The Personal Recommendation Hall of Fame IV

Tools    





Heavenly Creatures: Add another really good movie to my favorite movie year. Very cool performances by the young leads. Winslet went in to be one of my faves and I always think Lansky is interesting.

Cool looking film, always appreciate how Jackson mixes in the fantastical in an interesting way, but doesn’t over do it. The tone of the film is fantastical anyway, so you always feel like you are in another world. He does a great job of putting us in the girl’s POV. Which draws much empathy…till it appropriately doesn’t.
Peter Jackson's career has got to be one of the most interesting in the business, and this film clearly embodies that shift from the "crazy" splatter horror to the more serious director. Not that I'm putting one over the other, but it's a shift. I saw this back in the day, probably a year after seeing Braindead, and a couple of years before Lord of the Rings came to be and I was blown away by it.
__________________
Check out my podcast: The Movie Loot!



Red Road



Blind watch, but I recognized the name of the director, Andrea Arnold. I thought she was the director of Wendy & Lucy and Night Moves so I wasn't very excited. My hopes were raised when I realized she was the director of Fish Tank and American Honey, movies I liked much more.

It starts out with mysterious and voyeuristic qualities and I had no idea where it was going. It was almost like a thriller. It's an extremely bleak movie that in the end was quite sad and powerful. Very good performances especially from the lead actress and it's filmed beautifully. Another good choice for me.

+



Red Road



Blind watch, but I recognized the name of the director, Andrea Arnold. I thought she was the director of Wendy & Lucy and Night Moves so I wasn't very excited. My hopes were raised when I realized she was the director of Fish Tank and American Honey, movies I liked much more.

It starts out with mysterious and voyeuristic qualities and I had no idea where it was going. It was almost like a thriller. It's an extremely bleak movie that in the end was quite sad and powerful. Very good performances especially from the lead actress and it's filmed beautifully. Another good choice for me.

+
I really like Red Road. It is a bit bleak and sad, but I think that all of the performances are really solid. Once you get to the end and understand more about why everything happened, it makes a rewatch really interesting.





M*A*S*H, 1970

In 1951, two new combat surgeons arrive in Korea as part of the Mobile Army Surgical Hospital (MASH). Hawkeye (Donald Sutherland) and Duke (Tom Skerrit) have both been drafted and arrive ready to make trouble. Later joined by heart surgeon Trapper (Elliot Gould), the men clash with a surgeon named Burns (Robert Duvall) and the head nurse Houlihan (Sally Kellerman), both of whom want the camp run by-the-book.

The best part of this film is the dark humor that pervades it, particularly highlighted by the inane and bumbling intercom announcements that punctuate the action. As the men try to save the lives of mutilated soldiers, the intercom informs them that marijuana has officially been declared an illegal and dangerous substance.

This film also showcases Altman's gift of using overlapping dialogue. At times this is used to effectively establish the hustle and bustle of the operating space in the hospital. Other times it is used to more comic effect, as in several scenes where competent assistant Radar (Gary Burghoff) speaks just a second ahead of his commanding officer (Roger Bowen), having already anticipated the man's orders. The actors all do a good job with this method of line delivery, and having characters speak at different volumes adds to the realism of the dialogue.

As an overall film, though, I will admit that I struggled with this one a bit. There's a line between charmingly roguish behavior and doing gross things to people, and way too often the antics of the "Swampmen" (as they nickname themselves) came down on the wrong side of that line for me. The film repeatedly goes back to the same well over and over again--sexual humiliation--and I increasingly found myself siding with the victims of their "pranks."

The character who is most misused, both by the men and the film, is Houlihan. Initially, the men punish her for her disapproval (who wouldn't want to be called a bitch and have someone demand that you take your clothes off? What a prude!) by sneaking a microphone into her tent to humiliate her and Burns, who have started an affair. I was kind of willing to give this a pass. But later, for seemingly no reason, the men make a bet about whether she is a "natural blonde", which involves exposing her naked body to over a dozen people. Ha ha? The film divides its female characters into two categories: the ones who like being ogled and happily mend the men's clothing, and the uptight rule followers. Their harassment later in the film of a female nurse who tries to keep them from storming into a hospital (they are wearing civilian clothing) was actively off-putting. And later in the film, Houlihan just suddenly . . . doesn't have a problem with them anymore? With the implication that it's because she just needed good sex? She turns into a ditzy, literal cheerleader rah-rahing for the men as they play football.

I think it's too bad that the film didn't lean more on the humor that had a bit of humanity to it. When one of the officers believes that he has turned gay and declares his intention to commit suicide, the men stage a mock last supper/wake for him. When a young Korean man who works at the camp is drafted into the Korean Army, the men attempt to get him out of service by giving him drugs to mess with his heart rate and blood pressure. Even a scene where the soft-spoken priest (Rene Aberjonois) is pulled away from giving last rites---to a man who has already died--to that he can assist in a surgery has a kind of dark magnetism to it.

Performance wise, I really enjoyed all of the central performances (aside from Kellerman's shrieking caricature), but I kept having this disconnect where the pacing and the score kept suggesting I ought to be smirking along with the antics of the central trio even as I found them increasingly grating.

A distinctive style of filmmaking made this one interesting to watch. I just wish that in the various adventures I hadn't found so much of the on-screen behavior to be actively mean-spirited.




Women will be your undoing, Pépé



Born Yesterday (1950)

Jim Devery: All you have to do is be nice - and no rough language.
Billie: I won't open my mush.

Many a time, it has been remarked upon how tricky it is to pick a Comedy for an HoF being as subjective as it is. Though it could easily be said about -- pretty much everything, it does seem to hinge directly on it a little more so.
But when it works. . . Man, oh, man!!
And this truly f@ckin works for me.

It all comes down to the genius of Judy Holliday's portrayal of the comedic "ditzy blonde." Along with her "straight man," Broderick Crawford. Their bombastic relationship being the fodder of every scene that brought forth an eruption of laughter out of me. Creating a comedic duo that matches the echelon of many Vauldvillin/Burlesque Comedy Teams of previous decades. Their arguing reminding me of a marriage of Burns & Allen and the tv show, The Honeymooners, when Jackie Gleason and Audrey Meadows would go at it.
Sheer brilliance.
My absolute favorite is the Card Game Scene which I've seen versions of/tip of the hats to, such as on All of the Family with Archie (Carol O'Connor) and Edith Bunker (Jean Stapleton).
But Judy's Holliday's Billie Dawn is more than happy to yell back, unlike the more compliant Edith.
WARNING: "Though, unlike the other examples," spoilers below
the threat of violence does, in one pivotal scene, is followed through. Its effectiveness to the storyline's process is, like everything else, very essential. Not one I would like to have, but one I would not remove either due to the reason stated.

To continue my raving of Judy Holliday and her genius, and it is just that. Her every nuance of voice, manner, body language, et al. is a true mastery of the art form. A woman of a 170 IQ, Holliday had stated numerous times that "It takes real smarts to make people believe you're dumb." Extending that necessary intelligence to "keep an audience's attention without extraordinary physical equipment." And she does. In spades!
It is said that: "searching for subversives in the film industry the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was flummoxed (I f@ckin LOVE that description) by Holliday, who essentially played her Oscar-winning character "Billie Dawn" on the witness stand."
YOU GO, GIRL!

Director Cukor, to tighten and perfect the comedic timing while the set was being constructed he had the cast perform, again and again before a live audience. That timing shines through with everyone.
I should also note that William Holden is also in this as the man Broderick's character hires to teach Billie manners/book smarts and ends up severely regretting it. Holding his own to these two scene-stealers that kept my full attention.

I don't care WHO it is that nominated this, but whoever you are, you're getting a BIG FAT kiss and a hug from me!
THANK YOU!!
__________________
What I actually said to win MovieGal's heart:
- I might not be a real King of Kinkiness, but I make good pancakes
~Mr Minio





Wendy and Lucy, 2008

Wendy (Michelle Williams) is a young woman driving from Indiana to Alaska where she hopes to find work. Accompanied only by her dog, Lucy, Wendy stops in a small town where her car breaks down. Her funds perilously low, Wendy attempts to steal three cans of dog food from a grocery store, but is caught. When she gets out of jail, Lucy has disappeared from where Wendy left her. Assisted only by a friendly security guard (Wally Dalton), Wendy tries to locate Lucy while the seemingly impossible task of getting her car fixed looms.

Interesting to watch this film so close on the heels of Sullivan's Travels, a film that asserted that making films that are comedic and cheerful has much more value than "real" stories of the struggles of the poor and disenfranchised. This film is exactly such a window into the life of a woman living on the edge.

I thought that this film was pretty great. Williams is perfect as Wendy. I have always thought that Williams was a strong actor with great presence, but in this film she was truly just a person. All of her fears and hopes laid bare, her mounting frustration totally understandable. This is a person who is trapped and she's not making bad choices--she just doesn't have the means to make the right ones.

I think that one of the best aspects of this film was the way that it shows the spectrum of help and harm that someone encounters in a challenging situation. There are two characters who qualify as antagonists. The first is the young man in the grocery store who busts Wendy trying to take the dog food. He barely disguises his glee when the manager assents to calling the police, and snidely tells Wendy that anyone who can't afford dog food has no business owning a dog. (The prominently placed cross around his neck is the closest thing to a message I felt in this film). The other is a man who attempts to steal from Wendy when she camps out in the woods, a man who seems to threaten either physical harm or sexual assault. In both cases, these characters are all too happy to exploit Wendy's vulnerabilities for their own ends.

But the rest of the characters exist much more toward the middle of the spectrum. The security guard forces Wendy to move her car, but later lets her use his cell phone to call the animal shelter. The men in the line at the bottle collection are happy to wheedle Wendy's cans away from her, but seem genuinely to feel for her that she has lost her pet. The owner of the local garage charges Wendy $50 to tow her car to the garage, despite the garage being just across the street from where her car broke down. But later he displays some empathy for her situation, realizing that she cannot pay to fix her car.

A while back I was driving to work and I ended up behind a car with two number stickers, the contrast of which kind of shocked me. One of them was a soft pink sticker that read something like "I love my fur babies!!" with a cute dog paw decal. But the other read something like "If you can't speak English, get the f*ck out of my country!". I thought about that car when watching this film, the way that people can conceive of themselves as being kind, and yet on the other hand can display a callous, borderline cruel lack of empathy for others.

This movie is bleak and very sad. Yes, I cried a lot in the last 20 minutes. But it's not a film without hope. So much of what happens to Wendy is driven by "the rules". The security guard has to ask her to move her car. The grocery store manager has to call the police. The police have to get a cash payment for her fine. The garage owner has to charge her for the tow. Offscreen, Wendy has to have a permanent address to apply for a job. But inside of all of these "have to" moments are places where humanity and kindness have a chance to show up. I work in a job where rules and regulations are very much in place (and many of them for a good reason). I also work in a job where it is very easy to judge the people (especially the parents) I come in contact with. Films like this are a good reminder of a saying that my students adopted as a class motto one year: "Be kind; everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." Maybe if you follow this rule you end up giving someone who is lazy or selfish or just a jerk a break when they don't deserve one. But you might also be the person who saves someone from a downward spiral that they cannot escape.

I can see how this movie would not be for everyone. It really is just a slice of life. But I thought it was pretty excellent.







Born Yesterday (1950)

Jim Devery: All you have to do is be nice - and no rough language.
Billie: I won't open my mush.

Many a time, it has been remarked upon how tricky it is to pick a Comedy for an HoF being as subjective as it is. Though it could easily be said about -- pretty much everything, it does seem to hinge directly on it a little more so.
But when it works. . . Man, oh, man!!
And this truly f@ckin works for me.

It all comes down to the genius of Judy Holiday's portrayal of the comedic "ditzy blonde." Along with her "straight man," Broderick Crawford. Their bombastic relationship being the fodder of every scene that brought forth an eruption of laughter out of me. Creating a comedic duo that matches the echelon of many Vauldvillin/Burlesque Comedy Teams of previous decades. Their arguing reminding me of a marriage of Burns & Allen and the tv show, The Honeymooners, when Jackie Gleason and Audrey Meadows would go at it.
Sheer brilliance.
My absolute favorite is the Card Game Scene which I've seen versions of/tip of the hats to, such as on All of the Family with Archie (Carol O'Connor) and Edith Bunker (Jean Stapleton).
But Judy's Holiday's Billie Dawn is more than happy to yell back, unlike the more compliant Edith.
WARNING: "Though, unlike the other examples," spoilers below
the threat of violence does, in one pivotal scene, is followed through. Its effectiveness to the storyline's process is, like everything else, very essential. Not one I would like to have, but one I would not remove either due to the reason stated.

To continue my raving of Judy Holiday and her genius, and it is just that. Her every nuance of voice, manner, body language, et al. is a true mastery of the art form. A woman of a 170 IQ, Holliday had stated numerous times that "It takes real smarts to make people believe you're dumb." Extending that necessary intelligence to "keep an audience's attention without extraordinary physical equipment." And she does. In spades!
It is said that: "searching for subversives in the film industry the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) was flummoxed (I f@ckin LOVE that description) by Holliday, who essentially played her Oscar-winning character "Billie Dawn" on the witness stand."
YOU GO, GIRL!

Director Cukor, to tighten and perfect the comedic timing while the set was being constructed he had the cast perform, again and again before a live audience. That timing shines through with everyone.
I should also note that William Holden is also in this as the man Broderick's character hires to teach Billie manners/book smarts and ends up severely regretting it. Holding his own to these two scene-stealers that kept my full attention.

I don't care WHO it is that nominated this, but whoever you are, you're getting a BIG FAT kiss and a hug from me!
THANK YOU!!
Glad you enjoyed it! I'm always happy to accept hugs and kisses!



I liked MASH a lot even though I've never watched the TV show. Of course I would with that cast.

I've seen Born Yesterday, but I have no recollection of it.

Meh for Wendy and Lucy. It didn't affect me at all, unusual for a movie starring a dog and a doll.



movies can be okay...
Seven Up!

The other trouble with 14 Up is that the observation affects the experiment - the kids at 14 are more aware of how they will be perceived, how they were perceived in the first film, what their parents will think. They make several references to the first programme, and some of them are quite hostile to it, or wary of generalisations being drawn.
I actually liked that aspect of 7 Plus Seven a lot. It was pretty interesting watching some of them be critical of their edit and being careful about what they say because they're aware of the manipulative aspects of editing. It's meta, and that felt more realistic to me than just sitting and doing a repeat of the previous episode.

I overall admired all of the kids and thought they did a great job for 14 year olds. All smart, all well spoken. Was pretty surprised though by how much their school careers is planned ahead by their parents, that was foreign to me.

I stopped watching the series after 28 Up. The peak to me was when these people were still children, but from 21 Up and on it just became regular people talking and that is far less interesting to me than kids speaking their mind.
__________________
"A film has to be a dialogue, not a monologue — a dialogue to provoke in the viewer his own thoughts, his own feelings. And if a film is a dialogue, then it’s a good film; if it’s not a dialogue, it’s a bad film."
- Michael "Gloomy Old Fart" Haneke



movies can be okay...

Okay, slow clap/hat tip to whoever had the nerve to see that I was hoping for shorter, optimistic films, and decided to give me . . . . this. Honestly, it shows the kind of dark humor that is also at the root of the film.
It was weird seeing this nominated for you when you asked for more light hearted movies, and moreso because Bjork came out about Von Trier's behavior towards her during the filming and how abusive he was which was another criterion you didn't want to deal with, but I guess you didn't know that oops.

I personally still love this movie to bits, and of course Bjork is a big reason for that. Her performance, her music, the story, the style, everything was just *chef's kiss*.

It's one thing for her to tap her toes and dance around to the rhythmic sounds of a factory floor. It's quite another thing to flounce around in a literal life-or-death situation.
Well she doesn't actually flounce around in real life (I think you're talking about the train scene?), it's just like any of the other dream sequences all in her head.

On the downside, though, the film does start to feel a bit overlong, especially in the last act. There's this transition somewhere in the back half of the film where it feels less like the movie is observing a person make horrible, quirky choices and more like she is being intentionally put through the wringer in increasingly extreme ways. I get that this heightens the absurdity, but somewhere in the last third the effect that the film had been building suddenly plateaued for me. There are some interesting implications in the last third that the character might actually be really depressed and possibly might want to die, and I wish the movie had explored that a bit more. I also felt like, in wanting the character to make the worst choices possible, the film sometimes stepped out of its own internal logic. For example, there are times that Selma withholds information and it makes sense, but later she does so and it's like . . . what? Or times when she resists help or support from others that just doesn't seem to gel with her fantasy reality where everyone is nice to each other.
I loved the last act more than anything. It's misery porn but with a character that you actually care so much about which makes the hurt in these last 40 mins even more painful and more sorrowing. The last scene especially is one my favourites ever. I watched the film at least 5 times and I've cried every time at that final part.

I don't feel like Selma commits any "horrible" decision, especially not one that goes against her character and her principles. I'm not sure about the withholding of information part, but if you're talking about her not revealing the truth about David Morse's character, I personally feel it fit right in with her personality and what she would do. She's a very simple minded person with strong and simple principles and would clearly die for them, and that to me was very apparent in all of her actions. And about the part with her not taking help from others, she doesn't want to be treated as a handicap and wants to continue on independently and normally just like ever. With Jeff, she doesn't want to lead him on because she has one focus in her life right now and she doesn't want to divert her attention at all from that goal.



movies can be okay...
Platoon (1986) directed by Oliver Stone




The best part of the movie is its depiction of war and its battles. I thought all of its technicalities with its strategies and the chaos and overall atmosphere was all very well done. The first ambush scene was pretty good and pretty well built up, up until you start hearing this screeching rising tension and heart beat sound effect that keeps getting ridiculously higher and becomes completely distracting, it was absurd. The main score was great though, a little overbearing at times but great nonetheless.

The sequence in the village was particularly fantastic when it came to the depiction of the atrocities going on that are usually swept under the rug. That whole sequence with the mother getting shot point blank in front of her family was heartbreaking, and I gotta give kudos to those villagers actors since they definitely brought it in that one scene more than anybody else in the entire movie. In fact, if anything it was some of the maniacal American caricatures I mean characters that kind of brought that whole portion of the film a little down for me. Of course I'm not saying these kind of people didn't exist during the war, but I would've rathered them be depicted similarly to Barnes' character and not be so simply evil and openly psychotic.

However, if I have one specific issue with the film, it would be with the 3 main characters. They all feel miscast to me. They're too recognizable for me to be immersed in the movie, and some of them don't even do that good of a job anyways. Barnes is definitely the best character out of the 3, but I don't know, he still looks a bit ridiculous with those scars in his face. Charlie Sheen is the worst for sure. He overacts a lot (not that some of his dialogue helped either), and what pissed me off the most about him and his character is his whole monologue in the end. He acts holier than thou in this monologue while pretending to be hurt in order to escape from the war, and considering his character transformation it would make the most sense had he actually stayed.



movies can be okay...
The Shawshank Redemption (1994) directed by Frank Darabont



I don't know if I have as much to say about this film as much as I am taken aback that this is THE film that's the head of imdb's top 250 and not another film with the same level of competency and similar form. I know, I know, it's just imdb's top 250 who cares about that right, but it's a very well beloved movie regardless that's why I wasn't expecting it to be as safe and by the books as it ended up being, and on the other hand I'm actually not that surprised either for those exact same reasons.

Overall though, I enjoyed the film. It's a good motivational story with a good moral behind it, but I still can't help but feel there was a whole bunch of missed opportunities with the execution. The movie is cheesy at times, and is very much so filled with tropes at every step of its way, and that wouldn't generally be a bad thing, except I don't believe it's the best way to go about a seriously toned film as that just decreases the success of the themes and messages you're trying to get across, especially when they're already heavy-handed in the first place. For example, why is it so necessary to have Brooks' character write a letter that explains his state of mind and motives behind his suicide, then also have Red also explain why he believes Brooks committed suicide. Things like that are so frustrating to me as a viewer because they limit what you can interpret to only what the director wants you to think, and that's just straight up bad filmmaking to me, talk about show don't tell. On the other hand, there are subtleties in the storytelling that I appreciated and enjoyed, my favourite being the contrast between what's behind the picture frame with the bible verse in Warden's office and what's behind the promiscuous poster in Andy's cell. A lot of conversations and discussions can be generated from just having those kind of details in the background, instead of spelling out to the audience what you want them to think and feel every minute, and that's essentially the difference between good and bad storytelling/filmmaking. And why was Morgan Freeman narrating the whole movie for? Narration in films is always a slippery slope but usually there's at least some point or purpose behind it, but here it's just nada. Continuing on with the presentation of the movie: the cinematography and the music are unspecial for the most part, and the acting is good enough to be serviceable, but still...unspecial, and had it been otherwise maybe I could've cared, related or attached myself to one of them characters, but I didn't.

My least favourite scene in the film is easily the Mozart opera scene. Cringe galore and lowkey disrespectful. In the same way that Andy's overall portrayal is a little disrespectful with how he seems to be this white savior figure. Oh look, a rich educated white man goes to prison and is perceived at first as a posh kid who thinks he's better than everyone else, oh look he actually proves to be better than everyone else and betters the prison system and now he's beloved and respected by everyone. More nuance, genuineness, and realism couldn't hurt.

Contrary to popular belief, I do have favourite scenes as well. I think Bob Gunton does the best job in the movie, and his scene with Andy in "the hole" is pretty well done because of his delivery. Of course the escape is pretty great for the most part. I like how it was kind of under our nose for the entire film, with him collecting all of these random items only for them to all come together in the end and aid towards his escape. Although, if I have to be nitpicky, the way of which he disposed of the debris from that hole is pretty nonsensical and ridiculous if you ask me. I liked the scenes and the overall choice of having Andy puppeteering the prison's staff financial matters. Tommy's death was pretty great. And there's also a whole bunch of cool, foreshadowing or ironic lines here and there that are fun. The "****ty pipe dream" was a great one in particular, and "I had to come to prison to be a crook" also stuck out to me.



It was weird seeing this nominated for you when you asked for more light hearted movies, and moreso because Bjork came out about Von Trier's behavior towards her during the filming and how abusive he was which was another criterion you didn't want to deal with, but I guess you didn't know that oops.
I knew some of it. But after watching the film her comments made it sounds more like he hit on her and then was nasty to her after she turned him down which, if true, gross.

Well she doesn't actually flounce around in real life (I think you're talking about the train scene?), it's just like any of the other dream sequences all in her head.
I more meant that
WARNING: spoilers below
her daydreaming takes on a more bizarre tone when she's imagining herself actually dancing on the way to the gallows, or when she is on trial for murder. That's when it begins to feel less like something a normal person would do.


I loved the last act more than anything. It's misery porn but with a character that you actually care so much about which makes the hurt in these last 40 mins even more painful and more sorrowing. The last scene especially is one my favourites ever. I watched the film at least 5 times and I've cried every time at that final part.
The last 10 minutes or so are breathtaking, but I feel like there was some bloat on the way there.

I don't feel like Selma commits any "horrible" decision, especially not one that goes against her character and her principles. I'm not sure about the withholding of information part, but if you're talking about her not revealing the truth about David Morse's character, I personally feel it fit right in with her personality and what she would do. She's a very simple minded person with strong and simple principles and would clearly die for them, and that to me was very apparent in all of her actions. And about the part with her not taking help from others, she doesn't want to be treated as a handicap and wants to continue on independently and normally just like ever. With Jeff, she doesn't want to lead him on because she has one focus in her life right now and she doesn't want to divert her attention at all from that goal.
It was just weird to me that she declined when her boss offered to help her find a job in a different department, that just seemed strange to me. I'm also talking about
WARNING: spoilers below
lying about who her father is in court, or giving the doctor a name that isn't her son's real name and then waiting to tell anyone about it.


I also felt an odd disconnect in terms of her relationship with her son. It felt cruel to me that she cut him off toward the end.

I get that people have their own internal logic. I felt that for the most part I understood where her character was coming from. I guess at times the combination of the decisions coming from the character and the pressures being applied externally felt a bit too contrived? I'm not sure quite how else to explain it.



I watched The Thin Blue Line (1988). Directed by Errol Morris, this true crime documentary is about a man named Randall Adams, who was wrongly convicted of the murder of a police office in Texas. This film was instrumental in helping to get Adams conviction overturned and led to his release. The film uses re-enactments and interviews to expose the corruption and flaws of the American legal system. There is no doubt that it had a huge impact in the real world and in the life of the man it helped set free. As a film though, I honestly felt it was a mixed bag. Some of the interviewers are fairly interesting, but some of them are not that engrossing or compelling. I felt the film dragged at times and it felt longer to me than its runtime. One of the main issues I had was that there are no names or occupations or information shown on the screen indicating who is speaking or their significance or role in the case. It wasn't always clear who was who. I am aware that this documentary is very well reviewed and loved by a lot of people, but I think the structure could have been better. Clearly, the film has a lot of important things to say and is still relevant today, but I ended up respecting the film more than actually liking it. It was a necessary film, but I don't consider it a masterpiece and I doubt I would ever feel the need to revisit it.



I seen Heavenly Creatures so long ago that all I can say is: I remember that it was a good film. Not sure how I'd feel about it today?

Sullivan's Travels, count me as fan of Veronica Lake and Joel McCrea too. I seen this movie back when I was getting into old movies and did like it quite a bit. Sure wouldn't mind seeing it again either.



The Shawshank Redemption (1994) directed by Frank Darabont



I don't know if I have as much to say about this film as much as I am taken aback that this is THE film that's the head of imdb's top 250 and not another film with the same level of competency and similar form. I know, I know, it's just imdb's top 250 who cares about that right, but it's a very well beloved movie regardless that's why I wasn't expecting it to be as safe and by the books as it ended up being, and on the other hand I'm actually not that surprised either for those exact same reasons.

Overall though, I enjoyed the film. It's a good motivational story with a good moral behind it, but I still can't help but feel there was a whole bunch of missed opportunities with the execution. The movie is cheesy at times, and is very much so filled with tropes at every step of its way, and that wouldn't generally be a bad thing, except I don't believe it's the best way to go about a seriously toned film as that just decreases the success of the themes and messages you're trying to get across, especially when they're already heavy-handed in the first place. For example, why is it so necessary to have Brooks' character write a letter that explains his state of mind and motives behind his suicide, then also have Red also explain why he believes Brooks committed suicide. Things like that are so frustrating to me as a viewer because they limit what you can interpret to only what the director wants you to think, and that's just straight up bad filmmaking to me, talk about show don't tell. On the other hand, there are subtleties in the storytelling that I appreciated and enjoyed, my favourite being the contrast between what's behind the picture frame with the bible verse in Warden's office and what's behind the promiscuous poster in Andy's cell. A lot of conversations and discussions can be generated from just having those kind of details in the background, instead of spelling out to the audience what you want them to think and feel every minute, and that's essentially the difference between good and bad storytelling/filmmaking. And why was Morgan Freeman narrating the whole movie for? Narration in films is always a slippery slope but usually there's at least some point or purpose behind it, but here it's just nada. Continuing on with the presentation of the movie: the cinematography and the music are unspecial for the most part, and the acting is good enough to be serviceable, but still...unspecial, and had it been otherwise maybe I could've cared, related or attached myself to one of them characters, but I didn't.

My least favourite scene in the film is easily the Mozart opera scene. Cringe galore and lowkey disrespectful. In the same way that Andy's overall portrayal is a little disrespectful with how he seems to be this white savior figure. Oh look, a rich educated white man goes to prison and is perceived at first as a posh kid who thinks he's better than everyone else, oh look he actually proves to be better than everyone else and betters the prison system and now he's beloved and respected by everyone. More nuance, genuineness, and realism couldn't hurt.

Contrary to popular belief, I do have favourite scenes as well. I think Bob Gunton does the best job in the movie, and his scene with Andy in "the hole" is pretty well done because of his delivery. Of course the escape is pretty great for the most part. I like how it was kind of under our nose for the entire film, with him collecting all of these random items only for them to all come together in the end and aid towards his escape. Although, if I have to be nitpicky, the way of which he disposed of the debris from that hole is pretty nonsensical and ridiculous if you ask me. I liked the scenes and the overall choice of having Andy puppeteering the prison's staff financial matters. Tommy's death was pretty great. And there's also a whole bunch of cool, foreshadowing or ironic lines here and there that are fun. The "****ty pipe dream" was a great one in particular, and "I had to come to prison to be a crook" also stuck out to me.
Well, The Shawshank Redemption is my favorite film of all-time, so I was excited to see it was nominated for you. Still, I kinda understand the criticisms, even if I don't agree with most of them.





The Lives of Others, 2006

In 1980s East Germany, a man named Wiesler (Ulrich Muhe) works for the Stasi, spying on and interrogating those suspected of anti-government or anti-Communist activities or views. Wiesler is efficient and cold in his work, until he is assigned to conduct surveillance on a playwright named Dreyman (Sebastian Koch) and his wife, Christa (Martina Gedeck). Wiesler begins to develop a fascination, and almost an affection for the couple, which leads him to begin interfering with the investigation.

I quite enjoyed this drama-thriller.

One of the things that I really enjoyed about it was how it showed that even within a supposedly rule-bound, rigid system, the human element will always influence things, for better or worse. From the very beginning, the surveillance begins in part because a government official lusts after Christa. From there, Wiesler cannot help but be moved by the ideas and emotions expressed by Dreyman, and from there cannot resist giving the course of events a little nudge.

I also appreciated the way that the film showed how unforgiving the government system was. From the first moment Wiesler chooses to omit damning information from one of his reports, it's very much an in-for-a-penny/in-for-a-pound situation. Wiesler's fate becomes intertwined with Dreyman and Christa. The us versus them mentality of the government has created a situation where Wiesler must choose a side, and once he bends the smallest bit, he is on an irreversible slide.

I also really liked the lesser theme of art as resistance. Dreyman has stayed on the right side of things because of his general perceived loyalty to communism. But he has one friend who has been blacklisted, and another who is under intense scrutiny because of ideas they have expressed in their works. Christa, an actress, is also acutely aware of her career and self-expression being something that hangs by a thread in this society. There is a thread that runs through the film, as Dreyman is given sheet music for a piece called Sonata for a Good Man by the friend who was blacklisted. Later, Wiesler is very moved listening to Dreyman perform the piece on the piano. The title of the song will come to play a role in the final act of the film.

I didn't really have any specific complaints about this one. Initially I had a mixed response to the final 10 or so minutes, which serve as an epilogue to the rest of the film and involve some jumps in time. At first I found myself grumbling that I wished they ended the film in the "present" of the film. But as I've thought about it, I do think that the last 10 minutes provide closure and completeness to some of the major themes of the film and the character arcs.

I think that there was a very predictable way that this film could have gone, which would be the spy falling in love with the person they were watching. I do think that Wiesler develops a platonic love or affection for Dreyman, and by removing any overt notions of romance or lust, it becomes clear that what Wiesler is responding to in Dreyman is his ideals and his bravery.

Really solid film I've been meaning to get around to for a while.




I don't know if I have as much to say about this film as much as I am taken aback that this is THE film that's the head of imdb's top 250 and not another film with the same level of competency and similar form.
I agree. I mean, I liked the movie just fine. But it was solidly a
, maybe a
film for me. I could probably name over 100 films that I think are much better films.

Was some of that reaction a bit that it had been overhyped? Maybe. But I thought a lot of elements of the film were kind of hokey.