The Squid and the Whale (2005)
Location: Home (DVD)
Seen Before: Yes
Rating: 4.5
Upon first seeing this at the theater last December, I found it practically side-splittingly funny, but felt the structure of the film was just awful. This second time around, however, I just gave in to the sheer hilarity of the film and the power of the performances and found that I really, really appreciate and enjoy this--easily the best of Baumbach's efforts. I feel like I now understand why he approached the story the way he did, and, I'm even glad he chose this route--it is a truely unique, individual film.
My Cousin Vinny (1992)
Location: Home
Seen Before: Yes
Rating: 5.0
It's simple, formulaic, from the early 1990's--and ridiculously funny and enjoyable. Maybe it is simply a nostalgia pick of mine, but I think dearly of this movie. Too true is it that movies like this are not made anymore; it's all Anchorman or Just Friends or Waiting or some other forgetable waste of 90 minutes with that guy from that tv show about his friends and pizza. Movies used to be able to just be nothing special and still remain enjoyable. How rare these days.
Rushmore (1998)
Location: Home (Criterion DVD)
Seen Before: Yes
Rating: 5.0
Oh boy, my favorite film. I hope Wes will one day be able to top himself (so much for the sophomore slump, eh?), but he's kind of hard pressed with this one. Ditto for Schwartzman and Murray.
Marnie (1964)
Location: Home
Seen Before: No
Rating: 2.5I absolutely hate to give a Hitch film such a low rating, but Marnie is certainly misplaced in the recently released Masterpiece Collection. Starting out very promisingly with a truely subtle and wonderful performance by Tippi Hedren that had me from her first moment on screen, the film spirals downwardly with the marriage between her and Sean Connery (whose sometimes-British, sometimes-American accent completely took me out of the picture with roughly every word he spoke). After this point, I started thinking that Marnie was a bipolar schizophrenic with her wails and outbursts and coldsweats. The script is so all over the place with its juggling routine of one two many subplots that the main plot isn't given enough room to fully develope and breathe and by the time its climax peaks I felt like I didn't know what film I was watching. This point in the film is sadly rather embarrassing with Connery suddenly recalling moments that supposedly happened in the film (I couldn't remember them!) and Hedren doing her best with poorly handled material. How'd you go so wrong, Hitch?
**Now, I watched this over a span of three days--could that have something to do with my negative reaction? Maybe, but I feel it's somewhat unlikely.
V for Vendetta (2006)
Location: AMC Loews Waterfront Theater
Seen Before: No
Rating: 3.5
I found this story extremely intriguing but ended up feeling the script needed much more work; the Matrix Bros. try to cram far too much into the film to the point where it feels bogged down and muddled. Often, as scenes unfolded, I found myself completely bewildered as to why they were constructed in the fashion that they were (poory worded, I know)--the overbearing score crescendoing as a character gives us expository dialogue and the editor is cross-cutting between action taking place--pacing, people, pacing! At the same time I never felt truely invested in the story's outcome, instead feeling like I was just watching colors flash in front of me on a giant screen. For the most part, it seemed rather predictable (why put Natalie Portman in a jail cell and threaten her with death when we know there's no way in cinematic Hell that she is going to be killed off?) and so often just remarkably convenient (Stephen Rea popping out behind the subway car toward the end was laughable).
So why the at least respectable 3.5? Solid performances; nice camerawork; fascinating storyline; an entertaining two hours. It hurts when it could have been a lot more, though. These fellows should have looked at recent blockbusters like Batman Begins and War of the Worlds, spectacles that got it right, before commiting V to celluloid.
The Hudsucker Proxy (1994)
Location: University Center Cinema Offices
Seen Before: Yes
Rating: 3.5
In the number of times that I've seen this now (about four) I am still unable to put my finger on exactly why this never sits quite right with me. Every time I find the performances enjoyable, the cinematography and lightly breathtaking, the production design remarkable, and story interesting.
So what is it that always leaves me not wanting to return to this; leaves me feeling uneasy?
Short Cuts (1993)
Location: Home
Seen Before: No
Rating: 5.0
I have seen Altman's The Long Goodbye, The Player, and have tried to get through Gosford Park twice, but the gentleman can just not fully win me over. I've equated him to Guided by Voices--it is something that comes with time and age. Well, GBV happened for me but Altman yet to, until I saw Short Cuts. Despite its three-hour run-time, I grew to enjoy the film more and more as it progressed. I rather like how it is anti-climactic in not bringing all of the stories and characters to a head; doing this is truer to the way in which we are thrust into these lives as the film opens and then just as quickly pushed out as it closes. Seeing the wide range of talents is a treat, especially Tom Waits, as catching him on the screen is a rarity. Maybe this is Altman's most accessible film, but that's okay, because with him that is exactly where I have to start out.
The Most Dangerous Game (1932)
Location: Home
Seen Before: No
Rating: 3.0
For some reason, this film is not as compelling as it needs to be, or perhaps it simply has not completely withstood the test of time. There is some nice photography and it is fun to see a pre-Kong Fay Wray practically auditioning for that famous role to soon follow, but ultimately this comes off as mostly standard fare. Maybe the short story is better (did I read it in high school?), but I think more could have been done with the adaptation. There's certainly enough story for a feature--why only an hour long, fellows?
The Devil & Daniel Webster (1941)
Location: Home
Seen Before: No
Rating: 4.5William Dieterle's The Devil and Daniel Webster is a truely striking (and must have been ground-breaking) film; his use of elegant lighting, quick editing, and innovative camera movement remind one of Citizen Kane or Night of the Hunter. This tale of greed and temptation is constantly interesting if not usually predictable, but the real joy here is seeing how Dieterle lets his tale unfold--through graceful compositions and wonderful performances and fascinating uses of sound. Sadly, the screenplay doesn't let the audience piece together elements for themselves (Jabez comes off as over the top and completely lacking subtlety), instead opting to have characters outrightly professing their intentions and inner dialogue. These flaws mostly don't matter, though, as the film as a whole wins you over with its bold look and feel.
My Own Private Idaho (1991)
Location: Home
Seen Before: Yes
Rating: 5.0
I find this film to be really, really exciting; I feel like Van Sant has so many ideas here and is so ready to try anything and it all fits together so snuggly. Even Reeves, who, for the most part I find does a pretty poor job in just about anything, works just fine. River is completely perfect and, as I already touched upon, Van Sant is at the complete top of his game. The only thing that doesn't sit all the way well with me is the episode with Bob and Shakespeare toward the front--it feels only the slightest bit out of place and I really just find myself a little uninterested here (amazingly, Reeves does really well here--who would have thought?). I can't blame Van Sant though, because even that section still works within the whole of the film. My Own Private Idaho is a modern-day classic.
The Lost Weekend (1945)
Location: Home
Seen Before: No
Rating: 5.0
I'd been familiar with the story of this film, but just hadn't gotten around to check it out until I caught a scene of it on TCM a few weeks back. What I saw completely sucked me in--a New Yorker in his early 30's sweating over the fact that he does not have enough money to pay his tab in a fancy bar. He resorts to stealing the purse next to him and is soon caught and embarrased in front of the whole joint--even the piano player gets in on it and leads the crowd in cheering "he stole the purse!" I thought there was something really magical in these images and character; I wanted to keep watching but I held off, knowing I had to see it all the way though.
Last night when I was able to do just that, I found that the magic of that scene runs throughout the whole picture. I never felt Ray Milland was overacting or exaggerating, but I am curious as to how people who've worked with alcoholics (and alcoholics themselves) would judge this portrayal--fair? spot-on? over the top?
It all worked for me and further solidifies why I've been so in awe lately as I discover Billy Wilder.
