Sunday, July 20, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Ana S. - 9 pts.
Juan F. - 8 pts
Chris M. - 8 pts.
Brian W. - 4pts.
John K. - 1pt pts.
Congratz to Ana S. from British Columbia for answering the most correctly!!! She is the winner of a $25 gift certificate to Best Buy. For curiosities sake, here are the answers:
- The Big Red One
- Ivan's Childhood
- The Last Detail
- Through a Glass Darkly
- Death Trance
- Funky Forest: The First Contact
- The Odd Couple
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Friday, April 18, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Saturday, April 12, 2008
Friday, April 11, 2008
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
Sunday, April 6, 2008
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
It won't be long before some Hollywood studio purchases the rights to adapt this novel so for my own amusement I thought it would be interesting to cast who should star in the leading roles.
Clive Owen as Martin Sharp
James McAvoy as JJ
Imelda Staunton as Maureen
Emma Watson as Jess
Monday, March 31, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
Picked both of these up for a 2/$20 at HMV. I have seen the Woody Allen film several times and it remains one of his best from the 90's. Buffalo '66 was a complete blind-purchase and I have never seen anything by Gallo before. It has Christinni Ricci so that was enough to give it the benefit of the doubt. How would you rate these two?
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
What stands out in a film like this that deals with subject matter that has been covered time and time again is that the characters come across as real people with complex emotions and depth. Even the murderers and thugs aren’t just mere cardboard cut-outs of familiar gangster-type associations; the way they communicate or react to certain situations reveals much about their personalities. Take Esteban (Giancarlo Esposito) for instance who is a big-time drug dealer that our 12 year old protagonist Michael (Sean Nelson) or Fresh as he is more commonly referred to works for as a drug pusher in the streets of Harlem. Esteban is a family man and not the familiar strung-out mean-spirited criminal that only cares about money even though he is driven by greed and prone to intimidating bursts of rage as complications surface in the drug-trade. He holds loyalty and truthfulness in high esteem and even goes out of his way to treat Fresh like his own son. Esteban may not be the most decent man to be around but he is a man of principles and it’s refreshing to see a crime-lord with some semblance of humanity. Another refreshing aspect is that Yakin doesn’t pigeonhole his characters as “good” or “bad”. The streets are a war zone where drugs, violence and prostitution are rampant. The struggle for survival in such a hostile environment plagues these people especially Fresh who wants nothing more than to save enough money and escape the hustling street life before it’s too late. With minimal government support, these poor souls are left with very few options to make an honest living and continually get roped into this dangerous lifestyle so who are we to judge? The youth is the most vulnerable to corruption and Yakin emphatically points out that education is something that needs to be reinforced in these young children who are falling victim to this perilous lifestyle since they don’t know any better. Until the government decides to put forth the effort to intervene this is a problem that is not going to be resolved anytime soon.
In what is probably the most overlooked child performance of the 90’s or possibly ever, Sean Nelson is spellbinding in the title role and carries the entire film. The emotional range and his ability to portray Fresh as an smart kid that is exceedingly clever without coming off as too precocious is nothing short of masterful. It is a shame that Sean Nelson’s career never really took off after this film and if the heart-wrenching final scene is any indication, this young man showed incredible talent at such a young age. Fresh may be young but living in these conditions has forced him to grow up quickly even though he is still just a kid at heart. The awkwardness of his school-yard crush showcases Nelson at the top of his game; completely in control of his character by switching from his normal rigid imperviousness to a kid unsure of how to approach the situation. The film wears its heart on its sleeve and relies on Nelson’s genuine performance in order to effectively portray its themes and ideas. Fresh has to maintain a firm assertiveness so as to not show weakness because of the sordid work that he does even though deep inside he is terrified and filled with anguish. His relationship with his alcoholic father (Samuel L. Jackson), a skilled chess player who spends most of his time in the park drinking from a brown paper-bag and playing the game is the emotional core of the film. Chess is a game of strategy and during these visits, Fresh’s father offers him advice on the game but looking closer at the dialogue, it soon becomes clear that these are valuable life lessons that he is giving his son. The chess lessons also help to influence the way Fresh cunningly decides to outsmart his opponents which of course are the drug-dealers he sells dope for. The way he goes about doing this is incredibly suspenseful that is intricately thought out making the plot exhilarating to watch unfold. Even though the film can be grueling to watch at times because of how unflinching the violence is depicted, the raw authenticity of the script, perfect pacing, and wonderfully drawn characters makes it difficult to turn away. This film is leaps and bounds ahead of all those other films dealing with similar subject matter because it actually has something positive to say and goes about doing so in a thought-provoking and intelligent manner.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Here is where I more than likely lose most of you who have been following my list. Similar to Miranda July, Zellwegger seems like an obscure pick among the A-list power-house performances and her current ranking position may seem questionable but she really is deserving of such adoration. She brings to life one of the most relatable female characters I have ever come across in cinema with humor, sharp wit, gentle warmth and a social awkwardness that makes her completely adorable. Single, plump, pushing 40 and desperate to find a man, Bridget Jones isn’t your typical bombshell beauty typically found in these kind of romantic comedies. It’s refreshing to have a female heroine who is relatably flawed and yet completely sexy by her intellectualism and personality rather than plain looks. Zellwegger was born for this role and immerses herself completely in the role (she even packed on a lot of extra weight for it), brings a level of genuine earnestness to her character that just rings true. Bridget would be the kind of girl I could see myself falling in love with.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Oh, and I also bought three films this afternoon:
- La Vie En Rose: After Marion Cotillard pulled a major upset at the Academy awards by winning best actress I just had to see for myself if her performance was worthy of such adoration.
- Once: I'm hoping that a re-watch will convince me that my initial vitriolic response towards it was all wrong.
- Sunshine: One of my favorites of 2007. I just had to own it.
Monday, March 17, 2008
My two cents is that right from the get-go, Warner Brothers should have gone the Lord of the Rings route by releasing both the theatrical version (with a slightly longer running times that don't rush the story) and an extended version. That way there would be less pressure once Deathly Hallows is released and everyone wins. It would help to satisfy the hardcore Harry Potter fans and for those who haven't read the books but go to see the movies will at least have a more thorough understanding of what is going on. The main problem with these films is that they focus on time constraints rather than the actual story. Now, WB realizes that this past mistake is going to bite them in the arse because of how the previous six books build up towards Deathly Hallows and since they decided it would be wise to overlook the importance of Rowling's story, they now have to fill in the missing gaps. They could rise up the challange and manage to pull it off except this creates another problem: Where do you make the split and retain continuity without alienating the audience? It is interesting to note that both parts will be released six months apart. During this time will Part 1 be released on DVD to get people excited to go and see Part 2? If not, excitement will dwindle and there is the possibility that many will lose interest. WB may have good intentions to finally do the books justice but splitting it into two parts puts the narrative in jeopardy. Wouldn't it make more sense to release a three and a half hour movie instead without a disruption of the story-telling act structure. There could even be an intermission. Presumably, the first part will lack a satisfying climax unless they come up with some ingenious way of leaving a cliff-hanger because of the way the book is structured. The first half deals with Harry's learning of the Horcruxes which means that it will more than likely be many scenes of exposition. The second part involves Harry taking action and the climactic battle at Hogwarts. There lies the dilemma. How are they going to pull it off successfully without hurting the narrative? I suppose we are going to have to wait and see. Any thoughts on this?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
“We've been going about this all wrong, this Mr. Stay Puft's okay, he's a sailor, he's in New York, we get this guy laid we won't have any trouble.”
Here we have what I consider to be one of the best comedies to come out of the 1980’s. With a great cast including Bill Murray, Dan Akroyd, Harold Ramis, Sigourney Weaver and Rick Moranis, there is non-stop laughs sprinkled with thrills. It may just be the nostalgia factor, but this was one of the defining films of my childhood and I find myself enjoying it even more so today. Before Ghostbusters was released as a motion-picture, there was the hit cartoon show that I remember getting up extra early to watch and the cool action-figures. According to my parents, this was the first film that we owned on VHS and apparently, I would watch it on a regular basis. I clearly remember getting frightened during some of the sequences especially the beginning with the ghost in the library. Even today, this scene still manages to make me jump as the three professors investigate a disturbance in the lower level of the facility. As a kid, I was mainly interested in the action and the ion blasters that the Ghostbusters use to capture the ghosts. Not to mention, the film also scared the hell out of me even though it is more of a comedy. Plenty of the humor, jokes and underlying social themes flew right over my head when I was younger but now I can appreciate it more.
The comedic premise has always interested to me. Three University science professors start up their own business of catching ghosts, ghouls, monsters and other supernatural beings that just happen to be terrorizing New York City. Unfortunately for them, demons from another world have no entered the realm of Earth and are launching an assault on the Big Apple. Who can forget that mischief making green ghost named Slimer, or the Stay Puft Marshmellow Man? The collectible figurine of the latter still rests on my shelf to this day. With New Yorkers in a state of panic, who will they turn to for help? Well, as the catchy theme song goes, “Who, you gonna call? Ghost Busters!”
The special effects seem a bit dated but it is all campy fun. The script is sharp and funny providing lots of memorable dialogue. It takes on a rather sarcastic tone and works perfectly to Bill Murray’s advantage since he specializes in dry humor. For instance, one of the funniest lines in the entire film is delivered by Murray: “It’s official. This man has no dick.” His performance Venkman is also one of the best roles of his career. The film is obviously a collaboration of great actors but it’s really Bill Murray who is the star here. Sigourney Weaver plays his love interest and even though many would disagree with me, I don’t think she has ever looked sexier than in her role here as Dana Barrett, the woman whom the evil forces have an interest in. Special mention also needs to go to Rick Moranis who provides a belly full of laughs as the neurotic little dweeb who is infatuated with Weaver’s character. His encounter with the scary-looking demon dog is hilarious and even though it is a small role, it is probably his best performances. Let’s be realistic here, his career has been rather shaky and he tends to star in mediocre or just downright terrible films (The Flintstones, Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, etc). This is one performance he should be remembered for alongside Darth Helmet in Mel Brook’s Spaceballs.
If you are looking for a great comedy, action, or thrills and chills, you can’t go wrong with this film. This is big-blockbuster entertainment at its best. Mixing elements of horror, action and humor with a vast array of comedic talent, Ghost Busters is a blast and a definite 80’s classic.
(This review was written on January 3rd, 2004)
Wednesday, March 5, 2008
Having seen this film on DVD and a restored 35mm print, I’ve come to the conclusion that in order to experience the full effect of Ray’s vision is to watch it on the big screen. Either that or someone needs to release a better version of it on DVD since the current version that is out now simply does not do the film justice. Taking full advantage of CinemaScope with a tapestry of elaborate color schemes that seem almost irreverently crude, Ray is able to maximize the amount of space in the frame; his sets are cluttered and pervasively cumbersome. He has a tendency to shoot many scenes where a large group of people fill up the screen. The outdoor scenes are overly bright and expansive.
Joan Crawford’s Vienna in Nicholas Ray’s incendiary Western is one of domineering strength and unbridled determination. She is one of the rare female heroines of the genre that isn’t a harlot or controlled by male ascendancy. The swapping of gender-roles makes for a much more complex and introspective character study opposed to the standard archetypal characterizations adopted by the genre. It’s refreshing to finally come across a female protagonist in a Western with nerve and independence capable of making the rules. Taken at face value, it is an entertaining little Western that masquerades as cautionary tale towards industrialization laced with gunslingers, outlaws, bursts of violence and romance. This is only scratching the surface since what makes the film so fascinating is its evocative portrayal of femininity and its rebel spirit permeating just below the surface. More importantly, the film has a hidden political agenda and is actually a scathing assault on McCarthyism with particular emphasis on the importance of democracy. The local town authorities have become highly suspicious of a group of so-called “troublemakers” and are ruthless in pinpointing the blame on them for a supposed bank-car robbery.
Vienna owns a saloon, hoping to cash in when the railroad comes through. This is much to the disapproval of the local authorities led by a mean-spirited Sheriff and a malicious woman named Emma (Mercedes MacCambridge) who has a personal vendetta against Vienna that is far more complex than the film initially alludes to making for a fascinating character study of the two women. Vienna also happens to be friends with Dancing Kid and his posse who frequent her saloon. Since this group of individuals fails to conform to the established principles upheld by this community, it seems a safe bet according to the authorities to use them as a scapegoat. Enter Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden) who comes to town hired by Vienna to work in her saloon as a musician. What follows I dare not reveal only that Ray serves up plenty of melodrama as a way of accentuating the sexual politics on display. The title of the film is ironic in the sense that Johnny isn’t the main character of the film at all whose role is to merely highlight Vivian’s sexual control. The final showdown is unique in that it is between two dominant bad-ass women (Vienna vs. Emma) where the men are powerless to intervene – a true cinematic moment for feminists everywhere to rejoice in.
Monday, March 3, 2008
Hold the phone. Why the hell is a Harry Potter film appearing on a top 100 list? Before suggesting that I am clinically insane (which you would probably be partially correct) let me try to explain. This is a very personal list and don’t I expect many to agree with my selections. In order to narrow it down, the re-watchability factor played a significant role and it just so happens that I have seen the Potter films more times than any other film, even Star Wars. I’m not ashamed in expressing my absolutely love for everything Harry Potter. As a rabid fan-boy of J.K. Rowling’s books, it would be dishonest not to include at least one of the of film adaptations especially when the third installment is a visually exceptional film.
Just because I may be overly bias doesn’t mean that the inherent flaws can be ignored. The plot-holes are numerous, a lot of key story-material was cut or rushed over, some technical errors are slightly distracting and the acting is a little rough around the edges (albeit a major improvement over the first two films) but these slight distractions are not enough to overshadow Cuaron’s unique vision of capturing the imaginative wonder of the source material while at the same time, adding his own artistic creativity. To give credit where credit is due, the insipid offerings by Columbus were the most loyal to the books but were so painfully dull. Entertaining as both pictures were, they felt over-stuffed; unable to fully encapsulate Rowling’s universe. Cuaron takes the Potter franchise to a whole new level of artistic achievement that has yet to be equaled by his successors Mike Newell and David Yates.
My hat goes off to Cuaron for not merely doing a page-by-page adaptation and instead focusing on the development of the three characters as they experience the growing pains of adolescence. Harry Potter (Daniel Radcliffe) has to face unspeakable evil in the outside world; that much is obvious. As threatening as his opposing forces may be, Cuaron is much more interested in Harry’s internal struggles as he comes to terms with his past and his identity. Learning from the mistakes of Columbus and building upon the universe which was previously created, Cuaron is able to shift his attention away from just mere spectacle to a more character driven story fleshing out the trio (as all the hip kids call them these days) in the process. Their personalities are becoming more distinct and the close friendship they share becomes even more vital. They are teenagers now going through the motions and discovering their own sexuality. All of the sexual subtle innuendos and phallic imagery Cuaron employs throughout the film seem innocent upon first glance but don’t be deceived. Take the beginning scene for instance, which has Harry practicing magic with his wand under his bed sheets at night. What about Ron’s comment to Neville about “stroking it”? Cuaron really pushes the limits of the PG-rating with this film.
The brooding atmosphere, shadowy camera angles and ominous imagery bring a level of maturity as the story of Harry’s life grows darker. Before returning to his third year of Hogwarts, he nearly gets suspended for taking out his anger on his Aunt Marge with hilarious consequences. There’s also an escaped convict on the loose named Sirius Black (Gary Oldman) who was a close follower of Voldemort and apparently wants his head on a platter. Oh, and don’t forget the cloaked specters known as Dementors who suck the souls out of people. There is such a radical change in the level of growing darkness in comparison to the first two films here and yet, there is still humor to be found. Rowling’s novels always have a great sense of humor no mater how gloomy or chaotic the situation. Order of the Phoenix director David Yates can take a lesson from Cuaron in balancing humor with all the drama and horrors that befall the boy wizard.
Full of sparkling vivid imagery, Cuaron uses images to tell the story and no other film in the series thus far has managed to equal or surpass its visual splendor. It’s about time we got a Harry Potter film that can be considered cinematic. With a vast improvement in CGI over the last few films, he is given the opportunity to flex his creative muscles. Using the Whomping Willow tree to indicate the change in seasons, zooming through the moving gears of the giant clock in the tower or making Harry’s flight on the Hippogriff the most magical scene in the entire series; every frame is just beautifully crafted.
The Prisoner of Azkaban finally delivers as close as we can hope for in a Harry Potter adaptation balancing all the disparate elements in Rowling’s work that makes it so fascinating to read. The wonderfully drawn characters, the intriguing story-line, the humor, the imaginative wonder, the thrilling action, it’s all here. Even though hardcore Potter fans know the story inside out, there are still plenty surprises to be found here too. Let’s just hope WB decides to bring Cuaron back for Deathly Hallows because that is a book which desperately needs his creative talent to give it justice.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The first scene is one of startling tenderness and genuine emotion that sets the tone for the entire film. A young man and woman are face to face in the cold airy night exchanging soft delicate words. There is a moment where she asks him, “Why haven’t you ever kissed me before?” He responds plaintively, “I’m scared. Mostly because I don’t want it to be like when I kissed other girls.” She then responds with a gesture, suggesting that he kiss the palm of her hand and that way it wouldn’t be like the other girls. I’ve returned to this film on numerous occasions just to watch this opening scene unfold and each time it completely bowls me over in the way that Green is able to illustrate such transcending compassion between two people with such simplicity where their feelings for each other become fully realized. Of course, this scene wouldn't work without the fantastic performances of Zooey Deschanel and Paul Schneider who absolutely shine in their roles here. They each respectively give their characters nuance and idiosyncrasies; convincingly depicting them as flawed individuals who are vulnerable and desperately seeking for affection.
Few modern film romances released in the last couple years are as sincerely portrayed or tentatively impressionistic than the one found in David Gordon Green’s All the Real Girls. Eschewing the typical Hollywood-esque romance genre conventions, Green is intent on transposing the naive ideals and unreal expectations of love into something with tangential potency. The story itself is overly simplistic: Noel and Paul live in a small rural town in North Carolina full of broken-relationships where honest compassion is scarcely to be found. She is the kid sister of Paul’s best friend who has just returned home from boarding school and he is the local town’s Romeo. They decide to date for a while, break up on account of betrayal and painfully attempt to atone for their discretions (past and present) by getting back together. These are not spoilers of any kind because the actual plot remains secondary to Green’s examination of young love and the disappointments associated with vicariously relying on love to achieve enlightenment. The prospect of love being this all powerful instrument in curing one’s personal afflictions is a common misconception and Green is keen on reinforcing this notion through his young couple’s troublesome relationship.
With awe-inducing cinematography, Green successfully establishes a time and place where the environment plays a significant role in the different character’s behavior and attitudes. That isn’t to say that he is condescending towards these characters, portraying them as uneducated bumpkins. His film is distinctively southern and by capturing the ordinary details of every day life in this small southern community, Green is able to use the setting as a method in creating verisimilitude for his story. At times imperfect especially as the film comes to a close; All the Real Girls sustains a remarkable amount of poetic lyricism throughout and remains a powerful expression of genuine heartfelt intimacy between the lead characters which is all too rare in the majority of romances churned out of Hollywood these days.
Monday, February 25, 2008
With that statement in mind, viewing Husbands and Wives from an objective standpoint reveals that Allen isn’t so much as revealing personal details of his relationship with Farrow. Instead, he is more interested in exploring the reasons why relationships are so difficult to maintain and the destructive nature of human folly when love is thrown into the equation. By grounding the film in a quasi-documentary style, Allen breaks the barrier between fictional characterizations to reveal something a little more privy to actual life. The anonymous documentary crew is given direct access to interview the various characters with questions pertaining to their relationships with one another. As a creative gesture, Allen does not dispose of the grainy, hand-held camerawork often associated with the genre and continues to use it, capturing even the most private moments between characters – furthermore blurring the line between fiction and truth.
The story centers predominantly around two couples: Gabe (Allen) is a literature professor who is happily married to Judy (Farrow), an art magazine editor. Their best friends are Jack (Sydney Pollack) and Sally (Judy Davis) who come over for drinks one night to announce that they are getting a divorce. This shocking information sets off a chain of events in the relationship between Gabe and Judy where they slowly begin to drift apart as buried feelings along with unfulfilled desires are brought to fruition. What begins as a harmless quarrel of dissatisfaction escalates into a serious problem as they struggle to keep their relationship from falling apart. Jack and Sally are also finding it difficult as divorced middle-aged singles despite creating a façade of happiness with their newfound partners just to spite each other. Gabe starts up a relationship with a bright young female student named Rain (Juliette Lewis) as Farrow forms an attraction with a handsome co-worker named Michael (Liam Neeson). Far from your typical romance of disenchanted lovers, Woody Allen skillfully places his characters in specific romantic relationships that insightfully comments on the complex nature of love and human companionship while at the same time having a sense of humor about it. Who hooks up with who is of minor importance in contrast to Allen’s established thematic framework and search for rational explanations concerning why relationships have to be some complicated and what makes them work. By the end of the film it is clear that he has still yet to find the answer.
The film takes place over the course of the Christmas break for these first year college students who dress as debutantes and attend various social functions. Enter Tom (Chris Eigman), a middle-class Princeton student who rents luxury suits and puts on a pseudo-intellectual guise in order to integrate himself into this elitist niche. As luck should have it, he bumps into an old female classmate named Audrey (Carolyn Farina) at one of these prestigious balls who happens to be part of this rich upper-class (like in the real world, it’s who you know) and introduces him to her select group of friends where he begins to form a friendly relationship with them. Nick (Chris Eigeman) is one of the people that Tom’s takes an instant liking to mostly for his cynical nature and views on the disintegrating bourgeoisie class system. The rest of the story follows Tom’s various escapades among these haughty individuals and his struggle for social acceptance. It’s important to note that Stillman’s film is not to be taken at face value and above all else, is a social satire that takes witty jabs at pretentiousness while also being a meditation on growing up. For a film that is very dialogue heavy, the script exemplifies great writing where irreverent comedy with a social conscience is seamlessly interwoven with intellectual ruminations about life itself. These characters are not exactly likeable but their insecurities, relationships and problems they encounter ring true for those not quite ready to accept adult responsibilities.
Honorable Mention #1: Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (Cuaron, 2003)
Honorable Mention #2: Ghostbusters (Reitman, 1984)
100. Robin Hood (Reitherman, 1973)
99. Me and You and Everyone We Know (July, 2005)
98. Days of Wine and Roses (Edwards, 1962)
97. Metropolitan (Stillman, 1990)
96. Husbands and Wives (Allen, 1992)
95. All the Real Girls (Green, 2003)
94. High Fidelity (Frears, 2000)
93. Interiors (Allen, 1978)
92. Johnny Guitar (Ray, 1954)
91. Eyes Wide Shut (Kubrick, 1999)
Clay’s profession involves being an avid socialite with clients so naturally, drinking is part of the equation when he takes them out to restaurants or fancy clubs. He starts a relationship with a beautiful secretary in his office building played by the voluptuous Lee Remick whose radical transformation from a puritan to a raging alcoholic is devastatingly portrayed. My only gripe with the film is her sudden change of heart towards Lemmon who strongly resents him when they first meet and then erratically has a change of heart almost instantaneously. It would have been a lot more convincing if she actually had a reason to give him another chance after he insults her. Still, I am able to overlook this minor formality in regards to everything that the film does get right which is plenty – two tour-de force performances from Lemmon and Remick who were robbed of acting Oscars that year, solid direction and a wonderful script with nary a falsity that is unflinching in presenting the harsh reality of how alcoholism can destroy lives. The films closing moments are heartbreaking and ambiguous in nature which works to emphasize Edward’s position that beating alcoholism takes more than commitment where difficult decisions need to be made no matter how unpleasant the results.
The compilation of any type of “favorite movie list” especially one of this magnitude is a daunting task that involves constant shuffling and re-examination in order to get it just right. The relentless scrutiny over placement can be very stressful albeit rewarding because for those of us who take cinema seriously, these lists are often a direct reflection what cinema personally means to the individual and the impact said film(s) has on them. A strategy that I used to help make this list a little easier for myself to complete was to use nostalgia as a key to narrowing down films that have a direct correlation to my childhood. After all, certain films that I watched constantly as a youngster were highly influential in shaping my interest in cinema today and Disney’s Robin Hood happens to fall into that category. While there have been plenty of depictions of the famous rogue of Sherwood Forest over the years, none surpass this version in terms of sheer entertainment value, laughs or charm although Michael Curtiz’s version starring Errol Flynn comes close. It may be animated with animals playing the key roles but the rebellious spirit and sense of adventure inhabited by this classic tale remains untarnished.
This underrated Disney classic is a breezily entertaining affair for both kids and adults. Imbedded with a bluesy style emphasized by the narrator played by a rooster (that even becomes a character in the story) who sings and strums away on his banjo as he tells the story of Robin Hood sets the tone of the film. Roger Miller does great voice-work for him and is responsible for the majority of the fantastic songs on the soundtrack too with “Not In Nottingham” remaining the standout track and one of most moving scenes in the Disney canon because of it. Of course, not enough can be said of the iconic villain Prince John (Peter Ustinov) the lion and his slithering side-kick Sir Hiss (Terry-Thomas). This dynamic duo offer more laughs than any of the other Disney flicks and their relationship is actually a lot more interesting to watch unfold than say Robin Hood and Little John. The Prince’s infantile behavior (he clearly has mommy issues) and absent-mindedness offers plenty of laughs. He is also prone to sudden bursts of rage towards Sir Hiss which is cruelly comical. Nostalgia aside, this film still holds up surprisingly well even today which is often not the case when returning to childhood favorites. No matter what my mood, I can throw on my worn out VHS copy and for those brief 83 minutes, feel giddy like a kid again as if watching this film for the first time.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Feb. 1st: Coffy (Hill, 1973): [*]
Feb. 1st: Funky Forest: The First Contact (Ishii, 2005): ??????????????????????
Feb. 2nd: Darjeeling Limited (Anderson, 2007): [***1/2]
Feb. 4th: Spirit of the Beehive (Enrice, 1973): [****]
Feb. 4th: Shoot the Piano Player (Truffaut, 1962): [***]
Feb. 6th: Johnny Guitar (Ray, 1954): [****]
Feb 6th: Interiors (Allen, 1978): [***1/2]
Feb 6th: Election (To, 2005): [**]
Feb 6th: Superfly (Parks Jr., 1972): [Muther-fuckin' cool]
Feb 8th: Sunrise (Murnau, 1927): [***1/2]
Feb 8th: The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp (Powell, 1943): [****]
Feb 8th: Heathers (Lehman, 1988): [***1/2]
Feb. 9th: Michael Clayton (Gilroy, 2007): [**]
Feb 12th: Lars and the Real Girl (Gillespie 2007): [***1/2]
Feb 12th: Cluny Brown (Lubitsch, 1946): [**]
Feb 13th: Talk to Her (Almodavar, 2002): [***1/2]
Thursday, January 3, 2008
01/08: The Awful Truth (McCarey, 1934): [***1/2]
02/08: No Country for Old Men (Coen, 2008): [***1/2]
02/08: Killer of Sheep (Burnett, 1977): [****]
02/08: Sherlock Jr. (Keaton, 1924): [****]
03/08: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Nichols, 1966): [****]
03/08: Memories of Murder (Bong, 2003): [***]
03/08: To Be Or Not to Be (Lubitsch, 1942): [****]
06/08: Charlie Wilson's War (Nichols, 2007): [***]
07/08: Rosetta (Dardennes, 1999): [*]
08/08: Ordet (Dreyer, 1955): [****]
08/08: The Vanishing (1988): [***]
09/08: Henry Fool (Hartley, 1997): [**]
10/08: Best of Youth (Giordani, 2003): [***1/2]
10/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****]
10/08: The Shape of Things (LaBute, 20003): [***1/2]
14/08: Through a Glass Darkly (Bergman, 1961): [**]
14/08: Elevator to the Gallows (Malle, 1958): [***1/2]
15/08: Persepolis (Paronnaud/Satrapi, 2007): [***]
15/08: Rififi (Dassin, 1955): [****]
15/08: La Haine (Kassovitz, 1995): [****]
17/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****] 2nd
17/08: Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (Black, 2005): [****]
19/08: Juno (Reitman, 2007): [****] 3rd
20/08: Beowulf (Zemeckis, 2007): [**]
22/08: There Will Be Blood (Anderson, 2007): [***1/2]
23/08: Robocop (Verhoeven, 1985): [***1/2]
23/08: I'm Not There (Haynes, 2007): [***]
23/08: Raise the Red Lantern (Yimou, 1991): [****]
25/08: Lady Snowblood (Fujita, 1973): [***1/2]
25/08: Sweeny Todd (Burton, 2007): [***]
28/08: The Taking of Pelham 123 (Sargent, 1974): [***]
28/08: Ikiru (Kurosawa, 1952): [****]
28/08: The Blade (Hark, 1995): [****]
29/08: The Big Red One (Fuller, 1982): [***/12]
29/08: Playtime (Tati, 1967): ?????
30/08: The Conformist (Bertolucci, 1970): [***1/2]
30/08: Heroes of the East (Liang, 1979): [***1/2]
31/08: The Conversation (Coppolla, 1974): [****]
31/08: Death Trance (Shimomura, 2005): [***1/2]
31/08: Django (Corbucci, 1966): [***]