204. Force of Evil (1948)

Running Time: 82 minutes
Directed By: Abraham Polonsky
Written By: Abraham Polonsky, Ira Wolfert, from the novel Tucker's People by Ira Wolfert
Main Cast: John Garfield, Beatrice Pearson, Thomas Gomez, Marie Windsor, Howland Chamberlain

IT'S A TOUGH RACKET

Quick update to the final movies I'll be watching for the blog: I was ultimately unable to get a hold of "The Ghost and Mrs. Muir" and "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre", so my hopes of finishing up the 1940s is out the window. No worries though and I shouldn't have any trouble tracking them down when I reactivate my Netflix membership, whenever I come back from my short hiatus. Anyway, last night I took in "Force of Evil", which I still had from Netflix, so let's talk about that, shall we?

"Force of Evil" was directed by Abraham Polonsky and starred John Garfield as Joe Morse. Joe is a big time lawyer, who mainly works off of Wall Street, but we find out right away that Joe isn't just a defender of the law, he's also a breaker of it. The plot revolves around a numbers racket, that's something like the modern day lottery. Every day, in the newspaper, three numbers are posted. The day before, people can lay down bets on what they think the three numbers will be and based on how much they bet, is what they'll win. The numbers are somehow picked based on the random choosing from the track races and it's a big racket, that pulls in a lot of dough. There are places around town that people call banks, and these are the places where you lay your bets and if you win, you go to the bank to collect your earnings. Joe's brother, Leo (Gomez) operates one of the smaller banks. Anyway, Joe and a gangster friend of his are planning to fix the numbers racket so that the number '776' comes in on July 4th. Apparently a lot of people play that particular number on July 4th, due to it's association with the Declaration of Independence and the formation of America. When that number actually hits on July 4th, all of the banks in town are going to go belly up and that's when Joe and gangster Ben Tucker are going to step in and clean-up. Joe tries to warn his brother of the impending catastrophe that will happen at his bank, but Leo plans to run a clean business and doesn't want help from his brother, a known scum. Meanwhile, Joe kindles a romance with Leo's ex-secretary Doris (Pearson).

Yeah, I didn't care for this one that much. I've found that if you're going to give me a heist/racket movie, you need to keep it as simple as possible, focus all of your details into the planning and staging of the heist/racket and certainly don't muck it up with a romance. Take Kubrick's "The Killer" for instance (a movie that was wrongfully excluded from THE BOOK). There's a movie where we don't have to sit through any romance and all we're given is the intricate, gory details of five men and their attempt to knock off a horse track. Simple and awesome. In "Force of Evil", you start out pretty strong, as a voice over narration from Joe informs us that he plans to make his first million bucks on July 4th and then we trace the steps backwards and find out what he's talking about. It starts out pretty interesting - Joe and Ben Tucker plan to somehow rig the numbers racket (which, like I mentioned, just came off as an illegal lottery) and make off with tons of loot. But it got all mucked up with too many unnecessary details, a sibling rivalry, the Joe/Doris stuff and ultimately I honestly couldn't wait for this one to just end. Actually, I had an easier time getting through nearly three hours of "The Thin Red Line", than I did getting through eighty minutes of "Force of Evil". It's not that it was bad or anything, it's just that I think I was expecting a whole lot more and what I got wasn't anything even remotely close to worth writing home about. When you present me with a film noir, my hopes are always going to be a little higher, because they really are my types of movies. I love the mood, the atmosphere and the style, but I also like a certain level of simplicity and that wasn't given to me here. It was just too complicated. Give me "The Big Heat" (cops' family gets killed, he wants revenge), "Detour" (accidental murder) or "The Asphalt Jungle" (group of guys pull of a jewel heist) any 'ol day of the week. They were simple, awesome and so much fun. "Force of Evil"? Not so much.

RATING: 5/10  I'll give it a few notches for the things I mentioned (good style, good mood) and for decent acting & that final scene with Joe descending multiple hills to find his brothers corpse. That was gold, the rest...*meh*.

MOVIES WATCHED: 694
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 307

June 1, 2013  5:17pm

934. The Thin Red Line (1998)

Running Time: 171 minutes
Directed By: Terrence Malick
Written By: Terrence Malick, from novel by James Jones
Main Cast: Jim Caviezel, Nick Nolte, Sean Penn, Elias Koteas, Ben Chaplin
Click here to view the trailer

LIFE AND DEATH, BEAUTY AND UGLINESS

Right now the current goal is to put in a little extra effort and finish up this season on Wednesday. Whether or not I get to that point will have to be seen, but I did knock off the longest picture I have left last night and from here on out, it's basically smooth sailing.

Terrence Malick's first feature film came in 1973, with the release of "Badlands" and his third feature came in 1998 with the release of "The Thin Red Line". In the span of those twenty five years Malick made one other picture; "Days of Heaven", and then disappeared for about twenty years. Apparently during his absence, he was off somewhere in the boondocks pondering the meaning of life, because while "The Thin Red Line" is a war film, it's just as much a philosophical examination of life, nature and spirituality. The film is set during World War II and starts out with an inner monologue by Private Witt (Caviezel), an American soldier who's gone AWOL and has holed himself up on an island, inhabited by natives in the South Pacific. He ponders a bunch of stuff - ideas and dialogue that totally lost me and left me with an "oh my God, this is going to be a long movie" feeling. From there we get some other inner monologues, from different characters - really deep stuff, that usually doesn't come up in basic conversation and just came off as mumbo jumbo to this viewer. Then we get into the real meat of the picture, as C Company is commanded to take control of a hill - a hill that is being heavily guarded by Japanese troops, where they've placed a bunker, barricaded themselves up and have machine gun artillery at their disposal. Any attempt to climb the hill can easily be seen by the Japanese. It's a scene that lasts well over an hour and is really well done, as Malick mixes the ugliness of war, with the beauty of nature: blood streaking across blades of green grass;  dozens of men climbing a hill, while swaying grass envelopes them and the sky, filled with smoke, half orange and half blue.

I guess I sort of delved into my own opinions while writing that plot synopsis didn't I? Oh well. Like I said, the beginning and end is a bunch of crap. Sure, there are some moments tucked away in there and the film has the tendency to sort of drag your ears in, whether you want to hear what's being said or not. But all in all, I can tell you that this film lost me before we even got into the taking of the hill. Once we got there, I had mentally prepared to dislike this movie, but they started to slowly win me back. There's no denying the beauty of the picture. Malick obviously knew what he wanted and worked in conjunction with his director of photography to get the shots that would transform this film from just your typical piece of WWII fodder into something really special. Yes, I'm admitting this film is something special, despite not fully being on board. The photography is gorgeous, the cast is brilliant, the score is moving and the action in the middle is really well done. Had they been able to fill the beginning and end with something more engaging, I'd have been gaga over this movie. It's my own fault, as I guess I'm just not your philosophical type. I don't ponder the meaning of life or the relationship between man and nature. No, I definitely don't do that. I also don't buy that soldiers do that, as a matter of fact. Listen, I don't want to knock any soldiers with this review, but usually these guys are a lot more gruff and gung ho. They're not your life pondering types.

The film was a good war film and one that I could give a moderate seal of approval. I didn't love it or anything, but nor did I hate it. It really made you wonder about war and life, I guess and wonder how many of these little moments were created on the battlefield. How many men drew their last breath, while being held by their brothers in arms? How many men begged their fellow soldier to write home to their wives, knowing that they were done for? How many men died alone, with no one to tell their final secrets to? Maybe it goes a little way in helping me to understand why there are so many war movies, because maybe I'm finally starting to realize how many war stories are out there and yearning to be told.

RATING: 6/10  Can't go any higher than that and I highly doubt (unless I have a severe change of heart) that it'll be making any TOP 20 list.

MOVIES WATCHED: 693
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 308

May 30, 2013  12:19pm

932. There's Something About Mary (1998)

Running Time: 119 minutes
Directed By: Bobby Farrelly, Peter Farrelly
Written By: Ed Decter, John J. Strauss, Peter Farrelly, Bobby Farrelly
Main Cast: Cameron Diaz, Ben Stiller, Matt Dillon, Chris Elliott, Lee Evans
Click here to view the trailer

CRUDENESS + HEART = *MEH*

We're getting down to the wire here ladies and gentlemen and I am officially within ten movies of wrapping up this season, making a new TOP 20 list and having only 300 movies left to go before my journey comes to an end.

The movie starts out in Providence, Rhode Island, circa 1985, as we zoom in on a 16-year-old Ted Stroehmann (Stiller). Ted is far from a ladies teenager, sporting braces and a awkward haircut. It's nearly time for the prom and while Ted gets shot down from one girl, he's surprised when Mary Jensen (Diaz) asks him to the dance. Mary is one of the popular girls at school, but she doesn't act like it, as she's actually nice and when she asks Ted to the dance he's shocked, but obviously accepts. On the night of the prom, however, a mishap that involves him accidentally peering into Mary's bedroom window while she's undressing and him catching his manhood in his pants zipper, sees Ted being loaded into an ambulance and his dream prom date canceled. Fast forward to present day and Ted is a struggling novelist who still thinks about what could have been with Mary, as he realizes he still has feelings for her. His friend Dom (Elliott) urges Ted to hire a private investigator and gives him the number of Pat Healy (Dillon), a sleazeball who offers to go to Miami (where Mary now lives) and track down Mary for Ted. When Pat arrives in Miami, he tracks down Mary fairly quickly, but ends up falling for himself and when he comes back to Rhode Island he tells Ted the worst facts he can possibly think of to detract his attention away from Mary. Pat then moves to Miami and begins a relationship with Mary. Having stalked her for a few weeks, he's found out what kind of man she's looking for and pretends to be her ideal suitor. Ted, however, still can't get Mary out of his mind and decides to take the leap anyway, heading to Miami to see Mary and tell her how he feels.

The Farrelly Brothers arrived on the scene in 1994, with the release of "Dumb and Dumber" and became a staple of 90s comedies that paved the way for guys like Judd Apatow to carry on the legacy of crass, crude comedies. "There's Something About Mary" was their third film (after "Kingpin") and due to heavy promotion and an image of Cameron Diaz running a handful of semen through her hair, the film did big numbers and put the Farrelly's on the map. I had mixed feeling about the film. On one hand, the film does have some heart, the principle actors are pretty funny and if we're talking about cast, the real shining star of the show is Matt Dillon, who turns on a performance not unlike Kevin Kline's performance in "A Fish Called Wanda (except not as good). The film is a little on the long side for a comedy, but it flows along quite nicely and provides a suitable number of laughs to keep things chugging along. However, its the type of film that I'll laugh at while it's playing, but then kind of feel guilty/silly for even finding humor in such ridiculousness after it's over. Like I've said before on the blog, as I grow older I'm just having a harder and harder time accepting these comedies, even though they were films I would've howled at when I was a teenager, when they came out. It kind of makes me proud of myself for growing out of such silliness and being able to go back and find that comedies used to be movies that could stand on their own two legs without any trouble. Guys like Buster Keaton and W.C. Fields who made a living making people laugh and didn't need bodily fluids or a multitude of curses to do so. I'd really like to see someone come along and make a really funny comedy that didn't involve nudity, fart jokes and the F word in every scene. Come on Hollywood, surely there's someone out there that can do this, even if only for an experiment to see if it can even be done in the 21st century.

In most people's opinion the Farrelly's never did better than "There's Something About Mary", although I have a soft spot for "Me, Myself & Irene" and "Stuck On You", the latter of which I actually saw in the theater (went to see "The Two Towers" and it was sold out, so what was a guy to do?). "Irene" is incredibly crass, but blends in an equal amount of heart and it works better and "Stuck On You" tones the crudeness way down and actually has a decent cast to back up the work - Greg Kinnear and Matt Damon. Despite Stiller's decent performance and Dillon's great one, "Mary" just doesn't have the cast or the story to back up the promotion that went behind it and in my eyes, it really all hinges on the shock value: a guy zipping his "bits" into his fly, Mary streaking semen through her hair and Dillon catching a dog on fire, while trying to shock it back to life with the frayed ends of a lamp cord. While you may go so far as to howl while watching it, I think true film fans are either going to feel guilty for doing so or write it off as a movie that they had fun with, but would never take seriously. I did a little bit of both and can deduce that it had absolutely no place among the likes of "A Clockwork Orange", "Once Upon a Time in the West" or "Manhattan", among hundreds of others.

RATING: 5.5/10  FUN FACT: The words to the tune that plays when Ted is pleasuring himself to the brassiere advertisement are "beat out that rhythm on the drum" and is from "Carmen Jones". Great touch!!

MOVIES WATCHED: 692
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 309

May 29, 2013  9:49pm

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