Super Smashin' Bros

I was really amazed with the Coen brothers. I loved all three movies we watched of theirs, and plus I have seen several others I liked. I decided to write about the fact that I noticed a running theme involved in the three movies we watched: getting involved in other peoples' business.

 

In the 1987 film Raising Arizona, H.I. (Nicolas Cage) is so caught up in making his wife happy that he does something wrong for the "right" reasons. His wife, Ed (Holly Hunter), just wants a baby. However, she can't have one. So, H.I. decides to kidnap a baby from a wealthy family thinking they had "more than they could handle". Obviously, it's not like the family would say "oh well" and forget about losing a baby; so a huge investigation overtakes, and swoops H.I. into it. It became a big disaster, lets just say.

In Fargo (1996) and No Country For Old Men (2007) the theme is a little darker, and the characters are a little more "domed". William Macy's character, Jerry (Fargo), gets wrapped up into a secret plan of his in hopes of money as a reward, but it goes too far, he gets involved in too many mix-ups, and well lets just say he is not satisfied at the end of the film. Similar case with Josh Brolin's character Llewelyn in No Country For Old Men; he came across a messy drug deal-gone-wrong, money was involved, he got too involved, and ended up definitely not satisfied at the end. Tragic, because he had good intentions, but he maybe should've tried to stay out of it..

Nashville! Finally.

Personally, I didn't understand why people hated the movie Nashville (Altman). What was to hate? I thought it was pretty cool that the actors and actresses had so much flexibility. Especially the fact that many of them wrote their own songs, shows that this is no poor operation! That is not an easy skill to have, even if you are Sueleen Gay (Gwen Welles) who has horrible songs. That's  not easy to be successful in writing one that just makes you laugh because of how ridiculous it is!

I loved the amount of characters in this 1975 Robert Altman film. Not only were there a lot of characters, they were all very different and unique. I admired Altman's work of creating each and every one of them, and then having them all tie into each other in some way or another. Any movie that shows that much creativity, you can't just say, "I hated that movie" without having valid reasons. Sure, it was a little slow in some parts, but I was thoroughly entertained just by watching the characters interact with each other. It was also enjoyable to watch the mockery of the south, specifically Nashville; the music capital of the south. I would definitely suggest this film to someone looking for a comedy, with some "oomph" at it's core (hint: the ending), that you may have to read into.

Akira KuroSawatdee is good

I definitely enjoyed watching Akira Kurosawa's films. They were something new for me that is for sure. Because of this, I had a harder time finding symbolism, (etc.) and relating to it in general. But I don't necessarily needs those things to like a film; it just makes it harder for me to write about them.

Growing up in Minnesota, we don't deal a whole lot with samurais. However, the film Yojimbo (1961) sort of opened my interest into that world; at least because I know nothing about it! I also thought it was pretty funny, which I wasn't expecting at all.

The 1985 film Ran definitely opened my interested, as well. But this interest was in Japanese history in general. I didn't really understand a lot of the film, I understood who everyone was and what their intentions were, but as far as who was fighting whom, I had some trouble. Kurosawa has taught me to not throw a movie back on the shelf at Blockbuster just because there isn't a cute actor or something. I mean, I wasn't actually that shallow with movies before, but I thought I would use that example to put it into perspective.

Alfredders

So far, I haven't seen an Alfred Hitchcock film I don't like. He brings to the screen an interesting combination of realistic theatrical elements and fictional literary elements. The two styles of elements create superb entertainment and enjoyment. In Rear Window (1954), Hitchcock uses mostly diegtic sounds throughout the film, to give the movie a more realistic feel. However, the plot isn't so realistic. Maybe if someone were actually dumb enough to commit a murder in plain sight and the neighbor happened to witness it, then became so obsessed with proving it, that he risked his girlfriend's life as well as his own, then yes it could be realistic!

But I'm not saying all this to be plausible. I'm only saying this because it takes a lot of talent to combine those two in a way that works well. I like watching a non-realistic story every once in a while, because it is unfamiliar and fresh (depending on the movie of course). Scary, suspenseful movies wouldn't be all that scary or suspenseful if the plot was totally realistic, would it?

Psycho (1960) is another example of Hitchcock combining these two elements. Once again, the plot isn't all that realistic. But I really like his combination of fiction with realistic theatrical elements, it makes the unrealistic feel more... realistic! (Have I used that word enough?) It helps me stay at the "edge of my seat" if it feels like I'm there in the movie experiencing what the characters are experiencing. Hitchcock does just that! Thank you Alfred!

Opening Night, Cassavetepoopies.

Opening Night (1977) actually had a little more "oomph" to the story line, but still very stylistic of Cassavetes. Gena Rowlands plays an actress named Myrtle Gordon, who is experiencing a confidence breakdown from the pressures of the acting world in New York City. I read a review by Dan Schneider and found this interesting:

"John Cassavetes’ 1977 film ‘Opening Night’ is what critics usually call the work of such a significant artist ‘overlooked’. It is an excellent film, in its own right, and one of the best portraits of a midlife crisis ever put to film. It’s not a perfect film, in that, at two hours and twenty four minutes it’s about a half hour too long, ... long after we’ve gotten the point."

First off, it is interesting that he called Cassavetes "overlooked". In a sense I'm sure that is true of Cassavetes, for his time he was a very talented man. However, I'm not surprised he is sort of overlooked now-a-days.

Second, I'm glad Schneider commented on the movie length and it being a half hour too long. My group has said that about all three Cassavetes films we watched. It makes me glad to hear that we aren't just naive, critical teens being harsh on a unique film director.

Thirdly, I agreed with Schneider in saying that it was a good portrait of a midlife crisis, however personally I definitely wouldn't say the best. By different techniques, especially magnifying Myrtle's alcoholism, Cassavetes was successful in portraying the downfall of an actress.

The Killing of a Chinese Bookie

The 1976 film The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, directed by John Cassavetes, was definitely another unique one. Mr. Klobuchar was right in saying that Cassavetes takes some getting used to. Overall, I enjoyed this film better than Faces. It had a little more sustenance. I liked the bright lighting and colors used in the film, it made it more appealing to the eye and caught my attention.

When I watch a film, often times there is one scene in particular that sticks out to me and catches my attention (once again). Whether its a cinematic element or a literary element.

In this film a specific scene that I keep thinking about focused on a literary element. Ben Gazzara plays the character of a strip club owner named Cosmo Vitelli. When Cosmo is sitting around with some of the dancers talking; he says, "People are happy when they are comfortable". This quote immediately popped into my head and got me thinking: "that is so true!" Coming from a gambler, that is somewhat insightful. To me it sort of bounces off of the whole: money doesn't buy you happiness. However, Cosmo could have very well meant that money buys comfort, which would resolve in money "buying" happiness. I like to take the quote and relate it to more internal comfort, not material comfort. For most of us humans; if we are comfortable with ourselves, we are happy. I mean obviously not everyone is happy 24/7 like in Pleasantville (Gary Ross 1998), but a more general happiness.

For the most part I enjoyed watching The Killing of a Chinese Bookie, and I really like when films have something I can connect to outside of the box of images and sounds.

FACES

John Cassavetes' 1968 film Faces is a very different and new kind of film for that time period. It has a very minimal plot line, but that doesn't even matter because Cassavetes was trying to focus mostly on the interaction between genders. John Marley plays Richard Frost, an old man who leaves his wife for another woman. I sat there wondering when the movie was going to start taking off into the plot...and it never did, I soon realized this was the plot, them sitting around talking, having a good time, thrown in with some not so good times; all of this pretty much took place in one single room. However there was some more plot thrown in later on, Richard Frost's wife (now ex-wife) meets a younger fellow and starts a relationship with him. The story basically follows all of these love toils back and forth. I thought it was interesting that Cassavetes decided to steer clear from the plot almost as best he could, normally I like having a story to follow, but it was good for me to step outside the "norm" and watch something I might not on my own account.

Do The Right Thing

Spike Lee's film, Do The Right Thing, raises an important issue that is still relevant today: racism. I liked the way the film was done because it showed how everyone can be racist at some point in their life. Not just one group towards another, its every group towards each other. In my opinion, the film offers a fair and balanced view of the issue that isn't aimed to blame any one ethnic group. It seems to me that to have absolutely no position on racism is ignorant, but to take any stance, no matter how good your intentions may be, you are most likely putting yourself at odds with a different opinion, whether you mean to or not. The film points out that racism can't just be ignored, but in order to address it, we have to come to terms with the reality which is still very uneasy.

Behind The Battle of Algiers

Michael T. Kaufman's "Film Studies"

The main idea that this article has taught me about are the similarities between the conduct of the french in regards to Algeria, and the current conduct of the U.S. military it Iraq. The article talks about an invitation within the pentagon, to watch The Battle for Algiers with a sub label saying "How to win the battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas." I think what the author is getting at is that using torture and other barbaric tactics of war may reap you some temporary rewards, but eventually, they will catch up to you. One thing that this article caused me to wonder about and probably could have acknowledged is the public's reaction to the torturous practices of the French. It seems that public opinion is causing some change in the way that the military operates in Iraq so i wonder is there was any kind of call for change from the french or algerians.

Us = Humans = Lenny

I like the fact that Christopher Nolan's Memento doesn't have a definite solution. The film is really all about how humans believe what we want to believe. The movie starts off in a subjective view of a picture, which the lead character, Lenny (Guy Pearce), is holding. So obviously Nolan wants us to follow this movie, along with Lenny in a way. At the end, but really the beginning, we find out what Teddy tells Lenny to be the truth. But still the film has many factors that oppose that "solution".

If you finish the movie, and you have a strong opinion one way or another on what really happened with Lenny and his wife, you, too are doing what Lenny did; Believing what you want to believe. Christopher Nolan created Lenny, which I think represents humans as a whole in some ways, and as we watch Lenny, we do the same thing. Lenny believed what he wanted. We, as an audience believed what we wanted. Nolan definitely suceeded in what I think was his originial goal.

Kiss Me Deadly

First of all, I forget; Why was this the title? But that's not what I'm about to talk about. I would just like to comment on the fact that this movie was, um, well, not good. And the two endings, really made no change to the rest of the film. I see where the Robert Aldrich film was trying to go, with the whole "nuclear secrets" in America stuff. But, I think this would've been a much better movie if Aldrich had stuck to the originial storyline of the book it was based off of (Mafia drug money in a box instead of a bomb...). But, once again all this is just my opinion. And who decided to add that alternate ending? If you are going to create an additional ending to a film, atleast make it something that really effects the aftermath of the story...Who cares if they die at the end or not? I mean no offense but Ralph Meeker's character, Mike, really wasn't the GREATEST fellow. All he did was...Hm..Well, allow that dumb lady to get the box and make the bomb blow up. Hm. Alright. That's all I have to say.

Double Indemnity

Just like in Howard Hawks' Bringing Up Baby, the main character is easily manipulated by the opposite sex in Billy Wilder's Double Indemnity. In my opinion Walter Neff started off as a fairly "good" man. Just going along doing his job until a female came along whom he fell "in love" with. This also seemed to be the case with David (Cary Grant) in Bringing Up Baby. David was drawn into Susan's (Katharine Hepburn) schemes, and eventually fell in love with her. The way I see it was he was easily manipulated by her the entire movie. And I can't really explain why he said he loved her at the end of the movie, so I guess I can't prove my point. There were no signs of his love for Susan until he said so at the end.
Walter Neff (Fred MacMurray)in Double Indemnity was easily drawn into Phyllis' (Barbara Stanwyck) schemes the minute he met her. She convinced him she was in this terrible, abusive relatioship, which yes her husband probably didn't give her the attention she would've liked, but lets be serious it most likely wasn't bad enough to murder the guy. Walter started out just doing his job, ran into this looney tune, fell "in love" with her, and continued to be manipulated by her. He was sucked into her schemes so much that he ended up taking charge and carrying out the murder himself. Bing-go! Walter was easily manipulated by this 1940's gold-digger, which led him to a complete downfall in his own life, and ended his chance of really ever being a "good guy" again.

Groundhog Day!

Harold Ramis portrays the life of many Americans in the 1993 film Groundhog Day. Today we are so caught up on being "successful", but what does that word mean to you? To me, the word successful means you have achieved your own happiness. Sure, Bill Murray's character Phil Connors is successful in the sense that he has a nice job, and is making money, but his individual success is low...He begins living Groundhog Day over and over and over again. Which in a way he was already doing that before, because he wasn't changing his attitude, lifestyle, etc. to achieve "inner happiness". Reliving groundhog day was the way to give him the chance and time to change. Sure enough, it did.

I think for many people these days, reliving a certain day could be for the better. I feel like Americans are just always on auto-pilot. We have plenty of ways to help us stay in our fast-paced lives: fastfood, drive-thru's, online movie rentals, "go-gurt", ipods, cellphones, facebook, delivery of almost anything, and the list goes on. We take what we have for granted. Many people are so focused on what they think is important to help them achieve "success" they miss the other elements of life. If we had the chance to relive one day over and over again we would eventually, just like Phil, pay attention to our surroundings in detail and maybe learn new things, meet new people, and improve individually. Phil tried new things (because he had nothing better to do), found he liked those things and were fairly good at them. He got to know new people, and realized even though they are different than him they are really good, fun, genuine people. By the end of the movie, all of these factors helped him improve from the inside-out. He stopped reliving groundhog day once he achieved true inner happiness, to me that is a success!

Once Upon A Time In The West (vs. Cat Ballou)

---I finally just got these films on netflix and were able to finish watching them, so here are my posts for the westerns!---
I decided to compare Once Upon A Time In The West (Sergio Leon 1968) to Cat Ballou (Elliot Silverstein 1965). Both westerns have a different kind of heroine than most classic westerns. The reason for this is that Once Upon A Time In The West is a revisionist western, and Cat Ballou is a parody western; a revisionist and a parody both have some western characteristics but are either "updated" (sort of like a new way of doing something) or exaggerated.

Jane Fonda's character Catherine Ballou has about four cowboy heroes following her around through out the movie. Claudia Cardinale's character Jill McBain has two cowboy heroes are her feet, and the villain, too, in a way. So all three men sort of have a fascination with her, just like the four in Cat Ballou. I think Sergio Leon's purpose for having the two heroes and the villain so tied to Jill is to bring a "fresh" feeling to the plot. Once Upon A Time In The West is again, a revisionist, so he tried to stray away from the typical one hero, one heroine, and a bad guy plot by adding some more contrast and conflict to the plot. Elliot Silverstein's purpose was merely to make fun of that typical one hero plot by adding three more heroes. He made a couple of them fall in love with Cat Ballou and had them believe she was in love with them, too, which also was creating a mockery of the fact that the hero usually falls for the heroine, and vice versa. The two westerns brought a freshness to the screen and both were quite succesful in doing so because I liked both of them. I thought I hated westerns, but I realize now I just don't like the typical classic westerns!

My Darling Clementine

---I finally just got these films on netflix and were able to finish watching them, so here are my posts for the westerns!---
In My Darling Clementine (John Ford 1946) civilization wins over wilderness. Tombstone is a town of community and growing civilization. The first time Wyatt Earp (Henry Fonda) arrives in Tombstone there is loud music and people yelling and cheering, out partying at the saloons. During the time this film was set, towns were growing in order to make traveling easier. Train stations were being built and so on. There is even an entire scene for the church that is going up in the town.

After all the fight scenes, relationship "drama", and the final duel of The Clantons verse Doc and Wyatt; civilization is pushed more down the road to success. Wyatt leaves Tombstone to move forward in adventure, but the town continues to grow and expand its kind of "industrialization". The church bells continue to ring, and my guess is that many travelers pass through to add to their economy.

Bringing Up Baby vs. Meet The Fockers

Along with most of my classmates, I found Katharine Hepburn's character, Susan, extremely annoying in Howard Hawk's Bringing Up Baby. Sorry Mr. Klobuchar. I honestly tried to look past her character and enjoy the rest of the film, but all around it drove me nuts. I can acknowledge that it is a good film, just not my taste. I realized I felt the same way when I saw the blockbuster hit Meet The Fockers (Jay Roach, 2004). Sure, Ben Stiller is pretty funny, but I cannot STAND when every little, tiny thing makes the movie a disaster after disaster. I just don't have the humor for it! I couldn't bring myself to laugh when Ben Stiller's character, Greg, went on the roof to smoke a cigarette, dropped it, and ended up lighting the hand-carved, wooden wedding arbor on fire; that is funny? That's terrible! A parallel from Bringing Up Baby to that disasterous fire scene would be when Susan goes to see David at the end in the museum, and ends up making the entire reconstructed dinosaur fall to the ground. Now that scene wasn't as bad because at that point David barely cared anymore. But still, seeing a lot of work, money, time and effort fall to the ground is not my kind of humor. Great movie...just not for me!

WOW! Thanks Anniessa for reccomending this to me...Lets just say everyone needs to see this movie.

City of God, directed by Fernando Meirelles and Katia Lund, is one of the best movies I have seen in a very long time. It shows a completely different world out there than Edina that’s for sure. However, the characters in this film are about our age. They show what it’s like to be a child in Rio de Janeiro, and a teenager. We seem to still be dependent on our parents, even though we are heading off to college next year. And the kids of Rio are running around just trying not to get shot, even if they are, lets say four years old.

I was really impressed with the acting in this movie. Pretty much the entire cast is under the age of twenty, and these days it’s hard to come by good teen actors and actresses. Lets just say Lindsay Lohan, Hannah Montana, and Zach Efron could never play a role in this film.

The lead role in City of God is Rocket, played by Alexandre Rodrigues. He is the narrator through out the film. He does a stunning job of portraying a boy growing up in the midst of all this crime. His brother is a “hoodlum” and ends up being killed along with half the cast through out the movie. The cool thing about Alexandre is that I noticed from the Internet Movie Data Base, most of the other roles he has played have been on television shows. In the U.S., there aren’t too many actors that play roles in all TV shows and then, “BAM” come out with an exquisite movie like this one.

Lil Dice, played by Douglas Silva, does a fantastic job of showing the dramatic and intense personality change into Lil Ze. Lil Dice is a young boy who follows around the older hoodlums, trying to be “in” with them, and dreams of becoming the “leader” of them; the gangster that everyone either fears or worships in the City of God. The scene when the audience finally sees the change of Lil Dice to Lil Ze is impressively scary. But, I will not forget it. The expression on Douglas Silva’s face, when this change happens, is stunningly creepy. It is hard to explain that change without giving away some of the movies surprises, so go and rent it! Once you watch the movie, you will know the scene and face expression I am talking about.

When Lil Ze is all grown up, played by Leonardo Firmino, there is a scene where they are messing with some little kids, who they overheard talking about Lil Ze. This scene was really hard for me to watch. It felt so real and very disturbing. Darlan Cunha plays the role of “Steak and Fries”, no not the food—that was his name. This disturbing scene is when Steak and Fries has to prove his loyalty to Lil Ze’s gang, if he wants to be accepted by them and become one of them. I don’t want to give anything away, but the expression and emotion channeled through Darlan Cunha’s face is devastating. I was really impressed that a kid his age is able to portray that emotion in such a powerful way. I felt this was through out the whole movie, with almost every character in one scene or another. It’s not really something you can write about in a review, so, the only real advice I have for you is to watch this movie and feel these emotions for yourself.

Citizen Kane

There were definately a lot of important literary elements in the film Citizen Kane directed by and starring Orson Welles. There were many conflicts through out the story of his life; his two failed marraiges, his social status, and holding onto his superego. In addition to those conflicts there were many symbols that stood out in the movie. One specific symbol that came up countless times was "Rosebud". There was much hype about this certain term and it turned out to be his childhood sled. At first I was kind of like, "okay..that's really relative..?", but then I tried to think why Orson Welles decided to create that a reoccuring topic. I think it was mostly because Kane's entire life was affected by his childhood, just like everyone else. The sled was one of the things in his life that could keep him happy. When his parents were fighting or what not, he always had his sled to go out and play with almost as an escape. So, for some reason Welles decided that would be a good thing to refer back to for his last word. It seems like maybe since he was finally "escaping" his life, since he was dying...he thought back to his sled-his childhood escape.

...Bias Movie Watchers... (choice blog)

For those of you who have seen Garden State directed by and staring Zach Braff, you most likely either really didn't like it or you absolutely loved it. This film is about a 20-something-year-old actor, Andrew Largeman (Zach Braff), who visits his hometown in New Jersey after being away for about 7 years for a funeral. For this adventure home, he is off his medications for the first time in a very long time, which leads him to realizing how numb he has been all his life. This unique and clever movie is all about letting go and living your own life. Many people have high expectations when they see this movie for the first time and I get comments like "it had no plot!" or "it was so boring, I fell asleep". What I say to them is, you must not know how to read a film, or at least appreciate the underlining message it is sending. The other thing is that this movie is not your typical "in-your-face" comedy; you have to see the humor in the smaller things, which I like. I think it makes more sense to watch a movie and laugh on your own account and not just laugh whenever there are "laugh tracks" added in. Garden State is an INDEPENDENT film, so yes, it is different, and yes it's not your typical romantic comedy, but try to step outside the box office and enjoy Zach Braff's subtle humor.

An Inevitable 80's Flick by Kari

Saying Anything, written and directed by Cameron Crowe, is a light-hearted romantic comedy with realistic “close-to-home” issues. Lloyd Dobler (John Cusack) is a fun, free-spirited teen just living life as it comes until his meets Diane Court (Ione Skye), an academically driven valedictorian. After graduation Lloyd finally works up the courage to call up Diane and ask her out. Diane is eager to actually get to know her fellow classmates, now that she is not so caught up in her schoolwork, so she agrees. Lloyd and Diane click right off the bat, and Diane finally feels like she belongs. The ongoing struggle in the film is that her father (John Mahoney) has a considerably hard time letting go of his baby girl to a young boy with no drawn out plan for his future.

Overall the film has a pretty simple plot, but John Cusack’s light humor gives it a quaint, unique flavor. The basic struggle is something almost anyone can somehow relate to: falling in love. But the movie also has other pieces to it that other people can relate with as well; single parenting, money, success, finding happiness, finding yourself, loyalty, making choices, and the list goes on. Success is one that definitely stuck out to me. The reason Diane feels like she doesn’t know any of her classmates is because her father raised her to focus fully on school, which didn’t allow her much free time. This reoccurs later on in the film when her and her father have to deal with some mistakes her father made. He made these mistakes because of his desire for success, thinking it would help him and his daughter.

The film didn’t have many “fancy” camera angles or scene changes, which made the movie has a more realistic feel. I think that would have taken away from the purpose of the movie. However, I did notice the lighting through out the movie was mostly brighter, happy colors. It added to making the movie have a light-hearted mood. During one of the “lowest” moments in the movie, it was dark and rainy, which was also the feeling the audience felt for the characters. The music also really added to giving the movie the same light-hearted mood. Say Anything was made in 1989, so the soundtrack was definitely some of your typical fun 80’s music, which was also paired with Jane Ruhm’s 80’s costume design. I especially loved the famous scene where Lloyd stands outside Diane’s bedroom and holds up a boom box playing your typical 80’s love song, In Your Eyes by Peter Gabriel, which was written in 1986. It fit the movie and made the audience fall even more in love with Lloyd Dobler.

Even though this movie is somewhat under the category of “chick-flick” it is a funny, easy to watch kind of movie that anyone can enjoy. With it’s light-hearted comedy, and simple but realistic struggles, Say Anything is an inevitable 80’s film, which will brighten anyone’s day.