929. Lola rennt/Run Lola Run (1998)

Running Time: 81 minutes
Directed By: Tom Tykwer
Written By: Tom Tykwer
Main Cast: Franka Potente, Moritz Bleibtreu, Herbert Knaup, Nina Petri, Armin Rohde
Click here to view the trailer

WHAT IF...

Hoping to knock out a couple of movies tonight and wrap this season up as quickly as possible. First up for the evening is "Run Lola Run", which I bought on Blu-Ray years ago (my very first Blu-Ray purchase, in fact) and just got around to checking it out tonight. Let me clarify that: I had seen the film before, just not this particular copy. Now then...

The film is a product of the 90s and all you need do is watch it to realize that, as you hear the techno beats thumping in the background and characters that look like they've been pulled directly from MTV occupying the screen. The film begins with a phone call. Lola (Potente) picks up her red, ringing phone to hear her boyfriend Manni's ecstatic voice on the other end. It seems that Manni is involved in some pretty crooked activities and on this day, he was supposed to deliver 100,000 German marks to a crime boss. Everything went as planned, but when Lola didn't show up to pick him up and escort him to the drop point (her moped was stolen, hence the upcoming running), he was forced to take the subway. Aboard the subway, Manni is followed by police and through a series of unfortunate events, Manni leaves the bag of money aboard the subway and it falls into the hands of a bum. Manni knows that the crime boss will surely kill him if he can't produce the 100,000 marks. Lola tells him to stay cool and that she'll figure something out. As Manni listens to his girlfriend try to calm him, he looks upon a grocery store and tells her that if she can't do something by noon (it is now 11:40am) he plans to rob the grocery store to get the dough. From there, it's off to the races for Lola, as she runs, runs, runs and tries to figure out somehow, some way to get 100,000 marks. The film is told three separate times, with each telling having a different outcome.

The first time I saw "Run Lola Run", I loved it and this time wasn't too much different. It's actually one of those movies that seeing it for the first time has it's benefits over all the other times you'll see it. When you're first watching it and Lola is shot at around the twenty - thirty minute mark, you have a, sort of, "what the fuck" moment, as you realize the red-haired maiden from the front of the DVD case has just died. Then you realize what the director is going for and that this is a very unconventional film. It's really a very basic idea, as Tykwer examines the idea of "what if". What if Lola didn't run into the lady pushing the baby carriage, what if she did? What if Lola didn't talk to the man on the bicycle, what if she didn't? What if Lola didn't make it to Manni by noon and what if she did? It examines the idea that if you change even one minute detail of a given series of events, the entire duration and outcome of the events will also change. THE BOOK is quick to note that "Run Lola Run" is a product of the 90s and a product of a generation brought up on MTV. It also points out the music video style editing, which I really liked. Not only does the movie have an exhausting sounding title, but it is a little exhausting too. It's a very high intensity film that will keep you on your toes.

At only eighty minutes long, "Run Lola Run" actually feels like the shortest movie in the whole book, as despite it's eighty minute run time, the film seems like it's over in the snap of the fingers. It's kind of a nice change of pace, especially after all the long movies I've watched this season. Tykwer keeps everything succinct and really, he only has twenty minutes for each run, plus the time it takes to transition into each run and the few minutes of over run in each run (Lola usually arrives to Manni right at noon, so there's always another few minutes to wrap up the story). Tykwer also uses a few animated sequences and a techno beat that plays almost nonstop, throughout the entire movie to keep things interesting and upbeat.

RATING: 8/10  Don't really have a whole lot to say about this one. I really like it and something that's all I know. Sometimes I just don't have a reason why, except (in the case of "Lola") that it's original and interesting.

MOVIES WATCHED: 691
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 310

May 28, 2013  11:30pm

923. TITANIC (1997)

Running Time: 194 minutes
Directed By: James Cameron
Written By: James Cameron
Main Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Billy Zane, Frances Fisher, Gloria Stuart
Click here to view the trailer

GRANDIOSE

Yes, I'm watching backwards a little bit out of order, because my wife wanted to watch this one with me last night and so I jumped around a little bit. Don't worry though, even if I'd gone in perfect order, I'd have still gotten to "Titanic" by the end of this season.

I think, by now, we all know the story of the RMS Titanic, which set sail from England in 1912 and was billed as the "unsinkable ship". Therefore, I won't worry so much with detailing the part of the film that deals with the sinking and instead focus on the fictional part of the movie, which deals with a romance between socialite Rose DeWitt Bukater (Winslet) and drifter Jack Dawson (DiCaprio). After the prologue, which details a crew of men scouring the Atlantic Ocean, sifting through the rubble of the Titanic and searching for the Heart of the Ocean (a diamond that's worth more than the Hope Diamond), we get narration from a now 101-year-old Rose Calvert, as she recollects the few days she spent aboard the RMS Titanic. Upon boarding the massive vessel, Rose is engaged to Cal Hockley (Zane), a wealthy businessman who is looking for a wife that will compliment his wealthy status and will obey him to a tee. Rose isn't particularly happy with Cal or their engagement, but her mother is hopeful that the relationship will work out, mainly because the Bukater women are broke. Enter Jack Dawson, a drifter who wins his Titanic tickets in a poker game and board the vessel on the 3rd class level. One evening, while taking in the night air, Jack sees Rose standing on the edge of the Titanic, ready to jump. He talks to her and gets her to come down and a romance is born. The two continue to see one another, despite Cal forbidding it. The romance buds and blossoms as the movie rolls on and as Titanic rolls toward the iceberg.

SPOILER ALERT!

You know what I really hate about the "Titanic"? The fact that 50% of it is a completely made-up story. I mean, look, I know that there had to be a certain fictional element to the story, so that we, the audience, could connect to some of the characters when it came time for the Titanic to sink. However, that doesn't mean I have to like it! Have you ever looked at the figures and particulars on Cameron's work to make the Titanic and the movie "Titanic" look genuine? It's fascinating! The set of the ship was built to 90% scale to make it look as realistic as possible and according to THE BOOK, the replica was 775 feet and the real company, that provided the actual Titanic's furnishings, was hired, so that EVERYTHING down to the last chandelier was just as it was on the 1912 maiden voyage. So, in my head, to go so far out of your way to make this movie as authentic as possible and then to just make up two characters and throw them in there, is nonsense. And another thing...THE LENGTH!! Did "Titanic" actually have to have such a titanic running time? A part of me suspects that Cameron didn't want all of his hard work to go to a film that lasted any less than three hours long and so for the sake of making it all worthwhile, he made sure to produce a long picture. I really think that something around two to two and a half hours would've made everything a lot more succinct and lead to my further enjoyment of this movie.

Then again, maybe a part of the reason I didn't like "Titanic" (at first) was the fact that it is the most mainstream of all mainstream movies. For a long time, it was the highest grossing movie ever and I'm sure it still holds a lot of records for being this "titanically" big budgeted, grandiose, masterpiece. You see, the thing is, I see right through that Hollywood gloss. I don't usually like movies that do big box office numbers and commercial movies like this just (usually) don't appeal to me. But can I really hold that against this movie? What if we lived in a world where things in the movie industry were reversed? What if people went out of their way to see independent features and big budget movies like this were the ones that had a smaller, pickier audience? Then would I be more accepting of "Titanic"? I don't know...maybe, maybe not.

But the fact is, I did like this movie...when the ship started sinking. When Cameron actually gets into filming the actual sinking of the Titanic, that's when my attention got more focused. I mean, there are a few stories that I think EVERYBODY is at least somewhat interested in and the sinking of the Titanic is one of those stories. We've all heard the story. Hell, I remember reading passages in my grade school books about the Titanic. It's kind of like that special, unusual excitement you feel when you watch a movie that you've read the book to. You have a certain expectation, things you want to keep a lookout for and "Titanic" is kind of like the story that we've all read and I think we all had certain expectations for this movie that could have never been met. Maybe I'm rambling, I don't know. Anyway, the sinking of the ship is what the movies is all about. It's big, it's amazing, it's fascinating, it's a sight to behold and it's as close to actually being on one of the lifeboats and watching it really happen in 1912, as you can get. Say what you will about special effects and James Cameron, but he really put on a show in the second act and if you can watch that hour and a half piece of the boat's sinking and still have the gall to say "meh, it's so-so", then I don't know what to tell you.

In conclusion, if they'd just cut the love story between Jack and Rose in half and gave us only a spoonful of what we needed to feel an attachment to these characters and then got into the actual tragedy of the sinking boat, I think I would've taken to it A LOT more. Having Zane's character chase DiCaprio's character through a water filled ballroom, with gun in hand was just a little too overboard and proved that Cameron was really grasping at straws to add drama to a movie that came with the drama already included. I think I've rambled long enough.

RATING: 7/10  Is it possible that the battle for the "Ten Worth Mentioning" spots, in my next TOP 20, will be just as poignant as the actual TOP 20 list? There are approximately fifteen really good candidates for that section of the list and I'd call "Titanic" one of them.

MOVIES WATCHED: 690
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 311

May 28, 2013  11:45am

935. Three Kings (1999)

Running Time: 114 minutes
Directed By: David O. Russell
Written By: John Ridley, David O. Russell
Main Cast: George Clooney, Mark Wahlberg, Ice Cube, Spike Jonze, Cliff Curtis
Click here to view the trailer

IT'S NOT THE THREE MARK WAHLBERG MOVIES IN THE BOOK THAT BOTHERS ME, IT'S MORE THE TWO JAMIE KENNEDY MOVIES...

No, wait, I thought about and yes, three Mark Wahlberg movies in THE BOOK is also a little troubling. Not to mention two Cameron Diaz movies and one Ice Cube movie. Ugh. Oh well, surprisingly "Three Kings" didn't turn out to be too bad of a night at the movies and all in all I was pleased with how this one played out.

The setting is Iraq and the time is 1991. The Gulf War has just ended and everyone is gearing up to go home. Sergeant Troy Barlow (Wahlberg) is one of the thousands who can't wait to get back to the states, knowing that his wife and baby daughter are waiting for him. During a routine search of surrendering Iraqi soldiers, Barlow and his crew discover a rolled up piece of paper sticking out of the hind quarters of one of the Iraqi's. After a quick look over, Barlow realizes that the piece of paper is actually a map, which may or may not be leading to Saddam Hussein's bunkers, which are said to house millions of dollars in gold bullion. Barlow takes the map back to his Staff Sergeant, Chief Elgin (Cube) and the two deduce that it is, in fact, a map to the gold. Before they can make further plans, they're intruded on by Major Archie Gates (Clooney), who overhears the conversation and wants in on the action. Archie is two weeks away from retirement and knows that if him and the men could get their hands on the bullion, they'd be set for life. So, we're off on an adventure, but, of course, it isn't as easy as all that. Along the way the guys go from being greedy and naive to actually developing a conscience and a heart. When they see a group of Kuwaiti refugees being mistreated, Archie can't help but interject himself into the conflict, despite a ceasefire that has been agreed upon by both sides. Eventually Barlow, Archie and Elgin do get the gold, but that's only half the battle as they have to try and figure out how to get back unrecognized, not get arrested for disobeying the ceasefire and get a group of refugees across the Iranian border.

Maybe it's just the fact that I actually recall the Gulf War, but I'd have to say this is ONE OF the best war movies I've seen. Now granted, that's not really saying a whole lot because I usually detest war films and this is just one in a hundred that I actually took to. I have plenty of complaints, but ultimately I was shocked at how decent this was. If I had my way, I'd have replaced Mark Wahlberg and Ice Cube with more talented actors, but you win some, you lose some. I absolutely despise Wahlberg and try to stay as far away from his movies as possible. Why he constantly gets decent scripts after decent scripts is beyond me. I much prefer the way Scorsese used him in "The Departed" - as a supporting player. Ice Cube was okay, I guess and George Clooney is a solid enough actor to at least have one person for a film buff to latch onto. Also, if I had my way, I'd have toned down the action sequences substantially AND the comedy. A few action scenes are fine, but they were bordering on overkill and something that would come out of Michael Bay's wet dream. Also, the incorporation of comedy was just too eye rolling, at times and had they cut back a little on those two elements and maybe added a touch more drama, I think you'd have had a real "must see" movie. As it is, I wouldn't go so far as to call it a "must see", but I'd definitely call it a "worth seeing". It's something that A LOT of people are going to take to, especially in the states, as people here tend to LOVE their action/comedy vehicles.

Otherwise, David O.Russell, who kind of snuck up on me (with a little research I realize that he's the one who directed "Silver Linings Playbook", one that I've been wanting to see), did a fine job and really added a uniqueness to something that could've just been another Hollywood affair. He uses techniques that were, at the time, new: quick, dirty editing and the types of eye grabbing visuals that are usually reserved for more "award worthy" films. The story chugs along nicely and while it doesn't always make total sense, you're easily able to suspend your disbelief enough to just sit back and have a good time with it. If you're someone who takes your movies TOO seriously, you're probably going to find dozens more things to complain about. However, if sometimes you just like to have a good time, then "Three Kings" does the trick.

RATING: 6.5/10  A '7' would just be getting into a whole other echelon of movie and this one didn't quite get there.

MOVIES WATCHED: 689
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 312

May 27, 2013  1:19pm
Happy Memorial Day

177. Les Enfants du Paradis/The Children of Paradise (1945)

Running Time: 190 minutes
Directed By: Marcel Carne
Written By: Jacques Prevert
Main Cast: Arletty, Jean-Louis Barrault, Pierre Brasseur, Marcel Herrand, Maria Casares
Click here to view the trailer

FRENCH ROMANTICISM

It took me a while to get around to this one, as it's been sitting here on my desk for over a week. After watching "Henry V" and "Ivan the Terrible", I think it was the running time that intimidated me the most and possibly getting into another seemingly endless movie. However, "Children of Paradise" proved to be a very easy watch and a pretty decent one at that.

The film is split into two parts. Part One starts out by introducing us to the characters that we're to spend the following three hours with. The film takes place in Paris and begins on the day of Carnival, on the Boulevard of Crime. During the festival, many street performers and theater troupes converge on the town and that's where we meet our first characters. Frederick (Brasseur) is a wannabe actor, who wants desperately to get a job with the Funambules Theater. On his way to the theater, to talk to the manager, Frederick meets and flirts with Garance (Arletty), a beautiful actress, who blows him off. At the theater a spat breaks out between the crop of current stars and the manager has no choice but to hire Frederick as a last minute replacement and to put in a lesser member of his cast, Baptiste (Barrault), a pantomime, whom everyone disregards. The performance ends up being a huge success and two new stars are born. Meanwhile, another member of the troupe, Nathalie (Casares) is madly in love with Baptiste, but he doesn't feel the same way. Instead, Baptiste is madly in love with Garance, yet she's an uncatchable fish, a notorious tease and one who knows the true power of her beauty and how far it can get her. There's also Lacenaire (Herrand) who considers Garance a "good friend", yet covets her for himself and Count Edouard de Montray who also falls in love with Garance, while watching her perform one evening. This, the love hexagon that I've just laid out for you, is all set up in Part One and Part Two is set a few years after the events of Part One, when everyone has (sort of) gone their separate ways, yet are brought back together.

If this film had anything going against it, it was definitely the running time and the fact that Part Two doesn't do Part One justice at all. Like I said, I was hesitant to get into this one because it simply didn't look like a film that was going to end up being my cup of tea. It was a little slow to start, but once things got rolling, I was definitely on board with what was being laid down. There was a very intriguing, sometimes funny, sometimes heartbreaking web of love, deception and heartache being weaved and it was all so poetic and romantic, that it couldn't have been set anywhere but in the heart of Paris. When I finished Part One, last night, I didn't have time to watch Part Two right away, so I saved Part Two for tonight and I was actually excited to finish it off, see what roads these characters would take and see how this all got wrapped up. It was French and very, at times, overly dramatic, so I kind of figured it'd end badly for everyone involved and I was right. However, Part Two just isn't up to snuff and just really didn't do anything for me. The characters were not where I saw them being and there were no surprises. Even Part One had a few surprises here and there (nothing shocking or huge, but a few moments of mild surprise) and Part Two, which should've been the climax, did nothing for me.

Had Part Two been able to hold up to the standards set by Part One, this could've been lurking somewhere around the '7' or even '8' range, but it didn't, so I can't get it that high...no way. I will say that I did, for the most part, enjoy myself though. Jean-Pierre Barrault was great. Think Buster Keaton meets Pagliacci. Oh and speaking of Pagliacci, Baptiste has a line in the film where he talks about going to the doctor because he's depressed. The doctor tells him it's nothing serious and that the best medicine would be to go see Batiste at the theater that night. For any comic books fans, isn't that eerily similar to the joke found in Rorschach's journal about Pagliacci?...

"Man goes to doctor. Says he's depressed. Says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. Doctor says 'Treatment is simple. Great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him. That should pick you up.' Man bursts into tears. Says 'But, doctor...I am Pagliacci.'"

Maybe Alan Moore was a "Children of Paradise" fan. Anyway...where was I?

The rest of the cast was very fine as well and Arletty was a beauty to behold. She had this quality that really made you hang on every word she said, really examine her lips as they formed words and then sentences and seemed to always spew something romantic, poignant or just plain sexy. That's really it, I guess. A great story, a great cast and a great set-up, let down by a very mediocre conclusion that just didn't support it's first act. While many people consider this the crowning achievement for Marcel Carne, I still stand beside his 1939 offering "Daybreak", which is much shorter and packs more of a punch.

RATING: 6.5/10  I just cannot go '7', even though there were aspects of this film that I really, truly enjoyed. Maybe a rewatch someday and I can come around to liking the second act, but for now call it a mild success.

MOVIES WATCHED: 688
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 313

May 26, 2013  1:14am

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