Tag: AFI Top 100

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Classic Capra-corn launched Jimmy Stewart into the stratosphere. Anchored by great acting, wonderful picture though cornball & far too long.

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington:

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is such a classic, a hokey throwback as comforting as a slice of warm apple pie, that it’s incredible to realize that it was wildly controversial at the time of its release, 75 years ago. Remember, this was 1939; when Mr. Smith Goes to Washington premiered on October 17th of that year, it was against a backdrop of global tension. World War II had just begun a month earlier with Germany’s invasion of Poland and America was not receptive to a film that was perceived as critical of the United States government. Many members of Congress & the Senate protested what they saw as un-American and unflattering portrayal of the government and many prominent individuals called for the ban or withdrawal of the film.

Fortunately, once they’d seen the picture, most sensible people came to their senses and saw the film for the patriotic piece that it is. Even the humorless censors in Will Hays’ office of the Motion Picture Production Code got a grip after reading the screenplay and heartily endorsed it.

Because the fact is, while the film certainly does paint Washington as a town suffering the presence of corrupt individuals in a sea of cynicism: 1) the truth is defense against defamation, and more importantly, 2) Frank Capra made a career goal out of finding the good in all people and celebrating the power of an individual to help others find the best in themselves. That’s the Capra style (some clever wag dubbed it Capra-corn) and Mr. Smith is one of the most compelling examples. Far from showing the worst about the American government, the satire was viewed as the fair criticism of select individuals that it is and not a condemnation of the system. Through protagonist Jefferson Smith (Stewart) Capra delivers some of his most heartfelt and loving praise of democracy.

It really is an inspirational film. It’s about as subtle as a brick to the head, though. As the saying goes, they don’t make em like this anymore. That’s good and bad. Modern filmgoers will never truly be able to accept the earnest wholesomeness of this period of films and Capra in particular. The world has changed too much. That we may therefore miss out on a simpler and more sincere message movie like this one is unfortunate. However, no one should miss the obvious grandstanding of these pictures or the heavy-handed dialogue delivered by former silent film stars projecting their performances to the back row.

Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be too long and obvious, but it’s heart and quality are unassailable. Stewart is brilliant and creates the fiercely individual screen presence he will grace us with for his entire career. Claude Rains turns in one in a long line of subtle and elegant performances and the whole picture can get your blood stirring if you let it. Highly recommended…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: C (4 pts)

Hey, it was 1939, what do you expect…

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

 

[schema type=”movie” name=”Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” description=”A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn’t back down.” director=”Frank Capra” actor_1=”James Stewart” ]

Main Cast	James Stewart Jefferson Smith, Jean Arthur Saunders, Claude Rains Senator Joseph Paine, Edward Arnold Jim Taylor
Rating	Not Rated
Release Date	Thu 19 Oct 1939 UTC
Director	Frank Capra
Genres	Drama
Plot	A naive man is appointed to fill a vacancy in the US Senate. His plans promptly collide with political corruption, but he doesn’t back down.
Poster
Runtime	129
Tagline	Capra at his greatest!
Writers	Sidney Buchman (screen play), Lewis R. Foster (story)
Year	1939

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Very clever. Possibly too clever for its own good, as the hugely stylized film can come off as pretentious (which it is). Still brilliant…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of Pulp Fiction:

Ahh, Pulp Fiction. Hard to remember a time when we didn’t know of this movie or feel its influence. It was a huge wake-up call to old Hollywood when it dropped in 1994. Does it still work as well twenty years later? Hell, I’m not sure it was still as effective twenty months later.

It’s so stylized and affected that it was kind of born with a short shelf life. Without wishing to take anything away from what is still a very fine film, I’d argue that Pulp Fiction achieved more with its shock value than it could sustain with its quality.

It’s just such a weird film of contradictions; the dialogue feels so hip and of the moment that it is almost instantly dated, which makes no sense when you consider that the whole style of the film is retro-pastiche. It’s heralded for its visionary originality even while virtually every part of the picture is a homage to something that has come before.

Which raises the question is it still theft if you tell everyone about it? Director & co-writer Quentin Tarantino has always been extremely forthcoming about his influences, positively delighting in drawing a spotlight to unheralded works that he loves. Possibly no filmmaker has been more complimentary to the cinematic legacy before him or more generous with praise and resources, using his fame to further support his influences. But is that something we should congratulate him for or demand from him? Is he doing a good thing or merely the right thing considering how freely he appropriates the work of others? Even if you give credit, isn’t Pulp Fiction just a cinematic mix-tape?

Putting aside these considerations, Pulp Fiction is still a fantastic picture. The non-linear story structure was really refreshing, even if it led to many other lesser filmmakers trying it on. The same can be said for the “too cool for school” dialogue and characters, and it is probably this reason that leads me to view the film a little harsher in retrospect. Nothing in the film is necessarily any more self-aware or intentionally cool than that in Tarantino’s previous effort, Reservoir Dogs, but it all combines for an overwhelming effect here.

The casting of John Travolta was a stroke of genius, even if it did inadvertently lead to Battlefield Earth, and the rest of the casting is similarly inspired. Not only did the film revive the career of Travolta, it signaled a new direction and credibility for Bruce Willis. Incidentally, the first choice for the character of Vincent Vega was Michael Madsen, not Travolta. It’s hard to imagine that Madsen was ever anyone’s first choice for anything, ever, anywhere, but can you even picture him in this role? I’d go as far as to say that the picture would have been dead on arrival. That’s how important I think the casting was to this picture.

The picture is quite simply startling in its frank visualizations of violence, if perhaps less so than Reservoir Dogs. I guess I’d have the same comment about a lot of the elements of this film; great, but less great than Reservoir Dogs. I just frankly think it’s a better picture – more direct and less image-conscious.

Pulp Fiction gets credit for bringing independent film to the multiplex and kicked off a golden age for same. This is complete nonsense, of course – the film was backed by Disney-owned Miramax and featured Bruce Willis. But is is completely true that it brought an indie sensibility to a larger audience. Unfortunately, it brought a whole lot of baggage with it, not least of which being amoral anti-heroes, violent shoot-outs with “cool” criminals and casual use of the n-word. But it did create an environment in which edgier material could find a home, and for that we should all be grateful.

Pulp Fiction has been with us for twenty years and it’s still a good movie. At least I think it is. I’m not watching it again to find out since I saw enough of this movie in college to last me a lifetime. Seriously, if this movie came out when you were in school you’d know you couldn’t walk from one end of a dorm hallway to the other without hearing the music, film or somebody quoting it. Maybe that’s the real reason I seem sort of down about the film that I once loved so much. For my money, though, I’d go with Jackie Brown…

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: D (3 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” name=”Pulp Fiction” description=”The lives of two mob hit men, a boxer, a gangster’s wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.” director=”Quentin Tarantino” actor_1=”John Travolta” actor_2=”Uma Thurman” actor_3=”Samuel L. Jackson” actor_4=”Bruce Willis” actor_5=”Ving Rhames” actor_6=”Tim Roth” actor_7=”Frank Whaley” actor_8=”Eric Stoltz” actor_9=”Harvey Keitel”]

Main Cast	John Travolta Vincent Vega, Uma Thurman Mia Wallace, Samuel L. Jackson Jules Winnfield, Bruce Willis Butch Coolidge
Rating	R
Release Date	Fri 14 Oct 1994 UTC
Director	Quentin Tarantino
Genres	Crime, Drama, Thriller
Plot	The lives of two mob hit men, a boxer, a gangster’s wife, and a pair of diner bandits intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.
Poster
Runtime	168
Tagline	Girls like me don’t make invitations like this to just anyone!
Writers	Quentin Tarantino (story) and, Roger Avary (story) …
Year	1994

140 Character Movie Review – #140RVW

Overshadowed by Pulp Fiction upon release, Shawshank is an absolute masterpiece. Career highlight for Darabont, Freeman, Robbins, Deakins…

Spoiler-free Movie Review of The Shawshank Redemption:

Where do you start with a movie this good?

The Shawshank Redemption was viewed favorably by critics upon its limited release on September 23, 1994, but was all but ignored when it went into wide release on 10/14/1994. I was an enormous Stephen King fan in high school and the first few years of college, so I was familiar with Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption, the novella on which this film is based. I loved the story, but even I couldn’t get anyone to go see the movie with me. The reason? A little movie called Pulp Fiction came out the same day.

I wonder if anyone today would make the same choice. Pulp Fiction was a landmark film and arguably changed filmmaking (although I’m not sure if for the better), but I don’t think I’ll get much argument when I suggest that Shawshank is a much better film.

With a movie this classic, it’s hard to know to where to attribute the success. The story, the characters, the acting, the direction, the music, the cinematography, the art direction – these are all top shelf.

Some people still haven’t seen the film; I know I’ve had more than one discussion with someone who just doesn’t want to watch a prison movie. I get that. But please try – it’s just so much more than that.

For those few, The Shawshank Redemption finds banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins) sent to Shawshank State Penitentiary in Maine in 1947 for murdering his wife and her lover. Shawshank is a brutal prison with merciless guards, headed by Captain Byron Hadley (Clancy Brown) whose methods are approved of by Warden Samuel Norton (Bob Gunton), not to mention the frequent assaults by other prisoners such as Bogs Diamond (Mark Rolston). Andy would likely not survive in prison were it not for his financial acumen, which makes him useful to the warden.

The real reason Andy is able to get along in prison, however, is his friendship with fellow convict Ellis Boyd “Red” Redding (Morgan Freeman). The camaraderie of these two is the linchpin of the film. Both men are serving life sentences, but while Red has allowed the bars to cage him in, Andy seems to retain some piece of spirit that can’t be contained. Andy’s unshakable determination to hold on to hope touches even the hardened cellmates but even his spirit can’t last forever in such a place, can it?

Frank Darabont had been a successful screenwriter for years before getting his first chance to direct here, due partly to his friendship with author Steven King. Rob Reiner, who with Stand By Me had so successfully directed the adaptation of another of King’s novellas from the same source book (Different Seasons), wanted to film off  of Darabont’s screenplay, and probably would have done a fantastic job, but Darabont wisely held on tight.

There is a humanity to the screenplay that is ably served by the pacing and direction of Darabont. Cinematographer Roger Deakins captures the bleak interiors of the prison without ever suggesting an ugly picture. I’ve never seen dull colors appear so vivid – it’s the recurring humanity at work again. Thomas Newman also contributes an uplifting score.

But this is truly an acting tour de force. Robbins conveys a depth of emotion behind Andy’s aloof exterior, and displays the suggestion that there is still a piece of hope stirring in him beneath all of the hurt. And Freeman displays his usual amazing gravitas. He’s arguably no more or less brilliant here than he was in Glory or any other of his pictures, but I find this the most rewarding of his roles. He was completely robbed of the Academy Award for Best Actor when Forrest Gumped up the works that year, although I still think Robbins was equally deserving of a nomination.

It’s a shame that The Shawshank Redemption didn’t get the respect it deserved twenty years ago, with a lackluster box office and a complete shut-out come awards season, but thankfully it was not long before the public realized just how amazing of a film it is. An absolute classic that plays at least as well as it did twenty years ago. “Remember, hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies.”

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Fail

The Representation Test Score: D (3 pts)

This is kind of unfair – it’s a movie set in the 1940’s in a men’s prison – there aren’t a lot of opportunities to be inclusive or representative.

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

[schema type=”movie” name=”The Shawshank Redemption” description=”Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency.” director=”Frank Darabont” actor_1=”Morgan Freeman” actor_2=”Tim Robbins” ]

Main Cast	Tim Robbins Andy Dufresne, Morgan Freeman Ellis Boyd ‘Red’ Redding, Bob Gunton Warden Norton, William Sadler Heywood
Rating	R
Release Date	Fri 14 Oct 1994 UTC
Director	Frank Darabont
Genres	Crime, Drama
Plot	Two imprisoned men bond over a number of years, finding solace and eventual redemption through acts of common decency.
Poster
Runtime	142
Tagline	Fear can hold you prisoner. Hope can set you free.
Writers	Stephen King (short story “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption”), Frank Darabont (screenplay)
Year	1994

#140RVW

Hitch’s 2nd best film is a master class in slowly building dramatic tension by letting the audience discover clues as the protagonist does.

What’s more:

I got the unexpected opportunity to see Rear Window on the big screen this week. While I’ve seen it a number of times, I had never seen it like this. No matter how great our at home systems get, there is nothing like seeing movies projected against a huge screen. Even if I one day get to build my ideal home theater, I can’t imagine that it will ever match the immersive experience that comes with entering a dark theater, turning off the outside world and being surrounded by the experience that the filmmaker intended.

Aside: Although I could do without the damn commercials. It’s a simple equation: tv is free (theoretically at least) so I have to sit through commercials – that’s my charge; I pay for movies so I don’t have to watch commercials. They’ve changed the implicit contract, something that makes me threaten to stop going to the theater every time.

Every movie gets better when it goes up on that screen on the wall, even if some movies aren’t going to be any good no matter what. When you’re seeing a classic film, something you originally saw on a tv screen, the experience is often transformative. Sometimes you notice new details that simply were lost with downsizing. Often there is a quality improvement as screenings frequently involve a restoration. But largely the grandeur and scope are simply the elements that are restored, just by virtue of commanding your scattered attention in an increasingly distracting world.

Rear Window really benefitted tremendously from a theatrical presentation. Many writers more insightful than myself have explored Hitchcock’s themes with this picture: putting the protagonist in the place of the audience and vice versa, the relationship between Jeff & Lisa being reflected in the other relationships visible through the window, etc. I won’t subject you to my own dog-eared analysis, other than the cynical observation that Hitchcock was too pragmatic of a filmmaker to waste time with all this literary nonsense – I think he just liked making crime pictures.

What is true is that watching the film theatrically really accentuated this idea of the film screen being the window pane. In all of the movie I can recall only a couple of instances of actors looking directly at the camera, and at those times it is clear that the camera is from Jeff’s POV. Watch the behavior of any of the visitors to Jeff’s apartment; they all approach the edge of the room, standing back from the enormous windows as if walking up to a wall-sized mural and trying to focus on an unreachable detail while still seeing the whole painting. The lighting is key; while never looking at you, you really feel the characters are stepping forward to better see through the screen that doubles as the window pane.

While the production is brilliantly confined like Jeff (Jimmy Stewart) to his apartment, and is staged as if it were a play, Rear Window truly is a film experience. Hitchcock tantalizes you with this panorama of interesting characters, but controls your view to the spectacle, as if someone else were in charge of moving your telescope for you. Jeff falls asleep, loses attention, fails to notice details – it’s a very human account of the story. He’s not an omniscient observer and so you cannot be.

The casting is truly inspired.

• Jimmy Stewart in his 2nd of 4 Hitchcock movies provides his usual down-to-earth everyman who is so genial and Jimmy Stewarted that you don’t think he’s a creep for peeping at his neighbors all day. Which he is.
• Grace Kelly. Ah, Grace Kelly. Her second and best Hitchcock film role gives her a little more edge than in Dial M for Murder. But mainly she shows inner strength as Stewart’s Girl Friday and wears Edith Head’s designed clothes as no one else before or since.
• Thelma Ritter adds some comic relief, filling out the main cast.
• Raymond Burr adds a bit of menace, even if he was cast mainly because he could easily be made up to look like producer David O. Selznick, whom Hitchcock disliked.

Based on the short story “It Had To Be Murder” by Cornell Woolrich, John Michael Hayes (pride of Worcester, MA) penned the screenplay, the first of four straight he did for Hitch.

The Franz Waxman score is wonderful as always, even if there really isn’t much of it. Hitch wanted all the sounds of the movie to be diegetic – the sounds of what you saw happening.

I believe Rear Window is second only to Vertigo in Hitch’s collected works. The story is grounded in reality, the tension is excellent, the dialogue wonderful and it has Grace Kelly.

Alright, that’s enough Grace Kelly pictures for you. One more? Ok. Here you are. And now you’re done…

And one more thing…

By the way, want to see something amazing? Filmmaker Jeff Desom mapped all of the shots outside the apartment window and composited them all into a panoramic time-lapse video. Shows the whole sequence of events all on one large plane. The original is about 20 minutes and is meant to be projected, but you can see a sample reel showing how it was done and the final product in a few minutes. Genius…http://www.jeffdesom.com/hitch/ (also at http://www.criticalcommons.org/Members/ccManager/clips/spatialized-timelapse-of-hitchcocks-rear-window)

Poster:

Trailer:

Bechdel Test:

Pass

The Representation Test Score: C (6 pts)

(http://therepresentationproject.org/grading-hollywood-the-representation-test/)

Main Cast	James Stewart L.B. ‘Jeff’ Jefferies, Grace Kelly Lisa Carol Fremont, Wendell Corey Det. Lt. Thomas J. Doyle, Thelma Ritter Stella
Rating	Approved
Release Date	Sat 29 Jan 1955 UTC
Director	Alfred Hitchcock
Genres	Mystery, Thriller
Plot	A wheelchair bound photographer spies on his neighbours from his apartment window and becomes convinced one of them has committed murder.
Poster
Runtime	112
Tagline	The Essential Hitchcock
Writers	John Michael Hayes (screenplay), Cornell Woolrich (based on the short story by)
Year	1954