592. Jeanne Dielman, 23 quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles (1975)

Running Time: 225 minutes

Directed By: Chantal Akerman

Written By: Chantal Akerman

Main Cast: Delphine Seyrig, Jan Decorte

METHODICAL

I've been eyeballing "Jeanne Dielman..." for quite some time and with it's departure from the streaming portion of Netflix coming tomorrow, I figured I might as well go ahead and take the 3 plus hour leap and finally give it a watch. I wasn't disappointed.

"Jeanne Dielman..." is pretty easy to explain plot wise, so this shouldn't take too long. Jeanne (Seyrig) is a typical french female, who lives in an apartment with her teenage son. She doesn't work, but has a number of daily chores to keep her busy. She enjoys preparing meals for her son Sylvain (Decorte), which she puts a lot of time and thought into. She cleans, folds, goes to market and does the typical routines of a normal female. When her son is at school, she prostitutes herself to the men of France, to make a few dollars on the side. The film is split up into three days and Akerman uses VERY long takes to hammer home the mundane feel of Jeanne's life. On the first day, everything comes off like clockwork and we soon realize that Jeanne has been playing out her routine, day after day, for a very long time, as she knows just how to snap through and have it all done just as her son walks through the door at night. Day two begins, Jeanne gets Sylvain off to school, goes about her chores and errands and when her "john" arrives, they go to the bedroom. Upon their exit from the bedroom, and his subsequent exit from her apartment, Jeanne is not herself. We don't know what took place in the bedroom, because the camera confined us to the hallway, but something happened in there and Jeanne is in a definite state of disarray. She goes through the rest of the film dropping things, burning meals and totally mussing up her entire schedule.

SPOILER ALERT!

I have a lot of thoughts on this one, so hopefully I can keep all of them in order. I'll start off by saying that I DID like the film. Granted, I did watch it in two sittings, but I managed to keep it all contained in one night (last night). I was actually very pleased with the LONG camera shots and felt that they allowed me as a viewer to connect with the main character on a bit of a personal level. We got to be like peeping toms or followers as we watched "Jeanne Dielman", peering into her life for a few days. Now, nobody ever said it was an exciting life, so we're really peering in on some mundane things, but they are things that we all do. I'm sure there are millions of Jeanne Dielman's walking listlessly through life, as they go about their daily routine with a flawless knowledge of their own goings on. Actually, and this may sound odd, but I would have preferred longer takes on some scenes and a LOT less dialogue. In fact, I felt this experimental film would've been much more of an experiment if we had nixed the character of Sylvain and just watched Jeanne, sans dialogue, go through her daily life - loneliness and alienation constantly surrounding her. However, I won't harp on that and the experiment of "Jeanne Dielman..." left me happy to be a guinea pig.

Now then, on to some interpretations. My biggest question surrounding the film is, "What happened to Jeanne when she and her second "client" were in the bedroom?" Why did she exit the room and all of a sudden become flummoxed. Here's my theory. If you look back at "DAY ONE" you notice that Jeanne lights the pilot of the stove and allows the water for her potatoes to boil as she services her first client. Jeanne says "au revoir" to her client and arrives back at the stove just in time to pour the potatoes into the hot water and continue on with her routine. On "DAY TWO", the "john" takes longer and completely throws Jeanne off of her track. The dinner for that particular night ends up being burned and subsequently Jeanne has to go the market and rush around to get Sylvain's dinner prepared. To me, Jeanne thrives on her routine and thrives on knowing how long each of her tasks take, so that she can be ready for the next one. If something comes along and ruins that routine, then Jeanne can't function. In other words, the only thing that Jeanne has left in her life is her routine and her son, and most of her routine is actually centered around her son.

I don't know, I could be WAY off on that theory, but nothing else really seems to make sense. I first thought rape, but you can't rape the willing. I guess, in the end, it really doesn't matter exactly what happened, just so we're clear that something happened to Jeanne that was bad enough (in her mind) to throw her completely off her game plan and drive her to murder. In fact, nothing in this film is REALLY important. I didn't watch "Jeanne Dielman...", but rather I observed "Jeanne Dielman...". If I didn't understand something, it was okay, because I was no more than an onlooker peering in on someone's daily life. It didn't matter that I didn't know what type of machine that Jeanne was stuffing change into, mid-film. It didn't matter that I didn't know why she didn't get paid by the woman for babysitting. It didn't matter that I didn't know where Jeanne and Sylvain were going every night after dinner. It was only imperative that I observed their life. If I were to go across the street and look through the curtains of my neighbors home for three days, then at the end of those three days, I'd surely have some questions.

For my money, something BIG had to happen in the end and it did when Jeanne plunged a pair of scissors into the neck of her third client. The whole time I was thinking Jeanne was going to kill herself and honestly, maybe that's what should have happened, because I have a feeling that this character was definitely pondering suicide as she sat alone, in the dark, at the dining room table following her murder. I liked the way the film ended too - just as it started - nothing fancy, nothing glitzy, just Jeanne sitting alone in the dark, thinking.

This film TOTALLY worked for me, but beware - you must be patient in order to really enjoy "Jeanne Dielman...". I can see A LOT of people really hating on this one and I could even see a lot of people turning it off before the end. So be don't go into it expecting too much, just go in ready to observe a very lonely french female and the telling of her downfall.

RATING: 7.5/10 Knee jerk rating there, but I could definitely see it rising as time goes by. Wouldn't mind picking this one up via the Criterion DVD release.

MOVIES WATCHED: 242

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 759

April 2, 2011 10:31pm

Read More

991. Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan (2006)

Running Time: 84 minutes

Directed By: Larry Charles

Written By: Sacha Baron Cohen, Anthony Hines, Peter Baynham, Dan Mazer

Main Cast: Sacha Baron Cohen, Ken Davitian

Note: I wanted to jump in real quick, before we get on with "IT" and make a few notes. 1) If anyone, has any idea what in the blue hell is wrong with my blog, please HELP! It seems to be spacing itself and in my previous three posts (and probably this one too) there are spaces where I didn't intend for there to be spaces, notably between "Running Time", "Directed By", "Written By" and "Main Cast" and at the bottom between "MOVIES WATCHED" and "MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH". When I'm looking at the post, prior to hitting publish, it looks exactly how I want it to post, but upon pressing "POST" it spaces itself out and no matter how many times I click "EDIT" and fix it, it reverts back to it's messed up ways. So, in conclusion, please help...if you can. 2) Just so you know where we stand with this whole project, my plans right now are for me to have 301 films watched by June 19th. That gives me two entire months plus nineteen days to watch 60 films...Do you think I can do it?

THIS MOVIE IS A MUST SEE...NOT!

My original plans called for me to come home from work today and watch "Laura". However, after watching about ten minutes and I realized that I was much too exhausted to give the film the attention that it deserved. Furthermore I needed something that required next to no thought at all...and thus "Borat..." became my movie choice.

The plot of "Borat..." is basically non-existent, but I'll re-tell it to you as best I can. Borat Sagdiyev (Cohen), a Kazakh T.V. personality decides to head to the "U.S. and A" to make a documentary and learn the ways of the Western world. Allow me to break away for a second and fill you in, in case you don't know the whole "thing" about "Borat..." - Basically there are only two actors in the film, Borat and his producer Azamat Bagatov (Davitian), and the rest of the people are giving real reactions, to whom they believe to be a real Kazakhi. Borat arrives in New York City and gets humor tips from a humor coach, chases down strangers on the streets in order to greet them and give them a "hello" kiss and gets driving lessons from an instructor. His "modus operandi" is changed when he's watching television in his hotel and beholds the "beauty" that is Pamela Anderson. He changes his plans and convinces Azamat to go to California to continue their documentary, although his real intentions are to find Pamela and make her his wife.

I'll TRY to keep this short. While watching "Borat...", I'll admit that there were times that I DID laugh out loud and I'll admit that Sacha Baron Cohen IS funny. However, this is absolutely NOT something that belongs side by side with the classics that it is rubbing shoulders with in the "1001" book. I won't fault the film maker's of "Borat..." for lack of originality, because the whole concept of the film IS original, but really in the end the whole film is nothing more than an experiment. This isn't the first time I've seen "Borat..." and actually the first time that I did see it, I liked it enough to run out and buy it on DVD. Upon rewatching it today, I'll never understand my initial love for the film, because while it is funny, it's extremely class-less and I honestly feel guilty for even laughing at this movie.

I'm not Jewish, but damn they took some hardcore cracks at the Jewish community, that would have even Mel Gibson up in arms. Aside from the very anti-Semitic tones of the film, the whole thing just feels really cheap and tawdry and pile on the naked wrestling between Borat & Azamat and by the end, it's just too much. I think I've gotten my point across, so no need to ramble on.

RATING: 4.5/10 I laughed, so it gets some credit, but there are PLENTY of other, better films out there that will give you an honest to goodness laugh.

MOVIES WATCHED: 241

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 760

March 30, 2011 8:34pm

Read More

790. DIE HARD (1988)

Running Time: 131 minutes

Directed by: John McTiernan

Written By: Jeb Stuart, Stephen E. de Souza, from the novel Nothing Lasts Forever by Roderick Thorp

Main Cast: Bruce Willis, Alan Rickman, Alexander Godunov, Bonnie Bedelia, Reginald VelJohnson

WARNING: IF YOU HAVE A PACEMAKER THIS REVIEW MAY BE TOO ACTION PACKED FOR YOU!

I cannot believe that the father from "Family Matters" just got his name into a blog dedicated to the "1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die". However, that's not a crack at this film, as I actually had a lot of fun with it and who doesn't love ol' Reginald VelJ.

John McClane (Willis) is an NYPD cop headed to Los Angeles for Christmas Eve to visit his estranged wife Holly (Bedelia). Upon arrival at the office building where she works as a top executive, the two have a little tiff, but before they can makeup the building is taken over by a group of terrorists. The terrorists are twelve strong and lead by Hans Gruber (Rickman) and they're after $640 million in bearer bonds that are locked in the office safe, which is secured by seven locks. While all of the people at the office Christmas party are taken hostage, McClane, who was relaxing in his wife's office, is able to escape throughout the building when he hears gunfire and in his own words, becomes a "fly in the ointment" of the terrorist group. One by one McClane begins to pick off the terrorists (NO, that's not a spoiler - It's an American action film folks, of course the hero is going to get at least a few lumps, if not the whole damn bowl) and picks up a walkie-talkie, where he can communicate with both the terrorists and the LAPD. Eventually our trusty, Twinky loving cop Al (VelJohnson) shows up and is McClane's go to guy on the radio, as Al and John talk each other through the ordeal and do their best to save the day.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

This is probably the third or fourth time that I've seen "Die Hard" and every time I watch it, I seem to flip flop opinions on it. I remember the last time I watched it, I didn't like it at all and was actually prompted to sell my DVD copy of it. This time, though, I had a lot of fun and can finally, definitively say that this is a really fun action flick, with all of the cliches that we would all come to know and love from our action flicks.

Of course, like all actions films, this one is REALLY contrived. Everything seems to fall right into a convenient little place so that our two hour "heart stopper" can play out in full effect. John just happens to be in the building at the same time that the terrorists are in the building. John just happens to be barefoot and just happens to be presented with a floor covered in broken glass. Come to think of it, why didn't they play the Christmas card a little more? I mean, if (storyline wise) it was essential that the terrorists do their "job" on Christmas Eve, it would've made a lot more sense for McClane to be in the building at the same time as them, or at least more plausible - but that is never brought up. All contrivances aside, I'm able to suspend my disbelief for a couple of hours to enjoy this. I mean, come on guys, in the end we are watching movies and having a good time is what it's all about and "Die Hard" doesn't make you think a whole lot. It just gives you a group of foreign terrorists, a good guy cop, out of his element and cuts it all loose in a skyscraper. It's fun, it's harmless and it set the tone for all action films to come down the pike since 1988. I also love (to an extent) how John is just this New York cop who didn't even want to be in L.A. in the first place, but EH'...while he's there he might as well save a few lives and pick off a few Germans.

One more little thing I'd like to add and I do mean "little". I wish that they had tweaked the plot just a smidge to eliminate the meeting between John and Holly at the beginning of the film. I think it would have been really cool, had Holly not known that John was in the building. It would have given the hostages a little more to do too, instead of just sit in the background. They would be talking amongst themselves, trying to figure out who escaped and when they finally realized that everyone was in attendance, Holly would overhear John's voice on Hans' walkie-talkie and realize that her estranged husband was back in town, to save the day.

RATING: 7/10 It's fun, what do you want out of me? On this day, I needed a film that I could just watch, without really thinking and this film served its purpose...and then some.

MOVIES WATCHED: 240

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 761

March 29, 2011 9:23pm

Read More

473. The Jungle Book (1967)

Running Time: 78 minutes

Directed By: Wolfgang Reitherman

Written By: Larry Clemons, Ralph Wright, Ken Anderson, Vance Gerry, from novel by Rudyard Kipling

Main Cast: (voices): Bruce Reitherman, Phil Harris, Sebastian Cabot, Louis Prima, George Sanders

"LOOK FOR THE BARE NECESSITIES..."

I wanted to get this one watched before Disney decided to vault it and thus make my time finding it much more difficult.

Based on the Rudyard Kipling novel, "The Jungle Book" is an animated re-telling of the story of Mowgli, the boy who was raised by wolves in the middle of the jungle. He is originally found by Bagheera, the panther, and taken to the wolves for safe keeping. Years later, when it is announced that the feared tiger, Shere Khan is returning to the jungle, Bagheera knows that Mowgli must be taken to the man village, where he will be safe. Surely if he stays in the jungle, Shere Khan, hater of all men, will kill him. Bagheera and Mowgli begin to trek through the jungle, on their way to the man village. Along the way they come across a wide array of characters, including elephants that resemble soldiers, a snake named Kaa and the bone headed bear, Baloo. Mowgli and Baloo hit it off and Baloo decides that taking Mowgli back to the man village would only ruin him and that he should stay in the jungle. Bagheera washes his hands of the mess and only returns when Mowgli gets into trouble. Ultimately Shere Khan returns, signaling a spike in danger for the "man cub" and Bagheera and Baloo, along with some other creatures, shuffle to keep Mowgli safe and get him out of the jungle.

Since I'm coming off the heels of some pretty lengthy reviews, I'll probably use that as an excuse to keep this one short. Honestly, when it comes to Disney movies in the "1001..." book, my expectations are never high and to be even more honest, I'm just not all that into them. Sometimes they can be a lot of fun (IE. Pinocchio), but for the most part I'm just watching them as an effort to further my progress in the book and really don't hold out too much hope that they will greatly impress me or anything like that. "The Jungle Book" was really no exception. Sure it was fun and I was bopping my head during "The Bear Necessities" and "I Wanna' Be Like You", but in the end, it was just another Disney flick and something that I just can't see appealing to too many adults.

Actually, I do wish the ending would have been a little different though and if I'm thinking like that, then surely there was some appeal there. To me, the ending was very anti-climactic. Shere Khan finally gets his sights on the boy and Mowgli is saved by a pack of vultures (who resembled The Beatles immensely) and Baloo. In the end, Mowgli, Baloo and the vultures get the best of Shere Khan and he is sent running with his tail between his legs. That's the end, pretty much. I would have liked to have seen a big battle (IE. Scar and Simba in "The Lion King") between Shere Khan and Bagheera, as they were obviously the intelligent characters of the film. Sorry, I just don't buy a singing and dancing, semi-moronic bear getting the best of a wily tiger. I know I'm putting way too much thought into "The Jungle Book", so lets just call that a wrap.

RATING: 5.5/10 If you like Disney films, then I'm sure you'll have fun with it. I just can't get into them anymore, unless they're extraordinary. Pinocchio still holds up as the best Disney flick from the book, by the way (and that's not counting Pixar's "Toy Story").

MOVIES WATCHED: 239

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 762

March 28, 2011 2:16pm

Read More

308. GIANT (1956)

Running Time: 197 minutes

Directed By: George Stevens

Written By: Fred Guiol, Ivan Moffat, from novel by Edna Ferber

Main Cast: Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson, James Dean, Carroll Baker, Jane Withers

ELIZABETH TAYLOR: 1932 - 2011

I'm pretty sure that the news of Elizabeth Taylor's death came as a shock to most people this past week. I know it came as a shock to me and while she certainly lived a long and prosperous life, it's always sad when someone truly great passes away. Seeing as how I have a blog that focuses on potentially great films, I figured I could at least do my small part to honor the great Elizabeth Taylor and watch one of her two remaining films in the "1001" book - "Giant".

Elizabeth Taylor is the leading lady of "Giant" and one of three stars. The film starts out with Jordan "Bick" Benedict (Hudson) traveling to Maryland to purchase a stallion. It seems that he is purchasing said horse from a Doctor, who is the father of a very sassy young lady by the name of Leslie (Taylor). Bick is enamored with Leslie and even though they get off on the wrong foot, when Leslie questions the ownership of Texas (it seems Leslie is of the opinion that "we" stole Texas from the Mexicans), they wind up married. Leslie travels with Bick back to Texas, where he is the owner and operator of 595,000 acres of ranch called Reata. From here it's a real culture clash, as the Northerner Leslie doesn't really seem to fit in in the south and she's constantly doing something to embarrass the straight laced, old fashioned Bick. As time goes by Leslie and Bick have children, three to be exact - twins Jordan III (Dennis Hopper) & Judy (Fran Bennett) and Luz Jr. (Baker). Meanwhile, we also follow the rebel Jett Rink (Dean), a man who starts out working for the Benedict's, but hits it big when Bick's sister leaves him a piece of land and he strikes oil.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

I guess even more so than watching "Giant" and realizing that Elizabeth Taylor was no longer gracing Earth with her presence, was realizing that all three of our main characters were, in fact, gone. I'm, of course, speaking of Rock Hudson and James Dean. This was actually my first James Dean film and boy, what a treat! Not only was James Dean a "pretty face" but he was actually a hell of an actor and it's sad to think that he was only able to make three films in his short career. As far as Hudson goes, we're not done with him yet, as we still have more of his films to go in the pages of the "1001" book.

As for the film, I liked it! I wouldn't go all out and say that "I loved it", but it was definitely enjoyable and something that I'm sure I'll never forget. I mean, how could you forget "Giant" - you have outstanding performances from Taylor, Hudson and Dean, among others and you have some absolutely eye popping cinematography from William Mellor. It's a film that will stick with you once you've watched it and I know this, despite just finishing it.

As for the story itself, it was really good and the fact that it spanned over many years, justified the over three hour running time. With the film stretched out over such a long period, it gave us a chance to hit a lot of high points without a lot of worthless filler. We went from one big event to the next and actually "Giant" is one of the smoothest flowing films over three hours I've ever seen. The characters were likable and by the end, I had flip flopped on the character of Bick Benedict so many times, I couldn't remember whether I loved him or hated him. I will say, that for most of the film I didn't like Bick, but that made the scene in the diner, near the end, all the more powerful. Here you have this guy who was as old fashioned as they come, standing up for his Latina daughter-in-law and grandson. I was able to peg most of the big events (ie. Jett striking oil, Luz dying, Jordan III not wanting to inherit Reata), but I thought for sure that Leslie was going to end up with Jett. In fact, in the beginning, the only thing I was really sure about is that Leslie and Bick weren't going to last, because they had such different backgrounds, that it just flat out wasn't going to work. In the end, I came to the realization that they were actually perfect for one another and through the years (through the film) you realize that really they were the only two that could handle one another.

RATING: 7/10 I could definitely see that rating rising in the future, but for now, we'll leave it be. Rest in Peace Elizabeth....and that goes for Mr. Dean and Mr. Hudson as well.

MOVIES WATCHED: 238

MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 763

March 27, 2011 3:19pm

Read More

420. Suna no onna/Woman in the Dunes (1964)

Running Time: 123 minutes
Directed By: Hiroshi Teshigahara
Written By: Kobo Abe, from his novel
Main Cast: Eiji Okada, Kyoko Kishida

SAND, SAND EVERYWHERE

I happened upon this one on Netflix and thought it looked good, so I scooted it to the top of my queue and got it in the mail yesterday. To make a long story short, my eyes did not deceive me when they said to my brain, "Get that one...it looks good!"

Niki Jumpei (Okada) is an entomologist who is off for a three day weekend, from his job as a school teacher, and decides to spend it in an area that is mostly sand dunes, looking for bugs. While talking to one of the local villagers, he realizes that he has missed the last bus out of the dunes and accepts when the villager offers him a place to stay for the evening. The villager tells him that he is taking him back to the home of a woman, where he'll be able to stay for the night. When arriving at the woman's house, Niki is bewildered to find that she lives at the bottom of a massive sand pit and a rope ladder is needed to get to her front door. Niki, needing a place to stay, climbs down the rope ladder and proceeds to accept the hospitality of the woman (Kishida), as she feeds him clams and boils him water for tea. The next morning, Niki awakes to find the woman asleep and decides to silently slip away. However, Niki soon realizes that the rope ladder has been pulled up and that he has fallen for a trap.

SPOILER ALERT!

Note the disappearance of the word "possible", as there will be definite spoilage lying ahead.

I have a lot of thoughts on this film, so let me preface it by saying that I'm going to try my best to keep everything as orderly and legible as possible. While, in my opinion, it isn't blatant, I believe there is massive symbolism going on in "Woman in the Dunes" and I have some theories. Before I get into my theories, let me say that I loved this film. For starters, I've always loved movies with a very small cast and this film is basically a two person gig, with the man and the woman (we don't find out Niki's name until the VERY end of the film, so I'll just refer to him as "man"). To me small casts are great, as it gives the opportunity to gifted actors, who have good chemistry, to just cut loose and see what kind of magic they can create. I thought both leads did an outstanding job and I also loved the cinematography - I've never seen sand look so good. Now on to my theories...

1) My first theory deals with the entire film and what it MAY represent. Early on in the film, it seemed to me that Teshigahara was trying to parallel a marriage between man and woman. Now before I continue, let me preface this by saying that I am a HAPPILY married man and in no way am I trying to say that marriage resembles a prison. However, let me point out some of my ideas and maybe you can tell me if you agree or disagree.

Man enters the sandpit willingly, as does man enter marriage willingly. Once inside the sandpit, everything is great for a little while. Man and woman talk about their lives, she makes him some killer clam soup and he gets his "grub on" in grand fashion. Then, the next day man realizes that he is trapped - that he has gotten himself into a situation that he can't get himself out of. He cares for the woman, but he wants his freedom back. He makes some tries to get away, but fails and in the process hurts the woman, as she wants him to stay. Eventually man accepts his fate for a little while and the two work together as a unit to deal with the sand. Now, if my theory is at all correct, then the sand itself has to represent something and in my view the sand represents all of the problems that a married couple can face: paying bills, etc. If the sand represents problems, then in the end man figures out a way to put a positive spin on his problems, by solving his problems and turning them into something useful. I haven't completely thought it out yet, but I think Kobo Abe was definitely hinting around at something like this.

2) My second theory is my attempt at trying to decipher the ending and why Niki goes back to the pit after escaping. The entire film Niki hangs on the idea that SOMEONE will come looking for him and that if they were to only search his apartment they would find bank books and open schedules pointing them to his exact location. No one ever comes, which leads me to believe that Niki wasn't as important as he himself may have thought. Even at one point, the woman asks Niki is he has a wife and he tells her that it is none of her business and in my view, that's a big "NO". If Niki had a wife, then surely he'd have pictures of her that he'd be crying over all the time and surely he'd want to share stories of his wife with the very woman that he was imprisoned with. By saying "None of your business", he's saying "no" and he's also telling me that there is no one on the outside world that cares enough about him to come and look for him. Also, married men don't spend their three day weekends in the sand dunes looking for bugs. So for this theory I'm assuming that he has no wife and really no close friends and besides his teaching job, his life is pretty meaningless.

With that established for this theory, then why does Niki even want to escape. I mean, the guy's trapped in a sandpit with a pretty good looking girl who sleeps naked, can cook and doesn't mind doing her fair share of the work. All joking aside, Niki wants to escape for the same reason a homeless man doesn't want to go to prison, because he doesn't want to be "locked" up, with no choices. But when he's finally given the choice at the end, he realizes that there's nothing out there for him. Maybe he looks at the vast sea, that we're given a close-up of and everything just feels way too BIG for him and so he crawls back into the comfort of the pit that he's gotten used to and decides to make the most of it. Or maybe it's like Brooks in "The Shawshank Redemption". Remember Brooks? The guy who finally got paroled after spending his entire life in prison, only to realize that he couldn't cope on the outside and that everything he knew was now on the inside.

I mean, on the inside of that pit there was Niki and the woman and Niki was the one who was on the verge of figuring out how to turn sand into mass amounts of water. In that very small community Niki was King. You might as well say Niki had a wife in the pit, a son possibly on the way and he was on the verge of a major scientific breakthrough. Everything he needed was provided. Sure he had to shovel sand, but he had to work on the outside too...work is work, no matter where you are, you pretty much have to do it if you want to survive. In the end, Niki was finally able to embrace his surroundings and fully acknowledge that old saying..."take nothing for granted".

In the end, there were still a few aspects of the film that I didn't fully understand. Where did Niki get all of that material to make the rope that lead to his first escape? Why did they have to shovel every night - I mean, other than the fact that otherwise they'd be buried alive? They did mention at one point that the villagers sold the sand, but there wasn't enough emphasis placed on exactly why they had to shovel every single night and you can sure bet if I was trapped in a pit and forced to shovel sand every night, I'd be asking WHY? Those are just nitpicky things though, because that's what I do...nitpick. Bottom line: GREAT MOVIE!

RATING: 9/10 I had seen "12 Angry Men" before, so this steps up as best thing I've seen for the first time, in a long time. Now I'm going to have to buy that "3 Films by Teshigahara" set that Criterion has out...but I'm not complaining.

MOVIES WATCHED: 237
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 764

March 26, 2011 12:47am

Read More

328. Sweet Smell of Success (1957)

Running Time: 96 minutes
Directed By: Alexander Mackendrick
Written By: Clifford Odets, Ernest Lehman, Alexander Mackendrick, from novella by Ernest Lehman
Main Cast: Burt Lancaster, Tony Curtis, Susan Harrison, Martin Milner

MACKENDRICK HAT TRICK: PART THREE OF THREE

Today we wrap up our three film salute to Alexander Mackendrick by taking a look at the film that saw him transition from U.K. Ealing comedies to Hollywood.

Sidney Falco (Curtis) is a slimy little weasel of a press agent who will stop at nothing to get his clients' names in the paper, more importantly into the column of famed newspaper columnist J.J. Hunsecker (Lancaster). Even though Falco will stop at nothing, it seems that lately he hasn't been able to do anything to get some words into Hunsecker's column. Recently he's cut a deal with Hunsecker - if Falco can break-up the romance between Hunsecker's sister Susan (Harrison) and jazz guitarist Steve Dallas (Milner), then Hunsecker will throw him a bone. The first half of the film sees Falco running around frantically during a single night and trying to pull strings and use blackmail to get ahead. He uses a cigarette girl friend of his to seduce another columnist into running a story claiming that Dallas is on marijuana. In the end, we're not treated to a happy endings and character's don't develop and learn lessons, but rather, get what's coming to them.

POSSIBLE SPOILER ALERT!

The reasons that I liked "Sweet Smell of Success" were probably not the normal reasons that people like this movie. First and foremost I loved the way the film uses the city of New York and accompanies it with a fantastic little, seedy Jazz score. There are some real eye popping images of the city in "Sweet Smell of Success" and I'm not sure I've ever seen a film capture the city as vibrantly as this film did. I didn't really realize prior to watching this that it was a film-noir. I loved the crisp black and white images, the shadows and the close-ups of the faces, especially of Lancaster, when all you could see was his devilish eye peering out from his eyeglasses, hammering home that this character was bad news. Another thing that intrigued me about "Sweet Smell of Success" was the incredibly nasty nature of the entire plot and how the whole thing just felt so grimy and low.

On the other hand, I didn't LOVE "Sweet Smell of Success". There was just something about it that, overall, didn't appeal to me. Maybe it was the content of the film and how I really don't find newspaper columnists and their gripes with press agents all that interesting. Also, the whole plot just seemed to hinge on this beef that Hunsecker had with his sister's fiance. The beef itself is never really explained though. Why does Hunsecker hate Steve Dallas so badly and why does he offer enticing things like words in his column to Falco in exchance for breaking up the romance? Also, did anyone else find the relationship that Hunsecker had with his sister a little creepy? I mean the guy is her brother and he had a picture of her on his desk, where normally you would find a picture of a man's wife and kids. It was almost as if Hunsecker was obsessed with his sister and wanted all of her attention to himself. In fact, that is the big downfall of the Hunsecker character, when his sister up and finally leaves at the end of the film. The look on his face as she walks away is the look of a man who has just been shot in the heart with a pistol, right before he drops dead. Why wasn't their relationship explained a little more and why wasn't Hunsecker's hatred for his sister's involvement with Dallas explained a little more? I mean, if you're going to take me on an hour and a half ride through a film, at least tell me where we're going and why we're going there - don't just throw me into the car and expect me to sit back and enjoy the sights, as beautiful as they were.

I didn't hate it or anything, but I wasn't as thrilled as most people seem to be with it. I can admit the greatness of the gorgeous photography, the performances from Curtis and Lancaster (especially Tony Curtis who I really liked and now want to see more of), the score and the seedy mood of the whole affair. I just wish the script would have been a little bit stronger, because if it had and if it had been elaborated on a little more, this could've been a home run for me.

RATING: 6/10 Not bad, not great, but just kind of lingering somewhere in the middle. Tony Curtis was excellent though!!

MOVIES WATCHED: 236
MOVIES LEFT TO WATCH: 765

March 23, 2011 2:58pm

Read More