Oscar Shorts 2013

Yeah, I'm DEFINITELY making this an annual tradition.

The Oscar-nominated short films are showing at the Tower Theater in Salt Lake City, and I managed to go catch a few of them.  Sadly, I didn't enjoy this batch quite as much as last year's, but they were still quite a bit better than most of the other movies I caught during 2013.  

Before I get into the films themselves, I must say I really appreciated some of the comments made by the filmmakers during the presentation.  There were a lot of comments about short films and how they may become increasingly relevant as people become more and more hurried.  Most importantly, the filmmakers spoke of how significant the act of making a film is, whatever the budget or technology available.  Honestly, to hear such dedicated artists speak so lovingly about their craft was quite inspiring.

Here's a brief rundown of the live-action shorts I managed to catch.

Helium (Directors: Anders Walter and Kim Magnusson)

This short film about a hospital aide who comforts a terminally-ill young boy with stories about a magical land of airships was definitely high on visual appeal.  It's a touching tale with some strong performances, especially from the chief actor.  The filmmakers also managed some pretty great visuals on a significantly less-than-Hollywood budget.

The Voorman Problem (Directors: Mark Gill and Baldwin Li)

British national treasure Martin Freeman stars in a story of a psychiatrist who must deal with a prison inmante who believes he is God.  Don't expect much in the line of philosophy here, though:  this one's a comedy, through and through.

Avant Que De Tout Perdre (Just before Losing Everything) (Directors: Xavier Legrand and Alexandre Gavras)

This French film is my pick for best of show - the story of a woman taking her children and leaving an abusive relationship certainly leaves little room for warm fuzzies.  Rather, this was one tense thriller, evoking a sense of unease I haven't felt since the best of Hitchcock.  Darn fine cinema.

Aquel No Era Yo (That Wasn’t Me) (Director: Esteban Crespo)

Speaking of tense, this tale of child soldiers in Africa (afraid I can't remember which country) was absolutely brutal.  I don't think I'd ever watch this film while curled up in a blanket with a tub of popcorn - but that's hardly the filmmaker's intent.  It's a solid picture, but quite discomfiting.  Pretty sure that was the point.

Pitääkö Mun Kaikki Hoitaa? (Do I Have to Take Care of Everything?) (Directors: Selma Vilhunen and Kirsikka Saari)

Heh.  No way this film wins.  But I'm glad it was included.  One family's frustrating attempt to make it to a friend's wedding on time leads them from one catastrophe to another.  This movie was a total hoot, and a great way to end the shorts program, especially after the bleakness of the previous two films.

***************************

This year, I managed to catch a couple of the short-form documentaries as well.  I had to momentarily set aside my bias against documentary filmmaking to really get into the spirit of things.  Not sure how well I succeeded, though...

Sorry, but whenever I watch documentaries, I always get the nagging suspicion that the filmmakers, or the subject, or SOMEONE is lying to me.  As a genre of film that purports to expose truth, that's a pretty big bias to overcome.

Cavedigger (Director: Jeffrey Karoff)

Ra Paulette digs caves.  That's his profession.  More accurately speaking, though, caves are his art.  He looks at his caves as transformativ, both for himself and the people who commision his artwork.  The film mostly explores the tension that exists between artist and patron - the one with the vision versus the one with the pocketbook.

Prison Terminal: The Last Days of Private Jack Hall (Director: Edgar Barens)

Jack Hall is in prison serving a life sentence after killing his son's drug dealer.  He's nearing the end of his sentence - he doesn't have much longer to live.  The prison sets him up in a hospice situation, where other inmates with life sentences spend their time washing him, helping him to the bathroom, and otherwise making sure his last days are comfortable.  Now, I'm not sure what motivated the filmmaker to try to capture a person's last days of life on film, but I do know the kindness and selflessness of the hospice workers felt truly genuine.  Honestly loved this film.

***************************

The Tower's schedule is so erratic, I'm not sure if the films are even still showing.  If they are, though, go check 'em out.

Oscar Night

I may have to start up a new tradition...

I was with a friend on Friday night, and, on a whim, we went to check out the Oscar nominated short films being shown at the Tower theater. We went with the intention of seeing the animated shorts, but we missed that screening. They still had a screening going for the live-action short films, so we decided to stay and catch these.

I'm going to make a bold statement here: Any one of these half-hour films was EXPONENTIALLY BETTER than all of the films I saw in the theaters in 2012.

Admittedly, that's probably not saying much. I saw some grand old films last year, but none of them were really Academy Award material. I mean, they were great films, but they're not exactly... highbrow. What I'm trying to say is that my taste in entertainment may be kind of pedestrian.

Still, that massive disclaimer aside, I thought these films were really good. I don't want to give too much away about these shorts, as the act of discovery was (for me) a huge part of their appeal. However, if you get the opportunity, O Faithful Blog Reader, I'd recommend you check 'em out:

Dood van een Schaduw (Death of a Shadow)

This Belgian film is probably the most "out there" of the bunch, which may be why it so absorbed me. the short opens with a scene of brutal violence - portrayed almost completely in silhouette. The story follows a frail young man who possesses a strange camera which allows him to capture the shadows of the dying. These death portraits he trades to a collector, who appraises the act of dying as though it were an artistic medium. Meanwhile, he finds himself taken with the memory of a young woman who at one time aided him, and he works to be reunited with her.

Henry

A French Canadian film, Henry tells the story of an aged pianist, who, on a casual walk through the city, encounters a mysterious stranger who warns him that he is being hunted. His first thought is for his wife, who suddenly vanishes. What the film lacks in subtlety, it makes up for in the strength of the performances. Also, it contains what is possibly my favorite on-screen kiss ever. Very touching.

Curfew

Curfew is the film I have the hardest time recommending. None of these films are rated, but Curfew would definitely be rated "R" for violence and language. That'd be a turn-off for most people I know (and it'd give me pause, too). But I LOVED this movie. Curfew is the story of a drug-addled young man who tries to connect with his estranged niece. The movie opens with a bloody attempted suicide, and, about halfway through, features a dance number in a bowling alley. If that tonal see-saw appeals to you, then I can whole-heartedly recommend Curfew. If it doesn't, then I would honestly have to say I understand your point of view, but you are missing out on an excellent story.

Buzkashi Boys

After a few minutes of Buzkashi Boys, I thought for sure I'd be seeing just an abridgment of The Kite Runner. Turns out I was just homing in on the superficial similarities between the two stories. Like The Kite Runner, Buzkashi Boys focuses on the friendship between two young boys in Afghanistan. One is the son of a stern blacksmith, the other an orphan. The two boys bond at a Buzkashi game (which is like polo, but, instead of a ball, the riders play with the carcass of a goat). The story has all the conventions of a standard, somewhat cliche childhood story, but throws in enough good stuff to make it a story worth telling in its own right. There's not a "twist" ending, per se, but I wouldn't plan on guessing how the film will end too early.

Asad

Is it strange that the most optimistic and lighthearted of these five films would feature a starving village, desperate pirates, several corpses and a possible rape-gang? Yet Asad is easily the most optimistic film of the bunch, setting its story of a small boy attempting to be a fisherman against the backdrop of an impoverished Somali village. Asad was put together by a cast of Somali refugees, which makes that optimism even more inspiring than it would be otherwise.br />
I can't tell which of the above films will take the award home (though my bet's on Buzkashi Boys). All five of the movies were really excellent, although there may have been TOO MUCH good stuff here. As short as these movies were, each contained enough thought-provoking material to keep a mind occupied for a week. Watching all five in a single sitting may have been an overdose. Darn good stuff.

The Absolute, Definitive List of S.R. Braddy's All-Time, Never Been Topped Favorite (for now) Movies, EVER!

I've actually been making a "Top Ten Movies" list for years. Like, literally, back in 2009 or 2010, I sat down at Village Inn and started writing up my list of favorite movies. Ranked it and everything. For some reason, though, I never got around to actually putting it up on the blog.

Well, no longer. I know I've done pretty much nothing BUT talk about movies the last few weeks, but now that one of my friends has beaten me to the punch, I can't afford to put this off a day more. So, with great pride, I present to you The Absolute, Definitive List of S.R. Braddy's All-Time, Never Been Topped Favorite (for now) Movies, EVER!

And, no, before you ask, Tangled did NOT make the cut.

10 - Penelope

Of all the movies on my list... this sure is one of them. Probably the strangest choice, too. I can't honestly explain why I'm so fond of Penelope. When I finished watching it the first time, though, I wanted to immediately pop it in the player and watch it again. That's a feeling I haven't been able to shake nor argue with.

If I HAD to give a reason, it'd probably be the cast. Especially James McAvoy and Peter Dinklage. Those two are great.

9 - The Fantastic Mr. Fox

Man, what can I say about this movie that I haven't already said? A combination of old-timey stop-motion animation, top voice acting from some real heavy hitters, and some of the sharpest writing I've ever heard in a film. It's a film that's both heavy and hilarious. Well worth a watch to anyone who hasn't seen it yet.

8 - Porco Rosso

I watched through a ton of Studio Ghibli's films recently, and loved each and every one of them (even the ones that are pretty ridiculously bad ). I may prefer the music in My Neighbor Totoro, the characers of The Secret World of Arriety, or the intensity of Spirited Away; however, for the best balance of humor, adventure, and magic, I've gotta give the top spot to Porco Rosso. Seriously, it's a beautiful pic.

7 - Psycho

What, you didn't think I just watch happy little G-rated kid movies, did you?

I knew everything about Psycho before I watched it. Everything. Every twist, every quote, every surprise. AND YET, this film STILL scared the pants off me. Good thing no one else was in the room, because then they'd have had to see me pantsless.

6 - Stranger than Fiction

Some movies you just can't evict once they've taken up residence under your skin. That's how I feel about Stranger than Fiction. From the first moment I watched it, I related to just about every character - except for maybe Emma Thompson's Karen Eiffel. I wanted to be her... which actually sounds pretty unhealthy, now that I've written that down. I mean, she's kind of a miserable person.

Still wrote a good story, though.

5 - Modern Times

Once upon a time, I hated movies. I thought they were the lowest form of entertainment, and could only be considered worthwhile if they were "intellectual" movies. Then, one day, my English professor broke out this comedy classic, and we analyzed how Chaplin's antics mirrored the anxieties of a newly industrialized society. From that point on, I realized comedy and "intellectual stimulation" could, in fact, go hand in hand. Modern Times literally changed the way I view entertainment. How could I not love it?

4 - 500 Days of Summer

I recently found out there are some people who hate this movie, especially Zooey Deschanel's character. I can't help it, though - this movie speaks to me. I've been Tom. I dated a girl whom I over-idealized, I was devastated by the break up for no good reason, and, from that misery, I made a monumental decision that's made my life a lot more work, but, ultimately a happier one. So suck on that, haters. This is my movie.

3 - The Dark Knight

I loved this movie from the moment the Joker unmasked to the ridiculous line, "The hero Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now" (I still don't get that). I loved the magic tricks, the coin flips, and all the crazy twists and turns the plot takes. This is still the best superhero movie - entertaining, optimistic, and yet oh-so-dark.

2 - The Prestige

"Are you watching closely?"

We've come a long way from the kiddie flicks, haven't we? The Prestige is one of the meatiest movies I've ever watched. It's packed with themes of duality, dire warnings against obsession, and the ever-frustrating juxtaposition of childlike wonder and cynicism we all face as we grow up. This movie hurts, and in a good way.

1 - Scott Pilgrim vs. The World

Look, I can't help it, okay? Like with Penelope, I wanted to watch this movie again the minute the closing credits rolled. Like with 500 Days of Summer, I felt like I was seeing an aspect of my life on the screen, only blown up and presented in a truly ridiculous fashion. Scott Pilgrim allowed me to take a look at my life, shake my head and say, "You know, I can do better than that."

Also, it let me watch Michael Cera snark with Kieron Culkin while fighting Brandon Routh, Jason Schwartzman, and Chris Evans, a thing I didn't know I needed until I had it.

Okay, so that's it - my irrefutably set-in-stone favorite movie list, and it will never ever be changed at all ever again, period.

Honorable Mentions

Lilo and Stitch
The Fountain
Hugo
Pan's Labyrinth
City Lights
The Illusionist
Casablanca
Beauty and the Beast
The Rocketeer

Catching Up with the Classics: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

I'm not a huge fan of Westerns in general. I don't hate the genre, but I've not seen many of them. I think the only westerns I've ever watched are Rio Lobo and Tombstone.

And Jonah Hex, I guess, but I'm pretty sure that doesn't count.

I picked The Good, the Bad, and the Etc. based on its inclusion on several "Greatest Films" lists, not realizing that the film is the third part of a trilogy. I found myself a little let down that there was so much character work done beforehand that I just never picked up on.

At least, that's what I assumed happened. I kinda figured I was already supposed to know who Tuco and Angel Eyes were, but after a cursory scan of Wikipedia, I'm not so sure.

My biggest complaint about The Good, the Bad, and the Incontinent is the length. The movie clocks in at three hours. I had to take two naps in the middle before I could get to the finish.

Also, the action moves deliberately very slowly. Sometimes, it creates an interesting effect - there's not a single line of spoken dialog for the first ten minutes (I counted), and the silence helps build the suspense. Frequently, though, I just found the slow pace boring.

The designations of the title characters seem extraordinarily arbitrary. I get that Angel Eyes is "The Bad," but I can't for the life of me figure out what makes Clint Eastwood's character "The Good." He's pretty much a %@#^. The only thing that distinguishes him from the other two is his blonde hair, and if that's what makes him "good," then the film's classification of Mexican Tuco as "The Ugly" is extremely suspect.

So, yeah, I guess I didn't care for The Good, the Bad, and the Santa Maria that much. However, the ending duel between Tuco, Angel Eyes, and the "Man with No Name" is excellent. A single sequence lasting maybe five minutes nearly justifies the entire 150 minute buildup.

Final verdict - the film's a classic for a reason. No real surprise there. It's just not one I feel like revisiting again.

On the Opposite End of the Hitchcock Scale...

...there's Birdemic.

Last week I settled down with a bunch of friends to watch Birdemic, a film legendary for it's... well, horrifyingly low quality. And as far as bad movies go, I can't say that I've ever seen worse. Birdemic has got some of the worst production values I have ever seen. Ever.

I mean, the CG birds look like they came from After Dark.

I'm pretty sure you can still see the orange tips on the guns people shoot:

Overall, the film has all the crisp video clarity of a low-budget porno... or, um, so I hear.

Speaking of "porn" (please don't read too much into that, Mom), I don't think I've ever laughed harder than I did during the "love scene" in Birdemic. We see our two lovebirds shacked up in some third-class hotel. As they snuggle down for the night, the camera pans tastefully down to their feet, where we see...

...that our lovely leading lady has been running around in the parking lot outside.

Oh, and then there's the music, which mostly sounds like someone made MIDI files of the bass track of several popular songs - like John Lennon's "Imagine," for example.

Really, we could talk about all the terrible aspects of Birdemic and be here all day. Seriously, if you took all this movie's faults and laid them out flat, to look at it all would somehow take longer than it takes to actually WATCH the movie.

Which, by the way, you should never do.

This may sound strange coming from someone who (almost) unironically called Shark Night 3D the best movie of 2011, but something about the way Birdemic was put together REALLY rubbed me the wrong way. Maybe it was the outright theft of classic music. Maybe it was the less-than-YouTube camerawork. Maybe it was the complete insanity of the presumption that somehow global warming causes birds to explode acid.

Actually, I can sum it all up to one word: effort.

See, even when a movie (like Shark Night 3D) KNOWS it's going to be bad, the production staff can still turn the movie into an enjoyable experience. Bad writing can be spiced up with a tongue-in-cheek tone. Bad effects can be played up for their cheesiness. Movie makers can give the audience SOME sign that they're in on the joke.

That's what I loved about Shark Night 3D. Everything about the movie - from the camerawork to the performances to the plot itself (I STILL go ga-ga for the concept of "shark snuff films") - indicated that the minds behind the film were trying to make an enjoyable movie experience, if not a particularly QUALITY one. Birdemic, on the other hand, takes itself ENTIRELY too seriously without ANY of the skills it would take to back it up.

And, yes, I mean skills. Surprisingly, as much fun as I had watching Birdemic, I was ultimately kind of offended that this movie, which gave no indication that it was actually TRYING, achieved some sort of cult status. The actors phoned in every line, the plot was poorly thought out and formulaic, and the camerawork was so amateurish it actually sent my filmmaking friend into spasms of physical pain.

If I got the impression that Birdemic was some kind of labor of love, I think I'd be a bit more generous in my evaluation. Of course, if Birdemic HAD been a labor of love, there is NO WAY its mother would let it come outside dressed like it is.

Catching Up with the Classics: Vertigo

Still working on plugging up those holes in my movie history knowledge. I think this is the last Hitchcock film I can count towards completing my goal, although I'll definitely be coming back for more. Heck, I might even watch The Birds again.

Of course, that might just be to wash the taste of Birdemic out of my brain.

I'll admit I was a little disappointed in Vertigo. Some scenes were genius - especially poor ol' Jimmy Stewart's dream sequence, but, all in all, I found myself getting BORED.

The bulk of the movie is just watching Mr. Stewart trailing a woman he's been hired to stalk. There are a lot of driving scenes and almost no dialog. I spent about 30 seconds wondering what the woman was up to, and then another two minutes asleep on the couch.

Sorry, Mr. Hitchcock, but you're just not that good at suspense.

Like the rest of Hitchcock's films - and really the suspense genre in general - Vertigo gets a twist ending that's the REAL payoff. Sometimes, a film endures even when you know the twist ending. Psycho, for example, has a lot of very compelling acting and memorable scenes that are a joy to watch even when you know the twist. Unfortunately, Vertigo just wasn't as compelling. The twist was good, I guess, but the ending felt far too abrupt - there wasn't really enough time to process it. You almost missed the fact that you'd been fooled.

I'm not saying Vertigo was BAD at all. Neither, for the record, is The Sixth Sense. I don't feel a strong urge to watch EITHER of those films again.

Braddy Survived The Hunger Games

It's been a slow year for movies so far. Scheduling constraints have prevented me from getting out to theaters nearly as much as I'd like. For all the hubbub and to-do surrounding Netflix and hi-tech home entertainment devices, there's still not much that can diminish the thrill of catching a new movie on the big screen. So I was pretty excited when a friend of mine suggested we go catch The Hunger Games movie last night.

I've been mostly unfamiliar with the story to this point - I've never read the book. Now that I've experienced the movie, I find that I have a LOT of strong opinions about it that I'd like to share. But, before I do, I feel I should answer the question that's on everyone's mind.

No, I haven't seen The Avengers yet.

Now, let's talk The Hunger Games. Sometimes, when I get into the nitty-gritty details while talking about a movie, I tend to get so hung up on the technical or thematic points I want to make that my opinion of the movie gets buried under a landslide of nits which I picked out of the production, so let me make one thing perfectly clear from the beginning: I REALLY liked this movie.

Like, a lot.

Admittedly, there's not much unique to the plot. Like just about every notable YA fiction novel from about ten years ago, the story takes place in some kind of post-apocalyptic dystopia. The ruling class distracts the populace from the miserable conditions in which they live by putting on an extravagant beauty pageant in which the contestants literally kill each other to curry public favor. So it's a little like the Republican presidential nomination.

The civilization is divided into twelve districts. Our protagonist, Katniss Everdeen, comes from the outlying twelfth district, which is full of coal miners and orphans. The government is seated in a decadent capitol, far removed from the violence of the Hunger Games and inhabited entirely by clones of Johnny Depp.

Jennifer Lawrence, who plays Katniss, is pretty darn good at what she does. You get a real sense that she doesn't approve of the Hunger Games, but she doesn't know what she can do to fight against the system. Her role in the story is complicated - she's obviously very capable, but ultimately she is victimized by the totalitarian regime that organizes the Hunger Games, just like everyone else.

While there certainly is a lot of high-action hooplah, The Hunger Games gets a lot of points for subtlety. The film raises a lot of interesting questions - sometimes disturbing ones - and very little is explicitly spelled out for the audience. We KNOW that Haymitch is an incorrigible drunk, but we're not TOLD that he suffers from PTSD due to the horrors he experienced in the Hunger Games. We KNOW that Katniss is trying to act sympathetic to earn support from potential sponsors, but we're never TOLD whether she is faking her affection for Peeta or not. We KNOW Rue is awesome, but we're never TOLD exactly how awesome she is. It's remarkably restrained for a Hollywood flick.

So, yeah, I haven't seen The Avengers yet. Right now, I'm not sure I need to. I've got dozens of comics that involve Captain America punching aliens at home, but I've never encountered something quite like The Hunger Games before (obvious literary parallels aside). When all's said and done, I'm glad I took a risk on something new to me rather than going with the familiar standard.

Things I'll Love Forever: Finding Nemo

The summer after I graduated from high school, I probably saw Finding Nemo about four times in the theater – and there aren’t many movies I’ve watched in the movie theater more than once (The Dark Knight and, strangely enough, the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie are the only others I can think of). The beautiful aquatic sceneries and memorable characters make Finding Nemo one of my favorite movies of all time – and I haven’t watched it in years. Well, until Sunday night, at any rate. Then I remembered all the stuff to like about it.

1 – Finding Nemo has two very strong, very likeable main characters. Marlin is a pretty typical father figure, except his a little more cowardly than fathers are usually depicted. Of course, when your entire family is viciously devoured before your eyes, you’ll probably be a little cautious yourself. Marlin’s terror is pretty much his defining characteristic; however, when Nemo is abducted, Marlin turns that fear into a kind of desperate courage. His devotion to his son is nothing short of impressive.

2 – Of course, just because Marlin is the daring rescuer doesn’t mean Nemo can’t have his moment to shine. Crippled for life by a damaged fin, Nemo should be the helpless. One he meets his personal Yoda, though, Nemo comes into his own, and he actually manages to rescue himself. He’s the Macguffin to Marlin’s story arc, but his own character never gets thrown under the bus. Nemo’s every bit as inspiring and likeable as his father.

3 – Then there’s this chick:


In any other movie, a character like Dory would drive me absolutely insane. She’s obnoxious, gimmicky, and so silly she almost becomes superfluous. And it’s that “almost” that redeems her. She’s got her own story – a lot of it we never actually get to see. Near the end of the movie, when Marlin is about to leave and Dory begs him to stay with her, she delivers this amazing little speech about how he helps her remember things. That hint of tragedy makes her character far more compelling than she should be. I cry EVERY %^#% time.

Also, Ellen DeGeneres SMASHES the role. Dory, who is nearly Finding Nemo’s worst character, becomes the movie’s best, thanks in no small part to the brilliant voice acting.

4 – Almost all of the bit characters are great and memorable in their own way, as well. While the plot feels a bit like it was written with a video-game adaptation in mind (“here’s the shark level, here’s the jellyfish level…”), none of the set-pieces are unnecessary. Every step of the way (so to speak), Marlin learns a bit more about himself and Nemo. The sharks teach him to face his fears, the turtles teach him to trust his son more, and the whale teaches him to trust more. Not a single lesson is wasted. Speaking of which…

5 – Finding Nemo’s story is one of the most tightly-woven narratives I’ve ever encountered. There’s literally no filler. Every scene is significant, and many scenes are actually revisited – at least thematically. Heck, even Dory’s “Just Keep Swimming” song plays a significant role in the climax, when the fish have to escape the trawler’s net. The finale of the movie ties Dory’s optimism, Marlin’s determination, and Nemo’s self-confidence into one REALLY tense moment that serves as a great way to tie up all three storylines effectively and beautifully.

Is Finding Nemo a perfect movie? Maybe. I’m not kidding. It’s a darn fine piece of cinema, and I’ll love it forever.

Catching Up with the Classics: Rear Window

Ever have an uneventful Saturday night, where you hit the streets with money in your pocket that you just have to spend? That's the situation I found myself in this past weekend, and I walked away with a pretty impressive collection of Alfred Hitchcock movies.

Should make meeting my goal a little easier.

Rear Window is the first movie in my remedial Hitchcock education. I'm quickly getting to the point where I can call myself a Hitchcock "fan." The unusual cinematography created a unique movie-watching experience - nearly everything is shot from within a single room, which cultivates a claustrophobic and paranoid atmosphere. And speaking of paranoia, Jimmy Stewart does paranoia very well in a role QUITE different from the one I'm used to seeing him in.

Hitchcock is a master of suspense, and the suspense is strong in Rear Window, especially near the conclusion. Unfortunately, that suspense may be the film's biggest weakness (possibly a weakness in ALL Hitchcock films - I'll have to let you know later). Suspense compels the viewer to fear for the life/well-being/sanity of the protagonist; however, when we already know how things will end, suspense loses it's power over us. I worry that the several long, drawn-out scenes will bore me on a second viewing.

However, we're talking about the FIRST viewing today, and that was a good one. In my mind, Rear Window is an obvious classic, and well worth a look if you haven't seen it.

Catching Up with the Classics: The Maltese Falcon

Thanks go out to my friend Larissa who provided me with the opportunity to watch The Maltese Falcon – a movie I’ve known only by reputation and not by… anything else you could know a movie by. I only had a basic understanding of what the movie was about, and after watching it, I know just as much now as I did before.

The Maltese Falcon is incredibly dialog heavy. I’m guessing that, due to more stringent content restrictions at the time (or perhaps technical limitations), they couldn’t actually SHOW much of the gritty content that would have made this plot of intrigue, betrayal, and greed more coherent. As it was, they had to rely on a lot of dialog that both Larissa and I found difficult to follow.

I’m sure that difficult was due ENTIRELY to the complexity of the plot and had nothing at ALL to do with the fact that we were both sugar-crashing after eating a huge ice cream sundae.

Objects in camera are tastier than they appear.

I saw Humphrey Bogart in Casablanca and actually kinda hated him there – he’s too wooden to be a convincing romantic lead. However, as unethical detective Sam Spade, Bogart shows that he has a lot more range as an actor that I gave him credit for. He KILLS the part.

(Just for fun, if you want to play The Maltese Falcon drinking game, simply down a shot every time Sam Spade makes a phone call. You’ll be smashed before intermission.)

Also, Peter Lorre is in the film, and Peter Lorre makes EVERYTHING better. He’s so good at these sniveling, conniving characters that you just love to hate him… or hate to love him. Either way, you feel dirty and never want to be clean again.

I feel about The Maltese Falcon the same way I felt after watching Ghajini – I don’t quite know what I saw, and I’m not even sure I liked it, but I’m pretty sure I want more of it. I’m drawn to the old-school, hard-boiled detective model, and I saw a lot in The Maltese Falcon to like. Character motivations are complex, and, sometimes, I kinda dig a story where NO ONE is likeable, which is certainly the case here. Moral ambiguity in fiction is like cheesecake – delicious, sinfully rich and probably really bad for you.

The Les Mis Cast Raises Some Concerns...

Hey, there's a big-screen adaptation of the Les Miserables musical coming soon. That's cool. I love that show. I wonder who's in it...

Hugh Jackman... Okay, I can get behind that. He's a talented singer and a big enough name to attract some attention all on his lonesome. Who else... Russell Crowe... Anne Hathaway...

Wait, WHO'S THAT?


That's... That's really strange.

Okay, some people might think I dislike Taylor Swift (although I have NO idea where they'd get that idea). Truth is, she's really good at what she does... which is pop country. Pop. Country. Not Broadway showtunes. Popcountry.

I'm not even saying she'll do a bad job. She'll probably be fine. I mean, she has a pretty voice, and Eponine's songs rely on a bit more tragic sweetness than full-force belting. Taylor swift's voice may even be a good match for this role.

Still, it's obvious that most of these roles are being filled by people with name recognition over those with perhaps more suitable talent. On the other side of the pop star casting, you get Helena Bonham Carter, who didn't exactly impress with her singing in Sweeney Todd. Again, she'll probably do fine in the role she's playing - Madame Thenardier is a GREAT character role, and Helena Bonham Carter is a GREAT character actress. Outside of the music, the casting is ideal.

I don't understand this desire in Hollywood to take big names and stuff them into roles that they'll be mediocre at. You wind up with excellent talent like Gerard Butler and Pierce Brosnan, and they sound EMBARASSING. You COULD staff your musical with more players like Taylor Swift, but then you run the risk of embarassing yourself in other ways. Hope Miss Swift remembers her drama club lessons... did she even GO to high school?

Imagine if the folks behind Les Mis had let themselves get carried away with this trend - casting popular musicians in roles JUST for a fancier marquee.

"Who are we casting now? Jean Valjean? What's this guy's story? High singing voice? Okay, here's who you get."


"Who's next... Thenardier? What's he, a comic relief guy, right? We need someone a little goofy... Got it!"


"All right, we're on a roll. Last one... Gavroche? A kid? Oh, this is easy."


Okay, cynicism aside, this looks like it could be a good movie. Most of the casting choices MAKE SENSE, once you get past the initial eyebrow raise. And, personally, I'm really excited to see Sasha Baron Cohen in another musical role. Guy's impressed me, and that's something I never thought I'd say about Borat.

Catching Up with the Classics: 12 Angry Men

I actually watched this movie last week, which is why it doesn't appear on the list. Technically, though, 12 Angry Men is one of the FIRST classic movies I selected to fill the gap in my life.

And... well, it's pretty good, but I've seen better.

The central message of the film is pretty strong - it's all about civic duty and the importance of one man's life. I'm pretty sure that the investigation these jurors undertake goes a bit over the line - in fact, there's one bit of evidence submitted that is clearly said to be illegal. Still, the casualness and callousness with which eleven men are willing to pass judgment on another's life is worth questioning, and that's what the film does.

There are some pretty powerful moments - I'm especially fond of how the racist Juror #10 is pretty brutally shut down after his diatribe. I think my favorite moment may have been the exchange between Jurors #8 and #4. #4 was by far my favorite - his motivation was clear, and he seemed to let logic dictate his actions.

The entire film, with maybe a couple minutes excepted, takes place in a single room. The audience feels the same stifling claustrophobia the jurors do. It's actually a well-executed effect.

If there's one TECHNICAL problem that I have with the film, it's the dramatization of some of the shots. The story is simple enough that it doesn't need extreme camera angles to make its point - the strength of 12 Angry Men is in its dialog and the strength of its characterizations. So, when they're employed, some of the close up shots come off a little too... intense.

I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti.

Still, 12 Angry Men is a solid movie. It's a classic, and deservedly so.

Catching Up with the Classics: The Initial List

True story: Once upon a time, I hated movies.

Well, not ALL movies. I developed a philosophy back in college that anything which entertains you must also edify you in some way. It isn't enough for a movie to be funny or exciting. It has to be thought provoking as well.

At the time, my opinion earned me a pretty sticky "snob" label - and, I don't know, maybe I deserve it. I do have a tendency to condemn movies that look stupid without ever watching them (*ahem*).

Recently, though, I've decided that it's a far better use of my time to talk about the stuff I LIKE rather than the stuff I think is silly - unless it's silly in a good way.

I don't talk about it much on the blog here, but I LOVE old silent comedies - Charlie Chaplin's quickly become one of my heroes. I've gotten a lot out of watching classic silent films. As with literature, when something's called a "classic," there's USUALLY a reason behind it (although every rule has exceptions).

There's been a bit of a gap in my film knowledge, though. I love silent films, and I love "modern" classics, but there are a LOT of classic movies that I know nothing about beyond the word "Rosebud."

So that's what this list is about. Here are movies I'm planning on watching to brush up a bit on film history. This is, by no means, a COMPREHENSIVE list - I'm ALWAYS open to suggestions (hint hint). Eventually, I'm hoping to get into some more international films, but I'm focusing just on American films for now.

• Citizen Kane
• The Graduate
• The Maltese Falcon
• Rear Window
• Vertigo
• The Manchurian Candidate
• A Night at the Opera
• Sherlock Jr.
• The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
• The Wizard of Oz

Tintin: Not Too Terrifying After All

I've been watching the development of The Adventures of Tintin with a bit of excitement and some trepidation. Going in to the movie, I knew it would be difficult to separate my feelings for the source material from the experience of watching the film - always a danger when going in to any adaptation. Judging the film on its own merits was a bit difficult, but, all in all, The Adventures of Tintin made for a fun moviegoing experience.

Part of the reason that it was so difficult to look at Tintin as a separate experience from the comics is that there are SO MANY different stories brought together. The Adventures of Tintin was meant to be an adaptation of two Tintin stories - The Secret of the Unicorn and Red Rackham's Treasure, but I noticed prominent scenes and characters from at least FIVE different stories mashed together. It's probably not something that would bother most people; however, I'm not sure that the selected scenes worked together well.

It makes sense that, when introducing a new intellectual property to the masses, you'd want to select more recognizable elements to attract the largest audience possible. All the different scenes selected for Tintin do work well...ish. I noticed a few lapses in logic during certain transitions between set pieces - getting the characters from one recognizable locale to the other didn't always make sense. Maybe someone who isn't so familiar with the Tintin comics wouldn't be bothered so much by it.

There's a big tonal change from the comics to the movie as well. The comics emphasize comedy a bit more, while the movie's more about the action. Unfortunately, this means the comic elements of the movie (ie. the Thomson/Thompson pairing) feel out of place - but not cripplingly so.

As for the action... well, it's AWESOME. Fight scenes that last only a panel or two in the comics are extended for several minutes, and, while it is a bit over the top, it's a LOT of fun to watch. Especially notable are Tintin's escape from an enemy boat and a flashback involving Captain Haddock's ancestor and the pirate, Red Rackham. The animation allows for some amazing stunt choreography that wouldn't really work in any other medium.

Speaking of the animation, I'll admit to being a bit worried about the Zemeckis-style motion capture, but it actually works really well. Tintin himself and the villain look GREAT, and the other characters, whose exaggerated features come straight from the original art, aren't off-putting at all as I first thought they would be. Seeing these character in motion is actually pretty delightful - you can see the essence of the actor behind the character (Daniel Craig and Andy Serkis do especially well), but the visual is all animation, and pretty well-rendered animation at that.

The 3-D still sucks, though, and adds just about nothing to the experience.

Surprisingly, I think my favorite part of the movie is the opening title sequence - which sounds like a diss, I know, but isn't meant to be. I never really realized it before, but I'm a bit of a sucker for a well-executed title sequence, and Tintin has one of the best I've ever seen. I'd almost say the movie's worth the price of admission just for the opening credits.

The rest of the film, though, is pretty great, despite some weaknesses in the writing. The motion capture is good, the acting is fine, and the action is top-notch. The Adventures of Tintin probably won't win any awards, but it's definitely worth a watch if you're into some good action.

Braddy's Big Bollywood... umm... Breakthrough. Yeah, That Alliterates.

I borrowed a movie from a friend last night - Ghajini, a Bollywood film inspired by the Christopher Nolan movie Memento, and supposedly my friend's all-time favorite movie. I'd never seen a Bollywood movie before, and I've always been fascinated by the plot of Memnto, which features a character suffering from anterograde amnesia (an inability to retain new memories following a tramautic event). So I decided to give Ghajini a try. Hooray for new experiences, right?

Just a warning about new experiences - some of them are, like, really extremely crazy.

Ghajini is about the most disjointed movie-watching experience I've ever had - ever. See, I thought I knew kind of what to expect from the movie going in. After all, here's the movie poster:

Hardcore, no?

Now let's take a look at the description on the back of the movie box:

Imagine being one of the most successful businessmen in the country. Sanjay Singhania is a rich businessman who owns a cellular phone company. Kalpana is a model who brags to her friends and peers that she is the love interest of Sanjay, though in reality she doesn't even know the man.

When Sanjay comes to know about this anonymous admirer of his, he decides to dispel her delusions. But on his way he sees a beautiful woman helping the handicapped kids cross the road. Instantly, Sanjay falls for her. Later, he comes to know that she is Kalpana, the same model who boasted of being his girlfriend.

Sanjay gets introduced to Kalpana but doesn't disclose his real identity. Love blossoms between the two.

...What?

As it turns out, there are two plot threads in the movie. One follows Sanjay Singhania, a man with no long-term memory who tattoos his body with clues which should lead him to identify his girlfriend's murderer. The other plot, which unfolds all in flashbacks, follows Sanjay Singhania who falls in love with a woman through a CRAZY mixup.

In the first twenty minutes of the film, Sanjay stabs a man to death. Then, not twenty minutes later, we get this:


and this:


That last picture is pretty darn hilarious. This *NSYNC wannabe is actually the SAME PERSON as the guy on the movie poster. By the end of the film, he completely transforms into a rage-driven, animalistic revenge machine that punches people to death. In the climax, he hits someone so hard that he breaks the other guys neck and his head does a complete 180. The dude is LITERALLY lying on his belly and staring up at the sky in awe AT THE SAME TIME.

I'm not the only one noticing a disconnect, right? It's like I stuck in the DVD to Silence of the Lambs, and then, about halfway through, the movie switches over to a musical adaptation of Hitch. The tone switches with breakneck speed from psychological thriller to romantic comedy to melodrama to straight-up horror DOZENS of times over the course of three hours.

Now, it probably sounds like I didn't care for Ghajini, while I actually... probably didn't care for it much. There was a lot of great stuff - some of the cinematography was FANTASTIC, the music was catchy, and the rom-com bits WERE pretty funny. I have to wonder how much of the weird disconnect is due simply to cultural differences between Hindi and Hollywood films.

Unfortunately, it may be too late for Ghajini. I'm glad I watched it, but I doubt the movie will ever be a thing I love forever.

But boy HOWDY, did I have fun watching it!