Thursday, September 9, 2010
Ten Again
Here is what I have watched on DVD since I posted my last list. The ratings I give are on my own number system explained previously in this blog. Those watched via Netflix instant view, now include “Streamed” after the numeric rating.
Watching a series on DVD can use up a lot of Netflix mailings, but since my mail queue is so small, I am going to add more series disks from my library list to that queue. The library list is still not being used for actual borrowing. It is tempting to add lots of items to the instant view queue, but not that easy to find the time to watch them.
Lark Rise to Candleford – 2008. (3.5) I caught some current episodes of this third year BBC series about life in small town England during the late 19th century and was captivated. We have now watched the first two seasons on DVD. Good writing inspired by memoirs, fine acting by an excellent cast and expected production values and direction make this another British winner. The episodes written by the series creator, which are my favorites, revolve around the ensemble cast,whereas episodes from other writers usually involve guest actors in one time roles.
Facing Ali – 2009. (3.3) As a contemporary of Muhammad Ali, I followed his boxing career and also paid close attention to his political statements, particularly his opposition to the war in Vietnam. This story has been told in film in many ways, but this documentary found a new approach, using interviews with ten men who fought Ali and who were changed by the experience. Ali was not interviewed, but was shown via restored archival footage. The interviewees were chosen because their fights with Ali also had a transformative affect on him. Some of these men have held up better than others, but they, like Ali, have all paid a health price because of their combat in the ring.
The Most Dangerous Man in America – 2009. (3.3) Streamed. When Daniel Ellsberg stole incriminating documents from his employer, the Rand Corporation, an analytic contractor for the Defense Department, I had long been opposed to the War in Vietnam and was not surprised by the fraud and deceit our government had engaged in to fool the American public into supporting that shameful venture, so I never followed very closely the story of the man and how his action played out. This documentary filled in that information, showing who Ellsberg was back then and the man he has been since then. As for the story, the audio recordings of the reaction of the profane Richard Nixon are fascinating, and the professional courage of the many newspapers who published the Pentagon Papers in the face of government litigation is encouraging. Young Idaho Democrat Senator Frank Church also showed heroism in submitting the Papers into the Congressional Record. An interesting tale, well presented, but not quite good enough for four stars.
Cat on a Hot Tin Roof – 1958. (3.2) Writing a movie script from a stage play is a lot easier than writing one from a novel. However, the constraints of stage sets can make such movies feel static, and the dialogue is so continuous that such a film cannot help but be very talkative. This movie of the Tennessee Williams Pulitzer prize winner had young Paul Newman and young but more experienced Elizabeth Taylor, with Burl Ives in his most noted role, and a good supporting cast, all of whom performed quite effectively. The movie holds its age well and kept my attention. The only distraction was the technically poor editing, with many adjoining shots not matching across the cuts. That may have been due to fewer takes of shots with Liz, after her husband Mike Todd was killed in a plane crash early in filming, leaving the editor Ferris Webster, a three time Academy Award nominee and editor of many Clint Eastwood films, with less footage for matching.
9/11: Press for Truth – 2006 (3.1) Streamed. I remember watching the group of 9/11 surviving family members who pushed for an independent commission to investigate, and the commission being appointed and doing its job and the bi-partisan co-chairs being celebrated for their accomplishments, but I cannot remember much of anything about what the commission found. This documentary tries to explain the push for the commission, the resistance by the Bush administration and the poor job done by the commission and the media, with one exception. The exception was a History Commons website which continuously monitored all sources and maintained the best time line of what happened. Footage of the inept George Bush and the evil Dick Cheney renewed disgust, and the pain and resolve of the widows were touching, but the documentary would have been better if it just covered the most interesting points of what the time line reveals.
The Dwelling Place – 1994. (2.9) Another Catherine Cookson based melodrama from the BBC, this time about a poor orphaned teenager in the 1830s raising her younger siblings and being pursued by two men from different classes, this film managed to produce some sympathetic emotion for the plight of the girl and her siblings but did not rise beyond that.
Laila’s Birthday – 2008. (2.8) Streamed. In this fairly short Arabic language, we spend Laila’s birthday following her father as he drives a taxi around Palestine, interacting in a frustrating way with a variety of passengers, officials and other people. Part of his frustration is due to the fact he was a judge who returned to Palestine, after ten years away, to help in the administration of the legal system, but because of a foul up he is not able do what he intended, and must drive a taxi instead. The film is like a tour of Palestine, which does give a feel for the confusion and chaos, midst a thin plot line with no character development.
The Matchmaker – 1997. (2.8) A US Senator struggling for re-election sends his aide, Janeane Garofalo to find some small village kin in Ireland for some family values photo ops. She experiences culture shock and a frustrating search, all of which could have made a much better movie, but this script failed to capitalize on the opportunities. The scenic locales and quirky village residents make it passable.
Taking Woodstock – 2009. (2.4) Ang Lee has directed some fine films, but this is not one of them. The main problem here is the script, which jumps all over the place in this telling of how the son of floundering motel owners in upstate New York became a link in the process of bringing the iconic Festival into reality. The film makers said the Woodstock story is too big to tell directly, so they tried to do it by having us experience it through this young man, who ultimately never even made it to the show. I suggest viewers not bother to make it to this film.
Revolutionary Road – 2008. (2.2) Based on a 1961 novel about a disenchanted suburban Connecticut couple in the 1950s, this story took almost 50 years to make it to the screen. I have not read the novel, but I have read about it in the film reviews and I expect it was a hard book to make into a movie. But even so, this script was a shambles, as if someone was trying to cook something by using some of the ingredients from the recipe, improperly measured and cooked the wrong temperature. The young screenwriter is credited as writing only one other film, which also seems to have been not good. The acting and direction were immaterial to me, since the script was so bad that after giving it a chance for the first 15 minutes, I could see that it was making no sense and generating no interest. But because John from Phoenix liked it, I watched it all the way through, which only confirmed my initial impression. In fairness, the book apparently is about a couple who seem not to have a sense of themselves, so perhaps the movie captured some of that confusion, but it sure did not make for good cinema.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Revolutionary Road - as I said in my post I was surprised I liked it after reading about it on the internet the next day. I must have beeen in a good mood that night.
ReplyDeleteLast night Jan and I watched another movie that we liked: Secondhand Lions. This movie starred Robert Duvall and Michael Caine and Kyra Sedgewick, but even Duvall's credibility could not make this story believable. The only part of the story that seemed at all real was Sedgewick's portrayal of the bad mom and that was sugar coated. Nevertheless I enjoyed it quite a bit. I must be getting simple.
I saw Secondhand Lions in January 2006, and gave it 3 stars at Netflix. That was before I started keeping my decimal ratings. I think I liked it because it had a multi generational aspect (two great uncles instead of a grandpa), and was supposed to be taken with a grain of salt. This reminds us stories don't have to seem real to be enjoyable. In fact some of the most enjoyable ones don't seem real at all.
ReplyDeleteJan and I watched two movies this weekend and it is only Saturday. We saw Taking Chance from Netflix. We both enjoyed it a lot. I was impressed by what was not said: the patriotism was definitely there but nicely underplayed. There was no blatantly anti-war message other than the sad by-product of any war: a coffin and grieving friends and relatives. There was no questioning of the value of the war Chance fought in. The escort's message to the grieving family was warm and touching but void of histrionics. When the escort returned home he gave his family hugs but no words of wisdom from his recent duty.
ReplyDeleteSo what was left in the movie? A very good portrayal of the effect war has on the many people who comprise the "homefront".
I guess I should now see The Tillman Story to get another view of how our government deals with the sorrowful effects of war. After all he is an Arizonan and his family was treated very badly, unlike the Taking Chance story.
We also went to the theater to see The Town on the second day it was introduced in Phoenix. We both enjoyed this movie very much. The scenes of Charlestown made us both nostalgic for Boston. (We were not married then.)
The movie lives up to its hype. The story, the acting, and the pace and feel of the movie were all very good. The story was captivating if not believable, but the acting made us believe it. Ben Affleck and Jon Hamm were as good as you might expect, but Jeremy Renner stole the show.
The story was so interesting and so well portrayed that we were completely caught up in it. So what if some of the crimes were so complicated that the US Marines would have spent months planning similar actions, and these Town guys carried them off without a hitch. And they had as many costume changes for their crimes as a casting agency. Too convenient.
The theater was onver half full, a huge audience by today's standards, and we all seemed to have had a good time watching it.
I saw Taking Chance last year and was moved by it. I am not much for rituals nor for war, but rituals of respect for fallen warriors by their countryman, as portrayed in this movie, seem quite worthwhile. I gave it a 3.4, just barely missing being raised to 4 star status at Netflix.
ReplyDeleteThe genre of which The Town is a part does not appeal to me, so I doubt I will see it. Such films can be well done and hold attention, but I am just not interested in them.
I guess I am a cheapskate, curmudgeon or both, since going to see any movie in a theater is something I have willingly avoided for the last several years.
You know, Dad, it might be fun to have a group excursion to a matinee this winter.
ReplyDeleteWe just finished watching the 5th episode from the 1st season of Mad Men. I'm still undecided as to how much I really want to keep watching, but for now, curiosity about how the characters will unfold is keeping me tune in. Without any plot spoils, do you (or anyone else who reads these old threads) have any thoughts on the show as a whole?
Anna, here is more "Sh*t My Dad Says", to borrow the book title.
ReplyDeleteWhen one has a willing avoidance of doing something, then it is usually better if that person refrains from participating. Instead of joining a winter matinee excursion, I would prefer a home theater group experience.
When one is undecided whether to stay with a TV series after the first season, it is usually better for that person to try a different show. One episode of Mad Men was enough for me to know I did not want to keep watching and I did not care whether the characters stayed folded or not. If you are undecided about watching more, then maybe you should try something you think could be more interesting.
Jan and I watched "In My Shoes" at home. This is a story about two sisters, one beautiful and one plain. There are more curves to this story than on Carmen Diaz. One is they discover a long missing grandmother (Shirley McClain). I thought it stunk and Jan liked it.
ReplyDeleteI can't stand to watch Mad Men. I started working for corporate America about the time the blatant exploitation of women in the work force was mercifully coming to an end. I was appalled by what I saw then, and I don't care to reprise it now.
Jan loves it. It is on her DVR record list ao she will never miss it. A good friend of hers watched it through several episodes and finally decided she was offended by the material and quit watching it. The show continues to get good reviews and awards. That it is critically acclaimed and controversial probably partly explains its popularity.
Jan and I watched "The Tillman Story" in a theater (about the only one in the metroploitan area)that shows independent films almost exclusively. I decided I should see this after watching and enjoying "Taking Chance",a feel-good movie about how the military handled one of the war dead. We saw a well done documentary that is very critical of the military for first using Tillman's death as a propaganda tool and then covering up who was responsible for the deceit. The story of the military's ineptitude is all too familiar, but Pat Tillman's fame saves this movie from being ho-hum. Also the very good performances of Tillman's mother, father and some guy whose name I cannot remember who was a former soldier in many wars and now runs a blog.
ReplyDeleteI tried to look his name up on the internet, but the only people named in the movie in the articles I read were Pat and Richard Tillman. The main force behind the expose was the mother "Danny" Tillman. So I don't know what that is about. Did the Tillman family (Mom and Dad are divorced)state they did not want to be credited in the movie? And the blog guy too?
John, I think the movie was called "In Her Shoes". I saw it last summer and gave it a straight 3.0, however, I can't remember anything about it, so it must have seemed fun enough at the time, but I didn't get anything lasting from it.
ReplyDeleteWhen Pat Tillman was killed, it quickly sounded too vague on the details. I did not follow the story closely as it developed, because I figured since he was famous, if there was something phony, it would eventually be uncovered. It sounds like this would be a good documentary for me to watch.
There is no standard way for a documentary to credit people who appear in it. and sometimes there are no such credits, but maybe only a list of people who are thanked. I expect the Tillman family was fully supportive of the film. The blogger is Stan Goff, a retired special forces master sergeant, who writes at the Huffington Post.
Jan and I watched "The Book of Eli", a fantasy story I would never intend to watch. But, in the spirit of togetherness, I sat with Jan while she watched it. I enjoyed it immensely. It wasn't worth a trip to the theater, but it made a nice evening watching it at home.
ReplyDeleteNetflix predicts I would dislike Eli. It is not my kind of movie genre and my spirit of togetherness probably trails yours substantially, so I doubt I will ever see it. The right time, place and company might bring an unexpected movie watching joy, but the odds of enjoyment are better spending a desirable time in a comfortable place with similar motivated companions. I've never been much of a gambler.
ReplyDeleteHmmm, that ole post-apocalyptic spirit seems to be just the thing to hit early fall. Haven't heard of Eli, but last night Seth and I decided to switch off "The Road" about 35 minutes in. Too bleak, too thin, too slow to develop, and just too damn suspenseful in the wrong way for me. (like, I'm pretty sure I'll have to witness the scene in which something horrific happens to the female lead...a scene that will likely give me nightmares without any promise of a positive trade-off) Not to say the violence would necessarily have been gratuitous (uhh, No Country for Old Men, anyone...), but I just wasn't sure the dystopia had anything even imaginatively compelling for me. Kinda cool to see how the landscape was rendered (cf Mt. St. Helens, for one example) and some of the shots of abandoned gas stations or little shops surrounded by barren acres of tumbleweeds reminded me of photographs we're all pretty familiar with. Within this (sub)genre, I've seen and liked "City of Men." Not sure how I'd take to Eli.
ReplyDeleteIn other news, the first season of Mad Men has been wrapped up, and there will probably be a not inconsiderable interlude before the next disc is deposited in the mailbox...that is, unless my curiosity about the outcome of the cliffhanger ending gets the better of me. The episodes were inconsistent for us. In general, we saw less of the characters we really cared about and had interest in, and spent more time following the frustratingly sporadically developed stories of the less compelling, more repugnant ones (or even just watching set pieces or fillers featuring the semi-creeps). I suppose this choice of morally ambiguous characters is supposed to be refreshing and genuine in its verisimilitude to life. But really, (with some possibly arguable exceptions) it mostly seems like more of the same: big drama, focusing on a man coming to terms with his all-important middle-aged malaise and the life-and-death choices made in his past, while the women in his life bustle around the sidelines, confronting their little female issues and nudging their way towards greater self-awareness.
I don't mind gambling when the stakes are low. Just make sure there's at least one film next to the DVD player that I DO want to watch, and I'm ready for the experiment.
Netflix predicts The Road for me at 2.2, and from wht you say and what I have read from others, I'll pass on this one too. No Country had enough plot and flow to earn a 2.7 from me. I have not seen the movie City of Men, predicted at 2.7, but a few years back Flix had the TV series version on instant view and I watched some on my small computer screen and liked it a lot, but the subtitles were too small for comfort. They don't have it on instant view now, but I may get it on disk. A follow up film was City of God, which I gave 4 stars.
ReplyDeleteYou got me with "dystopia", a word that is newer than me and my dictionary. I had to find it in the online Webster.
One reason for inconsistency in the writing of series episodes is the utilization of different writers. Stories about the main characters with a continuing narrative arc are usually written by the primary writers, while stories with guest characters or minor players featured are usually written by other writers.
The concentration on males in Mad Men may be intended to represent the male chauvinism of the time, but stories of unfair treatment of one group by another are most interesting when they cover both groups.
There is merit to your hedging the bet movie watching, trying for a new surprise, while keeping a sure thing in reserve.
(Ah, I see that the movie I was talking about was "Children of Men" not "City of Men" which I haven't seen, although I did see and like "City of God"...)
ReplyDeleteFlix predix nix for Children of Men (2.5). Sounds like another one I need not watch.
ReplyDeleteJan and I watched Georgia O'Keefe at home. I have often wondered why Georgia O'Keefe has such a mystique. Her flower pictures are beautiful and sensual, but how far does that go? Maybe we are jaded by what computer imagery has done with such themes. We see so much more beauty and sensuality tossed around the internet we cannot imagine how a person at the turn of the 20th century would react to her pictures. I find her other pictures very boring.
ReplyDeleteShe had a passionate but badly flawed marriage to Alfred Steiglitz. He was a talented photographer whom she saved from oblivion by her own fame according to the movie. Most of us have seen passionate and flawed marriages personally, either ourseves or acquaintences, so that hardly is enough of a theme for a movie.
What made the Steiglitz character interesting is that he made Georgia O'Keefe famous by his relentless goading and encouragement of her and his inspired promotion of her which included artsy naked pictures of her.
So the movie was both instructive and entertaining. Now we have three art forms to compare along with a marketing talent: O'Keefe the artist, Steiglitz the photographer, Steiglitz the marketer, and Bob Balaban the movie director. My votes go first to Balaban, next to Steiglitz the marketer, then to the other two who are tied.
Flix predix 2.6 for me on the 2009 O'Keeffe. PBS did her and also Stieglitz on American Masters years back, but I can't remember watching them, though I seem to have some fleeting recall of the one on her as being only marginal. Flix has the Stieglitz, but not O'Keeffe. I don't see either as available for watching on line at PBS.
ReplyDeleteI have the impression her work was pretty but she did not have anything to say and that his work was more talented and meaningful. Marriage can be particularly hard for artistic types. Movies about such marriages appeal more to movie makers than to movie goers, but they keep getting made.
The Balaban filmography spans about 40 years, with some good films, but the best ones I have seen are the early Midnight Cowboy and the recent Recount.