201. Ladri di biciclette/The Bicycle Thief (1948)

Running Time: 89 minutes
Directed By: Vittorio De Sica
Written By: Cesare Zavattini, Oreste Biancoli, Suso d'Amico, Vittorio De Sica, Adolfo Franci, Gerardo Guerrieri, from the novel Ladri di biciclette by Luigi Bartolini
Main Cast: Lamberto Maggiorani, Enzo Staiola, Lianella Carell, Gino Saltamerenda, Vittorio Antonucci
Click here to view the trailer

WHO KNEW A STOLEN BICYCLE COULD BE SO COMPELLING?

Technically this wasn't supposed to be the next movie I watched, but since I canceled my Netflix account today, I needed to watch this yesterday, via their streaming service, so as not to miss out on it. It's also worth noting that I only have six more movies from the 1940s left to watch and I'll have watched everything from the beginning of THE BOOK through to 1950!

Antonio Ricci (Maggiorani) is an unemployed man, living in postwar Rome, with his son Bruno (Staiola) and wife Maria (Carell). When the film opens, workers stand outside an unemployment office and wait to hear their names get called and Antonio's does. It seems that Antonio has the skills required to hang movie posters and at whopping wages that would allow him to feed his family and then some, he's ecstatic. There's only one hitch: he has to have a bicycle to do the job and because his family needed the money, he recently had to pawn his bicycle. He offers to do the job on foot, but the unemployment agent insists he have a bicycle or else he'll find someone else. Antonio takes the job, promising to be there the next morning, come hell or high water. When he gets home and tells Maria about it, she offers to hock the bed sheets so that they can get the bike out of the pawn shop and so that's what they do. The next morning, Antonio has a new lease on life and is more than ready to start his new job. However, he's just getting started when a teenage, hoodlum steals his bicycle. He tries to chase down the bike-napper, but to no avail and eventually he loses him in the hustle and bustle of the city. Now, he's back to square one and he's crushed. He vows to spend as much time as it takes trying to find the bike and so that's what he, his son and some friends do. The film takes place over the course of about thirty-six hours.

SPOILER ALERT!!

THE BOOK is quick to note that this is a fine example of Italian neorealism, but you know what? I really didn't know that when I was watching this movie. THE BOOK also notes that the intended themes were mostly lost on American audience, which would explain why "The Bicycle Thief" (or "Bicycle Thieves" which is the literal translation) won the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language film. I think that second fact holds very true for me personally, because as I said I didn't give two hoots about it being a neorealist film or that it was a communist film and instead formed my own ideas and themes throughout the picture. I formed many thoughts on this film and what it meant to me and in order to clarify them more clearly and accurately, I'll break it down paragraph by paragraph:

FREEDOM AND HAPPINESS
I found that the bicycle, for Antonio, represented freedom and happiness, as he'd be able, through the use of his bike, to provide for his family with this new job. Look, work is a drag, but the money we earn is what keeps our lives moving. It's how we're able to provide for our family and buy the things we want. I kind of wish they'd shown more of Antonio doing his job, before the bike was stolen, because we could've seen a man starting to reform his life, getting into a new work routine and viewed him, if only for a short time, as a happy person. I feel that a lengthier beginning would've only hammered home the impact of what having his bike stolen meant to Antonio and how everything he'd dreamed about for the past twenty-four hours, was now gone. Look at how happy Antonio is when he gets his bike back and even when he and his son are fixing it up the next morning. How happy he is when he's handed an omelet by his wife, tells her goodbye and heads out for his first day on his new job, his new life. It's something we can all relate to, because we all get up everyday and go to work and sure, most times we're not as gaga about it as Antonio was, but we realize it's a necessity and when you look at it from Antonio's point of view, it's something to be proud of - having a job.

THE THIEF
To me, the thief represents a group of people that are always going to be there to ruin what you work so hard for. This world will always be full of assholes, who do what they want, when they want to do it, with no regard for anyone else. Had the thief known how much the bike meant to Antonio, would he have still taken it? Sure he would've, because what does a common street thief care about Antonio, as long as he can make a buck or two. The other thing I want to say about the thief, is how I really didn't know, toward the end, if that was the same man that stole Antonio's bike or not. Was I really not supposed to know or was it just me, who couldn't recollect what the thief looked like? See, I liked not being sure, because that kind of put us in Antonio's shoes, because really, he wasn't sure either.

THE ENDING
How many of you urged, through your screens, for Antonio to steal the bike at the end? Once he did, how many of you hoped he'd get away with it? I did, on both points.

Did you ever ask someone an ethical question and they say something like, "Well I'd have to be put into that situation to provide an accurate answer?" That's kind of what "The Bicycle Thief" does to it's audience, at the end. It puts us in Antonio's shoes and if you root for him to steal the bike and root for him to pedal faster and elude the people who are trying to chase him, then maybe that's what you'd do in that situation. I mean, I hope I wouldn't stoop to stealing someone else's property, I don't think I would, but none of us know the feelings that were inside that character, how desperately he wanted that job and to be able to provide for his wife & son. Even when he tries to just forget about the bike and have lunch with his son, he can't help but be drawn back to thinking about all the money he'd have made and all the things he and his family would've been able to do. He gets sucked right back in and in his moment of despair, he thieves a bike of his own.

---

Anyway, screw the communism and the neorealism and just watch this movie for what it is. Don't try reading too far into it and trying to understand the intended themes, because it's not worth it and a fabulous movie is provided, without all that mumbo jumbo tied into it. Sure, it wasn't the best movie I've seen this season or anything, but it was very good and whether or not it'll make the TOP 20 (in a season with a multitude of contenders) will have to be seen, when the time comes. It's a movie that makes you think, feel and really makes you ache for it's characters.

RATING: 7.5/10  Now I'm kind of itching to see more De Sica movies, as I feel, just through this one picture, that he really knew how to speak to his audiences, while at the same time making movies that meant something to him.

MOVIES WATCHED: 687
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 314

May 23, 2013  4:02pm

The FINAL 15...and other notes

It's become sort of a tradition here at the '1001 Movies I (Apparently) Must See Before I Die' for me to swing in when only fifteen films remain in a season and tell you what those films are and give you any other notes that you may need to know. First, a few notes...

1) I think it goes without saying (well I've said it plenty within my reviews) that when these fifteen films are done and the new TOP 20 is compiled, I'll be taking a hiatus. I don't expect to last too long, because I'll only have 300 films remaining and I'm sure I'll be chomping at the bit to take care of them and put this baby to bed. I'd say before the leaves start changing colors, I'll be back to reviewing movies.

2) Because it was set to renew tomorrow and I only needed like nine more movies from them, I went ahead and put my Netflix account on hold. I just didn't want to have to pay for a month's service, only to use it to get a handful of films. I figure between what I have here, what I'll still have from Netflix and what I can rustle up online, I can still do the final fifteen that I want to do, without any hitches. However, please know that this final fifteen is TENTATIVE and if need be, I'll simply replace where I have to, using stuff I already have around the house.

3) I won't have a sneak peek video for you guys at the end of this season, since I changed to the "5 old/5 new" format, but I can already tell you that I'll be kicking off the next season with "Star Wars", "The Empire Strikes Back" and "Return of the Jedi". I wanted something sort of special to kick the season off with and apparently a lot of people think those movies are sort of special. Do I? Well.....you'll see.

By the way, speaking of the "5 old/5 new" format, I hope it's working as well for you guys as it is for me. I'm really digging it and finding that it's a good way to really mix things up and keep things interesting & fresh. Now then.........what we came here for......

In no particular order, these are the FINAL 15 films I'm planning to watch, this season:

1. The Children of Paradise (1945 - Marcel Carne)
2. Beauty and the Beast (1946 - Jean Cocteau)
3. Three Kings (1999 - David O. Russell)
4. The Thin Red Line (1998 - Terrence Malick)
5. There's Something About Mary (1998 - Farrelly, Farrelly)
6. Happiness (1998 - Todd Solondz)
7. Run Lola Run (1998 - Tom Tykwer)
8. The Ghost and Mrs. Muir (1947 - Joseph L. Mankiewicz)
9. The Bicycle Thief (1948 - Vittorio De Sica)
10. Letter from an Unknown Woman (1948 - Max Ophuls)
11. Force of Evil (1948 - Abraham Polonsky)
12. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948 - John Huston)
13. Open Your Eyes (1997 - Alejandro Amenabar)
14. Titanic (1997 - James Cameron)
15. Taste of Cherry (1997 - Abbas Kiarostami)

The reason I say these are in no particular order, is because I'm flirting with the idea of just watching all of the 1940s stuff first, followed by all the 1990s stuff. Still flirting with that idea, but I can tell you that "The Bicycle Thief" will be the next movie I watch, because it streams on Netflix and since this is the last day I'll have that, I need to get it done.

That is all. Hopefully I can wrap this all up soon. I know I've been moving at a snail's pace, but maybe I can muster up the time and energy to start movie a little faster and get that new TOP 20 put together.

May 22, 2013  1:24pm

186. My Darling Clementine (1946)

Running Time: 97 minutes
Directed By: John Ford
Written By: Samuel G. Engel, Sam Hellman
Main Cast: Henry Fonda, Victor Mature, Cathy Downs, Linda Darnell, Walter Brennan
Click here to view the trailer

EARP AGAIN

For the curious, I'm going to try and squeeze in a couple reviews today and start to get this train rolling toward the finale. Last night I was able to take in John Ford's 1946 western offering, "My Darling Clementine" - a movie that I had actually seen before and one that I feel is kind of *meh*.

The plot highly resembles a movie I watched earlier this season, "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral" and tells the story of Wyatt Earp, Doc Holliday and their adventures in the town of Tombstone. This time around Henry Fonda plays the Wyatt Earp role and when we start out, him and his brothers (Virgil, Morgan and James) are driving cattle out west. Along the way they pass the Clanton gang, consisting of Old Man Clanton (Brennan) and his four sons. Clanton offers to buy the Earps' cattle, but they decline and instead get directions to a nearby town, which just happens to be Tombstone. Later that night, the older Earp brothers leave the younger James behind, riding into Tombstone to see if they can rustle up some grub and maybe a shave. When they return to James, later in the night, they find him killed and the cattle stolen. Wyatt and his brothers ride back to Tombstone and Wyatt is offered job as town Marshall, with his brothers serving as the deputies. Wyatt makes it his mission to find the men that killed his brother James, even though it's really no secret that it was the Clanton's. Meanwhile, Wyatt restores order in Tombstone, prompting decent people to come outside again and driving out the miscreants. Wyatt also meets and develops a friendship with Doc Holliday, the gambler of the town and a very sick man, which we see due to his violent bouts of coughing. Like most westerns, it all leads to a big showdown, this time at the O.K. Corral.

SPOILER ALERT!!

Well this is the third John Ford I've watched in just this season alone and I can say that I am definitely not a fan of his. Don't get me wrong, "My Darling Clementine" wasn't bad...but it wasn't great either and with Henry Fonda as part of the cast, that's rare. For starters, I'm just not that thrilled with the Wyatt Earp story as, apparently, everyone else in Hollywood seems to be. Honestly, there's just not much substance to it. Wyatt and his brothers are good, the Clanton's are bad and Doc Holliday fits somewhere in the middle, but mostly he's good. Then, in the middle act somewhere, there's a couple of girls fighting for Doc's attention and throughout the whole thing, the bad guys break stuff and the good guys try not to use their guns. All of the characters seem to fit in these predetermined molds and there doesn't seem to be any room for straying from that. There's just no surprises and it all gets wrapped up just the way we thought it would in the first five minutes of the picture. The Clanton's turn out to be the bad guys, Wyatt takes the Marshall job in Tombstone and in the end, it's the Earps (plus Doc) battling it out with the Clanton's at O.K. Corral. No fuss, no muss.

But, then again, Henry Fonda is in there and how can you beat down a Henry Fonda picture. He's probably my favorite actor of all-time, so when I see one of his pictures, I really expect something special and as much as he tried, this picture ultimately just didn't fully deliver. The camera shots were pretty amazing too and I spotted dozens of images that were really capturing magic, mostly far away shots of Earp as he walked in the rain or sat, with his foot propped on a bannister, on the porch. And let me just say this, I really thought the whole cast did a fine job, not just Fonda. I liked Ward Bond, Victor Mature, Linda Darnell and even Walter Brennan. I mean, who'd have thought this guy could actually play a decent villain, but he totally pulled it off. I cannot believe this is the same bumbling idiot from those Howard Hawks movies.

RATING: 6.5/10  Not good, not bad, but just sort of easing into the dead zone. However, after "Henry V" and "Ivan the Terrible", seeing Henry Fonda bust out his acting chops was a breath of fresh air.

MOVIES WATCHED: 686
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 315

May 22, 2013  12:57pm

171. Ivan Grozny I i II/Ivan the Terrible, Parts One and Two (1944)

Running Time: 187 minutes
Directed By: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Written By: Sergei M. Eisenstein
Main Cast: Nikolay Cherkasov, Efrosinia Staritska, Vladimir Staritsky, Malyuta Skuratov, Alexei Basmanov
Click here to view the trailer

TERRIBLE? PRETTY MUCH!

No, I didn't like this movie much at all, but it didn't come as any surprise to me and shouldn't come as any surprise to you, because Sergei Eisenstein was one of the guy's, early on, that I bashed on a weekly basis, during my watching of "Strike", "October" and "The Battleship Potemkin".

Again, like "Henry V", I'm just not going to go into detail on the plot synopsis, because for the most part, a lot the plot went over my head and honestly, I couldn't be bothered to give two hoots about the history of Russia or the rule of "Ivan the Terrible", as it was presented in an extremely bland manner. With "Ivan", you're simply getting the history of a man, Ivan IV, who ruled Russia with an iron fist (and a killer goatee). Let's be honest here, based solely on that, you're going to be able to decide whether or not this movie is for you or for someone else. Are you a history buff? Do you like learning tyrannical czar's and the history of Russia? Those are questions that, if you answered 'yes', then this may be the film for you. I, on the other hand, am not a history buff and (in most cases) would much rather be told a fictional tale, a made-up story, one that can be bent and shaped as the filmmaker sees fit. In the rare occasion when I do enjoy or want to see a film about real world history, I prefer it to be a topic that I have, at least a little bit, of prior knowledge on (U.S. history and Holocaust movies, for example). Trust me, my dislike for this movie and the topic of world history is my own fault, because I live in a bubble, in Pennsylvania, USA and 95% of world topics are going to go way over my head.

However, unlike "Henry V", there was one redeeming quality in "Ivan the Terrible" and that was the camera work. Eisenstein seems to have a thing for filming close-ups of his actor's faces, seemingly directing his photographer to get in tight and capture reactions and expressions. I loved those facials, which actually reminds me that I've been meaning to bring this up. This journey has made me realize many things about my relationship to films. One of the many things I've learned as that I will always go nuts for a really good, tight, close facial expression or reaction. Cagney at the end of "Angels with Dirty Faces", Glenn Close in "Dangerous Liaisons", even the eyes of Sister Ruth in "Black Narcissus", a film that I didn't care for, but have never forgotten that crazed close-up of Kathleen Byron. In "Ivan", there are dozens of close-ups and really great ones of Nikolay Cherkasov, his goatee casting distinct shadows on the wall and a great use of a foreground/background shot, with Ivan peering over the armies.

RATING: 2/10  However, the camera work was just a hint of goodness, in an otherwise completely dreadful time at the movies. I REALLY REALLY REALLY need something fantastic to come along, especially after two HUGE stinkers.

MOVIES WATCHED: 685
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 316

May 20, 2013  6:17pm

170. HENRY V (1944)

Running Time: 137 minutes
Directed By: Laurence Olivier
Written By: Dallas Bower, Alan Dent, from play by William Shakespeare
Main Cast: Laurence Olivier, Max Adrian, Harcourt Williams, Felix Aylmer, Robert Helpmann

V IS RIGHT OUT!

If you followed me on Twitter (@adduvall1984) then you'd know that I had a hard time getting through this one. I tweeted about it last night, when I was midway through it and today, citing that the review was coming and "wouldn't be pretty".

Look, I'm not even going to try and fool myself or anyone reading this. I have absolutely no freaking clue what "Henry V" was about, except to say that it was, indeed, about Henry V. So instead of trying to fake my way through a plot synopsis, let me just get right into the criticism and I'll just pull the trigger on this one quick and get it over with. First and foremost, why don't I know what this film is about, if I watched it last night? Well, for starters, the actors are talking with a Shakespearean tongue and I hate to admit it, but the language was Greek to me. I don't want to come off as uncultured, unintelligent or anything like that, but I barely understood a word of what was actually being said or what was going on. All I can tell you is that Henry V is played by Olivier, who is, no doubt, a great actor and for some reason or another, he leads the English into a war against the French - The Battle of Agincourt. Then there's my mind and how it so wanted to wander and how I just didn't care to stop it. I've never had a such a severely wandering mind as I did watching "Henry V"...I just, for the life of me, could not focus.

This film is the very definition of a boring film. Sure, the acting is top notch, I can't take that away from them and I won't even try to. They're British talent for God's sake, of course they can act and most certainly in a Shakespeare adaptation - it's what they were born to do. Acting aside and unless you're a Shakespeare fan, I'm begging you to tell me the appeal of this film. It's nothing without it's great acting (and it's not like great acting is ultra rare - they're a hundreds of movies, with hundreds of A+ performances) and it's appeal to Shakespeare fans. I just can't imagine someone who doesn't dig Shakespeare sitting down to this one and being anything but utterly and completely bored to tears. Let's put it this way: One of the most interesting scenes in the film and perhaps the one I understood the best, is the scene where Princess Katherine is being taught English by Alice (her assistant or whatever she's called). What's so bad about that? The entire scene is in FRENCH!! Think about it folks, the scene I understood the most was a scene that was in a language I do not speak, nor understand! And if ever there was a point in the film where they had my full attention, it was this point.

See, this is why I'm not a professional movie reviewer and why I probably never will be. Because this is the type of movie that they'd crucify me for not loving. Sorry kids, but I can promise you that I will never watch this film again and DAMN THE BOOK for making me watch it in the first place. This is literally ONE OF the worst movies THE BOOK has put me through and I'm so glad it's behind me. Again, I don't want to come off as ignorant or unintelligent, but this was just mind numbing.

RATING: 1/10  Probably the worst film of the season or at least tied for the worst of the season with some other piece of garbage. "Ivan the Terrible" is next and the return of Sergei M. Eisenstein to the blog...God be with me.

MOVIES WATCHED: 684
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 317

May 18, 2013  10:39pm

937. Fight Club (1999)

Running Time: 139 minutes
Directed By: David Fincher
Written By: Jim Uhls, from novel by Chuck Palahniuk
Main Cast: Edward Norton, Brad Pitt, Helena Bonham Carter, Jared Leto, Meatloaf
Click here to view the trailer

I AM JACK'S NOD OF APPROVAL

You know, I probably shouldn't even be writing this. I was told, during the course of this movie, that the first two rules of Fight Club are: You DO NOT talk about Fight Club! Oh well, as long as everybody agrees to keep it on the "D.L.", I think I'm safe.

First and foremost, before I even attempt to write a plot synopsis on "Fight Club", know that Edward Norton is the Narrator and that his character is never given an official name. Therefore, I'll simply be calling him the Narrator. Kay? Now then...The whole story is told in flashback, with the audience seeing the end of the movie first and then being told basically the entire story, by the Narrator. We begin with the Narrator (Norton) and his inability to sleep. He's your pretty basic guy. He's got a nine to five office job, he's a slave to the Ikea catalogs and he has a pretty decent looking apartment. It's just that he can't sleep and despite going to doctor's, they all refuse to give him anything to help him. Then, he gets involved with support groups intended for people with terminal illnesses (testicular cancer, blood parasites, etc.). The Narrator doesn't have any of these illnesses, but going to the meetings allows him to feel SOMETHING and that allows him to sleep. He's going pretty good for a while, until he meets Marla Singer (Carter), who is also a support group faker, someone who tours the different illness groups, for one reason or another, without actually having the illnesses. With Marla there, the Narrator can't focus the way he used to and confronts her. They agree to split up the meetings and to never see each other again. Even later, the Narrator meets Tyler Durden (Pitt), an opposite copy of the Narrator, who dresses different, acts different and looks different. They have a chance encounter on an airplane, where they sit next to one another and then depart...nothing special. When the Narrator arrives home that night, he finds that his apartment has blown up in a freak accident and for reasons unknown even to him, he calls Tyler (they exchanged business cards). Tyler agrees to let the Narrator stay with him and after a while they become pretty close. Eventually, the two invent and develop Fight Club, an underground, fighting league, which ultimately turns into Project Mayhem, a terrorist group.

SPOILER ALERT!!

The first time I saw "Fight Club", I didn't like it very much. Then again, I was probably a little to young to be seeing such a confusing film anyway, so that was probably my own fault. Later, after rewatching it several times, I grew fonder of it and ultimately, I really liked it. Now that I've said that, let me remind you of what this journey is doing to my personal film tastes: breaking them down and rebuilding them. Suffice it to say, that I still really do LIKE "Fight Club", but think that it's inclusion in the top ten of the IMDB Top 250 is a little ridiculous and even more ridiculous is the fact that Empire even included it as #10, in it's list of "The 500 Greatest Movies of All-Time". Sure, it's really good, it makes you think, it's got a lot of great camerawork and it's an all around good story, but it has its flaws too and under no circumstances is it THAT good. In fact, may I just take a moment to applaud THE BOOK, which didn't even give it a full page blurb or any photos (in my edition anyway). Kudos to them for not bowing to public opinion!

So what's going on here? Maybe you stumbled across this review because you've got questions, you seek answers or you just don't know what to think and want a little clarification on what you just watched. Well, we've got a man (Edward Norton) who has a name, but we never know it. Due to his intense lack of sleep, he begins to hallucinate and furthermore, goes so far as to create an altar ego: Tyler Durden. See, Tyler is everything that the Narrator isn't, that the Narrator wants to be. He's cool, he's independent, he's great in bed, he smokes, he's good looking, he wears a pretty sweet red leather jacket, etc. Most importantly, this altar ego doesn't bow to public opinion, consumerism and doesn't meet the expectations set upon him by society. He does his own thing and that's what works for him. The altar ego is a rebel, he makes things happen, he's got a plan. That plan is Project Mayhem, a plan that is going to give a great big FUCK YOU to corporate America, without really hurting anyone...anyone that matters anyway, in his opinion.

This movie made me think about a few things. The first thing it made me think about was the fact that you RARELY see any good man vs. self movies. We see man vs. man movies all the time, man vs. nature movies all the time and even man vs. society movies are a lot more prevalent than man vs. self. Okay, so I guess we see them in much milder forms, but if ever there were an example of man vs. self, then it is "Fight Club". The other thing the movie made me think about was how terrible things get started. What started as a mere group of guys who wanted to see if they could hold their own in a fight, ended up being a terrorist cell. How many fight clubs are being started right now? Maybe they aren't even fight clubs. In my town, we have a group of guys who meet at an abandoned grocery store parking lot and race their cars. They (supposedly) call themselves the "car club". What I'm getting at is how many groups of guys get together for seemingly harmless things and end up doing dastardly deeds? If you get enough people together, sooner or later, someone's going to suggest something that's a little out there and if that someone is popular enough, the whole group will surely chime in.

A man puts a loaded gun into his mouth and pulls the trigger, for the sole purpose of killing his imaginary friend. That's "Fight Club". It's a clever, intelligent story and we may never see anything again that is as innovative, unique or original as this...unless Charlie Kaufman has something to say about it. It's impossible to be a film fan and not like this movie and all I was stating by the above paragraph, is that it certainly does have it's flaws. I'm still convinced that there are plot holes in there somewhere...somehow, there's got to be! I'm not crazy about Edward Norton either and honestly, I'd go so far as to say that this is a Brad Pitt show, who easily one ups Norton. If you want a good Norton flick, go watch "American History X", because this isn't his hour in the spotlight. I'd also say that the film is just too long. My wife sat down to watch this with me and even having seen it before, decided to bow out at about the hour and a half mark, because she just didn't care anymore. If they could've wrapped everything up in a nice, neat bow, within two hours, this would've been A LOT better....but, as it is...

RATING: 7/10  ...call it a '7'. Can't, in good conscience, go higher than that, because I think I even liked "All About My Mother" better, overall.

MOVIES WATCHED: 683
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 318

May 17, 2013  12:16am

940. Todo sobre mi madre/All About My Mother (1999)

Running Time: 101 minutes
Directed By: Pedro Almodovar
Written By: Pedro Almodovar
Main Cast: Cecilia Roth, Marisa Paredes, Antonia San Juan, Penelope Cruz, Candela Pena
Click here to view the trailer

A (LATE) MOTHER'S DAY TRIBUTE

So this past Sunday was Mother's Day and had I put two and two together, a little bit earlier, I would've watched "All About My Mother" then, instead of last night. Oh well, better late than never, as I take in Almodovar's 1999 tribute to mother's everywhere and women in general.

The film is going to be a little tricky to explain, as it implements the use of several characters to tell a pretty complex little story. We start with Manuela (Roth), who we see is a nurse who oversees donor organ transplants. We also learn right away that she has a son, Esteban, who is interested in becoming a writer. It is Esteban's 17th birthday and Manuela takes him out to a theater performance of "A Streetcar Named Desire". After the show, Esteban convinces Manuela to let him stand outside and wait for the star of the show, Huma Rojo (Paredes), so that he may get her autograph. Despite the rain, Manuela doesn't want to disappoint the kid on his birthday, so she obliges. When Huma finally comes out, she gets into a taxi right away and despite Esteban's knocks on the window, Huma and her girlfriend pull away. Esteban, determined to get her autograph chases down the taxi and is killed by another, oncoming car, which runs him down. Manuela is grief stricken, to say the least and decides to go to Barcelona, where Esteban's father is. Esteban had always wanted to know about his father, but due to his lifestyle choices (he's a transsexual prostitute), she'd always kept it from him. In Barcelona, Manuela meets up with old friend Agrado (another transsexual prostitute), meets Huma Rojo and meets a nun, Rosa (Cruz), whom she becomes very close with. I'll leave it at that, but lets just suffice it to say that the story is a brilliantly spun web, that just keeps on producing turn after turn.

I've got to be honest, despite loving "Talk to Her", I was a little hesitant to watch "All About My Mother", because I'd heard that "Talk to Her" was his most normal film and that all of his others were a little bit odd. Well, I guess you could categorize "All About My Mother" as a little different in it's style, but it still dealt with very human characters, getting into very human, real situations. I thought the film was almost AS good as "Talk to Her" and while I enjoyed his 2002 offering better overall, there were aspects of "Mother" that I liked better. I thought that this movie was much more complex, better written and possibly even better acted.  Cecilia Roth was an amazing discovery for me, as I'd never heard of her before and really thought she poured her heart out here. I'm left wondering what else she's been in and where I can get a hold of it. Even Penelope Cruz, who I'd never really cared for in the past, turned in a pretty decent performance. My only question is this, which I couldn't seem to find the answer to in the little research that I did after watching this one: Were the men who played women in this film, really men? or were they women? I honestly couldn't tell and I'm really talking about Agrado here.

Look, I've been saying for days now that I'm getting a little burnt out on writing these reviews and working my way toward my short term goal of 700 watched, but "All About My Mother" actually made me grateful that I've decided to keep on truckin'. It's that type of film that makes you want to watch more films, because it makes you realize that around every corner could be your next favorite movie. "All About My Mother" isn't my new favorite movie and it did have a few flaws, however, it was good enough to give me back a little more excitement, which I'll need to finish out the season and for that I am thankful. The story is top notch and while the "Talk to Her" story was a little more simple and a little better, I thought this was right up there. It also makes me realize what a magnificent filmmaker Almodovar is and really makes me excited to see more of his pictures.

RATING: 7.5/10  Really good and hopefully I can find a nice spot for it in the upcoming TOP 20 list. Almodovar may just be the directorial find of this season.

MOVIES WATCHED: 682
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 319

May 15, 2013  12:49pm