Hector Babenco) 8/10 - See the TOP 20: #202 - #301 for updated thoughts.
26) Body Heat (1981 - Lawrence Kasdan) 8.5/10 - See the TOP 20: #202 - #301 for updated thoughts.
27) Children of a Lesser God (1986 - Randa Haines) 5.5/10
28) Jaws (1975 - Steven Spielberg) 10/10 - We're currently sitting at 10 films watched toward our next TOP 20 and this still sits atop the mountain, only possibly rivaled by "Schindler's List".
29) Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977 - Steven Spielberg) 4.5/10 - This is just too dull to get about an average rating.
30) Big (1988 - Penny Marshall) 7/10
31) Kes (1969 - Ken Loach) 4.5/10 - It became more and more forgettable after I watched it and a '6' was too high.
32) Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981 - Steven Spielberg) 4/10
33) E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial (1982 - Steven Spielberg) 6.5/10
34) The Color Purple (1985 - Steven Spielberg) 7/10
35) Trust (1990 - Hal Hartley) 5.5/10 - I wanted very badly to give this one a nod of approval and despite the great performance from Martin Donovan, I just couldn't make heads or tails of this one and any message that was trying to be conveyed was lost on me.

NON-1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die - As seen in July 2011
1) Rabbit Hole (2010 - John Cameron Mitchell) 4/10 - I’m just so tired of these cliché films. “Our child has died and now we’re going to be sad for the length of this movie” – How many times has this been done? Also, when did all these film makers get together and decide that endings for movies were no longer necessary? There are so many films that come out, and I notice it more in the modern era than I used to, that DON’T have ending. They’re just left wide open, and sometimes that’s fine, but I didn’t care enough about these characters to make speculations about how everything turned out, after the film ends. If you ask me, there’s no resolution to this family’s situation either. I mean, at the end they’re just left there sitting in their yard with blank expressions on their faces and discussing how they’ll try their best to act normal around others. Why did I just sit here for ninety minutes and watch these characters mope around about their dead child, if in the end we’re not going to finally come to a happy medium for these characters? Eckhart was amazing, but that’s where the amazing things in “Rabbit Hole” stop. Kidman was just there and in my opinion, the two really didn’t have any chemistry. That may be a good thing though, because you’d want a little bit of distance between the actors, when their characters are supposed to be distanced as well. I didn’t like it and I think after watching 300 films from the “1001” book, I’m starting to get really picky.

...and that's the only non-1001 movie I watched this month. I'll be back on or around the 1st of September to take a look at the films I beheld in August.

August 1, 2011 8:41pm

865. Schindler's List (1993)

Running Time: 195 minutes
Directed By: Steven Spielberg
Written By: Steven Zaillian, from the novel Schindler's Ark by Thomas Keneally
Main Cast: Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes, Embeth Davidtz, Caroline Goodall

NOTE: The next film in the "Spielberg Week" line was SUPPOSED to have been "Jurassic Park". However, when I received the disc from Netflix, I quickly realized the incapability for Netflix customers to simply remove a disc from it's sleeve, place it in their DVD players, watch it, remove it from the players, place it back into the sleeve, place it in an envelope and stick it in the mailbox. In other words, it was damaged and thus, at the forty minute mark of "Jurassic Park" I was abruptly halted. With the replacement disc of "Jurassic Park" not shipping until today and the fact that I had already received Schindler's List, I just decided to go ahead and jump ahead. They're both from 1993 anyway, so it's not that big of a jump. Now then...

SPIELBERG WEEK: CHAPTER 6

"Schindler's List" arrived to me in the form of two DVDs and admittedly I watched the film in two sittings. I wanted to watch it all in one, but last night the desire to sleep overtook me and wanting to give this film my undivided attention, I waited until today to finish it off.

The story of "Schindler's List" is actually quite a simple one. It's actually the story of hope. The story of one man with a heart, in a time and place where only heartless souls seemed to exist. The story of how, even in the most evil of times, a little good will always shine through. Liam Neeson is Oskar Schindler, a member of the Nazi Party who arrives in Krakow, shortly after the beginning of World War II and the Nazi invasion. Schindler's initial motives are to profit from the war by opening up a factory and manufacturing mess kits. Not knowing anything about the subject though, he meets up with Itzhak Stern (Kingsley), a member of the Jewish community and the Krakow Judenrat, who has ties to the Jewish business community. With the help of Stern, Schindler gets his factory up and running, hiring many Polish Jews and deeming the "essential" to the German war effort, thus saving them from annihilation. Meanwhile, Amon Goeth (Fiennes) arrives in Krakow, a heartless man (to counter Schindler's heart) who serves as SS Lieutenant and Commander of the Plaszow concentration camp. Goeth is evil incarnate, who will draw his pistol at the drop of a dime, executing Jews for no apparent reason. As the film progresses, Schindler rises in the ranks of the Nazi community, getting on Goeth's good side, while at the same time doing his best to keep his workers safe.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

When I first started this blog, I used to harp on the fact that I was rating each film by my pure enjoyment level. I remember, one time, someone told me how that was a mistake and that not every "must see" film is going to be an enjoyable experience and that there are other facets to look at when rating a film. At the time, I wrote it off, but today I realized that the person who said that was correct. "Schindler's List" is not going to provide you with an enjoyable time at the movies...unless of course you're a heartless bastard. But, it is a "must see", great film. It's a great film for many reasons, reasons of which we'll get into and discuss.

Let's tackle the acting first. For starters, Liam Neeson was neither great, nor terrible. I think a lot of times people confuse the greatness of the real Oskar Schindler with the good acting that was Liam Neeson AS Oskar Schindler. Neeson did a fine job, but I wouldn't go so far as to call it outstanding. The real acting home run that was cracked out of the park here, was Ralph Fiennes as Amon Goeth. The fact that Tommy Lee Jones was given a Best Supporting Actor Oscar for "The Fugitive", while Fiennes stayed seated, graciously in his chair, is laughable. Fiennes was the Best Supporting Actor of 1993 and another one of a long string of reasons to dismiss the Academy Awards. Fiennes plays the character of Goth to subtle perfection. You could literally pick apart his portrayal and study it for little nuances, that made his character that much more human and more evil. To me, Goeth was an easily manipulated man. Someone who, if he respected you, you could get him to do whatever you wanted. Someone weak, someone who covered up his weakness with his self imposed power to murder. Goeth respected Schindler and you can see that in the way he thanks his servant, only when Schindler thanks her first. In the way that he tries his best to be forgiving, only after having a talk with Schindler on the very matter. Fiennes was brilliant.

And while we're on the subject of Goeth (pretty much the sole perpetrator of all the violence in the film), kudos to Mr. Hollywood, Steven Spielberg for not painting the holocaust with a rose colored brush and actually stepping up to the plate and showing us the horrors that were committed. I'm not saying, "Thank you Mr. Spielberg for showing me images that will surely haunt me, because I'm a psychopath who likes to watch these sorts of things" - I'm just saying that ANY Holocaust story needs to be painted with it's true colors. Violence and bloodshed need to be shown and the point, that this was a true massacre and an injustice, really needs to be hammered home.

In a way though and I could very well be wrong, this whole film just felt like a frail attempt from Spielberg to garner a larger audience. It just reeked of someone who felt he was selling out to such a degree, by making so many big budget blockbusters, that he said "I'm going to make a really beautiful movie, about the horrors of the Holocaust and I'll show my naysayers that I'm more than just the prettiest girl at the ball, but that I also have talent." I mean, is it just a coincidence that Spielberg picked the one good hearted Nazi to focus his camera on? Out of all the true evil that existed during that time, couldn't Spielberg have really stepped up and just told us a very evil, very ugly story? It was almost as if Spielberg wanted to show us a real life Indiana Jones and so he picked Oskar Schindler and said "Here, look at this guy, he's real and he's good and look at my beautiful movie, which I shot in black and white to prove that I'm an artist and not a Hollywood sell-out, for which I'll surely WIN many accolades!" OR I might be all wrong. Surely a man capable of making "Schindler's List" is in the movie business for more than just accolades and a pat on the head. Surely, someone capable of only making big budget blockbusters, wouldn't know the first thing about making a film as great as "Schindler's List".

What did the little girl in the red jacket mean? The film is shot in black and white and it has a couple of scenes in which color is spliced in. The ending, where the real Schindler Jews walk by Oskar's grave and place stones upon it, the lighting of candles (turning from gray to orange) and the appearance of a little girl, wearing a red coat. What was the significance of that? I don't know for sure, but I have a theory and I wanted to throw it out there. To me, it was simply to show that Schindler had a heart. When we first see the girl, Schindler is sitting atop a hill, watching the Nazi's proceed with the final liquidation of the Krakow Ghetto, as they comb the streets carrying out mass murder. The child appears, in her red coat, and Schindler, not able to bear the executions, focuses on her - watching her pass through the streets and ignoring the evil. It even serves slightly to take even the audience's eyes away from the violence, as I found myself focusing on the girl and hearing artillery fire. Schindler didn't want to look weak, so he picked that one girl, in her pretty red coat and focused on her and watched her and imagined her finding a safe haven. She served as a way for him to ignore the atrocities of his own party and simply find one beautiful thing in all the chaos and focus on it. Later, right before the Plaszow concentration camp is to be relocated to Auschwitz, we see the girl again - this time she's dead and lying atop a pile of dead bodies. This, in my opinion, is symbolic of the fact that Schindler couldn't ignore the pain of the Jewish people any longer. He could no longer focus on something pretty, but he was now going to have to force himself to pay attention and take action. I could be totally wrong with that assumption, but that's what it meant to me. I haven't actually looked it up yet, to get the general consensus on what it actually means, so I'll have to do that.

"Schindler's List" is a "MUST SEE" movie. As much as I might believe Spielberg to lack genuine emotion and talent, you can't deny him here. He produced a film worthy of every film goers eyes and told a really, horribly sad story. In the midst of all that pain and sadness, however, shined a soldier of fortune - someone who took a dire situation and cast even the smallest of hope toward a fledgling peoples way. I'm not sure how many more times I'll revisit "Schindler's List". It's a film that is tedious to watch at times. There's a whole middle portion where not a whole lot seems to take place. BUT, the film makes good use of it's 3+ hour time limit and flows along quite nicely. I'll go ahead and stop there, because this is turning into an epic rant and I think I've said all that I needed to say.

RATING: 9/10 We'll call it a '9' for now and depending on how long it stays with me and how much I think about it over the next few weeks, we'll see where it stands when I do my August recap. It very well may climb to the full monty of ratings by then.

MOVIES WATCHED: 310
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 691

August 1, 2011 3:22pm