Catching up on a season or two of a TV series takes time and
explains the delay in posting this movie list, which includes a trio of series,
the silent Oscar winner, an early talkie classic and a few uninspiring fill-ins.
Here is what I have watched since I posted my last list.
[The ratings I give are on my own number system which is explained at the link
on the sidebar].
Modern Family
(Season Two) – 2010 (3.1). A good TV series should get better in the second
season, after the characters have become familiar to the audience and the
writers can get deeper into the nuances and development of their personalities.
Modern Family met this test and was not only funnier but more genuine feeling
about the relationships between the various family members. As explained in one
of the special features, the producers have limited the use of guest stars so
as not to distract from the main characters, which is a good idea when the show
has a diverse ensemble already.
Upstairs Downstairs
– 2010 and 2012 (3.0). Trying to follow up on the classic series from decades
past, this nine episode version shown on PBS has a new family taking over the
abandoned residence and hiring staff to set up the household. Once again, the
upstairs Lord is part of the elite class and the servants below are mere
underlings, yet all have their own stories which sometimes intermingle. There
seems to be an inordinate amount of famous persons in history passing through
the episodes and much less time spent developing the characters that was done
in the original. There is probably more pressure on the modern producers to
grab the audience with plot than there was in the days of the original, and the
new series may not have succeeded sufficiently to enable a third season. The
story line covered the time from 1936 to the beginning of the war with Germany,
so it would be interesting to see what happens to the characters during the
war.
Modern Family
(Season One) – 2009 (2.9). Three diverse branches of an eccentric family
generate lots of laughs with their quirks and foibles as they struggle with
their issues, but always manage to end up on a positive note of family unity. I
haven’t watched situation comedy TV for years, but the praise for this series
induced me to give it a try. I almost bailed out after a few episodes because
it seemed repetitious, but it was funny enough where I watched the whole
season.
Doc Martin
(Season Two) – 2005 (2.9). The local eccentrics lose some of their freshness in
the second season and the unsettled relationship of the Doc and school teacher
starts to feel a little stale, but then there are visits from the Doc’s parents
and the teacher’s father that shed light
on the back story and make both characters more sympathetic. We also get more
of a connection with the personal life of the village policeman and the new
receptionist. Doc’s brusque way with patients leads to an inquiry and the
possibility he may undergo sensitivity training.
The Artist – 2011
(2.8). I have seen many silent movies through the years and read a fair amount
about the history of film making during those early years, so The Artist was not anything new to me.
The fact that such a film was made in this day and age was a surprise, but the
fact that Hollywood embraced it at the Oscars was not. For Hollywood, watching
the film was like a nostalgic look at favorite old home movies. The film has
done reasonably well at the box office, I am not surprised that it was not a
chart topper, because general audiences would not fully appreciate the quality
of this nostalgic tribute to the silent screen.
The Girl on the
Bridge – 1999 (2.8). French director Patrice Leconte makes movies in which
the characters talk a lot, yet they always seem to be moving along, maybe
without much conventional story but I always find the talk and story appealing
enough to hold my interest. This one is a little quirky as a young girl who
can’t say no to men is talked out of a suicidal bridge jump by a knife thrower
in need of a new target. While following them on this new partnership, we are
invited to contemplate what makes for a lasting hookup and what role luck plays
in our lives.
The Blue Angel
(German Version) – 1930 (2.8). At first this first German sound classic seems
like just a vehicle to show Marlene Deitrich in garters, but once the prudish
professor played by Emil Jannings becomes smitten with the nightclub
entertainer we realize it it a movie about his downfall. Deitrich is so
appealing as the sweet but wise girl he falls for and then she is so appalling
as the wife who humiliates him. It is easy to see why she became a star.
A Voyage Round My
Father – 1984 (2.7). The reason to watch this Brit TV movie is to see
Laurence Olivier in the twilight of his career showing his acting chops playing
the self-centered blind barrister father of John Mortimer (creator of Rumpole
of the Bailey), on whose memoir the movie is based.
Rango – 2011
(2.6). This clever PG rated animated take-off on spaghetti westerns includes
lots of classic cinema related homages all done with high quality animation,
but the story itself was not that interesting and the cleverness never seemed
to jell into anything memorable.
The Return – 2003
(2.4). The outdoor locations in this Russian movie were scenic in a way, yet
ultimately bleak, and the same could be said for the script. Two sons, maybe 15
and 12, who never knew their father, come home one day to find he has suddenly
appeared from a 12 year unexplained absence. The older boy wants to be thrilled
by the prodigal father, but the younger one wants answers. The father takes
them on a fishing trip to a remote island and acts like a survivalist military
instructor, though there is a slight undercurrent of wanting to be a loving dad
but not having the slightest idea of how to do it. Good acting and direction
can’t make up for a story that takes almost two hours to tell us practically
nothing.
Jan and I and several family members saw Lincoln today. We all enjoyed it, even a woman who hasn't seen a movie (at home or in the theater) for several years. She said she expected to fall asleep during the movie, but instead loved it.
ReplyDeleteWhat I found encouraging for the movie industry was that a slow moving (the movie was two and a half hours long and covered the last four months of Lincoln's life) and very talky movie could be so well liked in today's world of animation and super special effects. At dinner afterwards I talked about how slow moving the movie was, and everyone said I was wrong, that it moved right along. No, the movie was so well done it captured our attention and we left not aware of how much time had passed.
We went in the early afternoon and the theater was almost filled. When we got out, there was a huge crowd waiting to get in. If this keeps up, we might see more thoughtful, dramatic movies.
I thought the movie was better than the critics have written. The idea of condensing Doris Kearns Goodwin's excellent history of Lincoln to the political stuggle to get the 13th amendment passed was brilliant, and it was the third writer Spielberg assigned to the project that came up with it. The first writer wrote a script that covered Lincoln's entire presidency.
The performances of Daniel Day Lewis, Sally Field and Tommy Lee Jones are all good, but Daniel Day Lewis is outstanding.
I haven't been this enthusiatic about a movie in years.
I won’t be seeing the Lincoln movie until after it comes out on DVD. I haven’t read the Goodwin book. Lincoln, the Civil War and the politics of abolition are fascinating subjects. Spielberg knows how to put a show on film, but sometimes his productions are overblown. The cast seems excellent and production values are certainly high. Concentrating the story to the four month period was probably wise. It is understandable that some people question the length and verbosity, but politics is heavily verbal, so the movie had a naturally loquacious destiny. The length of Spielberg type productions is also mostly a given, as if they are so important that they cannot be shortened. I look forward to seeing the film when it makes it to DVD.
ReplyDeleteI took the Goodwin book off my shelf after the movie and looked at the photographs she included in her book. It wasn't that just Daniel Day Lewis looked like the photos of Lincoln, the entire cast did, except Sally Field's Mary Lincoln was a little off. But the cahracters of Samuel Chase, Seward, Stanton, Bates are all dead replicas of the photos in her book. There was one character that was shown many times in the movie, but I couldn't remember who he was supposed to be. When I looked at the photos I recognized him like an old friend - he was a personal assistant to Lincoln. A very good movie on all accounts.
ReplyDeleteHair styling, makeup, costumes and dialogue coaching can do wonders in creating on screen notable people from the past. The surroundings in which they are shown, sets and exteriors, can add to the historical realism. Eastern Europe is often used for historical filming because it has many older buildings and cheaper labor, but I was pleased to read that Spielberg filmed his “Lincoln” in Virginia.
ReplyDeleteJulie Harris won a Tony in 1973 for her stage portrayal of Mary Lincoln’s sad life after the death of her husband. She did it again for TV in 1976 and it is available on DVD. I watched it in 2009 and gave it 3.5 stars at Netflix. American Experience did the five part “Abraham and Mary Lincoln: A House Divided” in 2001, and I remember seeing it at that time and considering it excellent. I have had it on my list to get from the library, so now that Lincoln is a hot topic, it is probably time to put it in my queue.
Jan and I watched Life of Pi in 3D, at a theater of course. She had read the book and I had listened to the audio book, and we both loved the movie. The three Indian actors who played Pi were excellent, but the movie was about the special effects, something I claim not to care much about.
ReplyDeleteThe version we saw was in 3D, I think the first dramatic movie I've seen made with that technology. The 3D movies I've seen were animations that were enhanced by the technology. Jan thought it was great, but I'm not so sure. On one level I think it distracted me from the story, but on another level, it enhanced the fantasy that was the heart of the story. The great idea that Yann Martel brought to his novel was the juxtapostion of Pi's rather mundane life with the terror of his shipwreck.
Beyond the 3D, the special effects were very good. Did the tiger look real? Yes, but everyone knows that it wasn't, nevertheless we saw the tiger for what it represents. The same with the storms - we know they are not real, but they were very impressive.
It was a very well made movie that followed the book very closely. I strongly recommend it to anyone who has read the book, but I'm not sure the movie would have the same impact on those who have not read the book.
So my final recommendation is, read the book (or, better, listen to the audio book). It is better than the very good movie.
Early predictions are that I will like Pi, so it has been added to my list. I wonder why it took so long to get the book to the screen; maybe they were waiting for the 3D process to be re-established. The 3D technology has rapidly moved into TV sets, so it will be interesting to see if buyers actually use the feature and whether it becomes long term, like wide screen and surround sound. Maybe AromaRama is due for a retry, and rumble seats probably deserve a run (they have rumble pads controllers for video games). I wonder when we might have streaming in 3D, on the Internet and from Netflix.
ReplyDeleteIf 3D becomes more of a norm, the distraction factor should wane, but as all these techniques become expected by audiences, it adds to the expense of filming and viewers end up paying more money to see fewer films. A good story can be wonderfully filmed without expensive special effects and techniques, but some good stories have special effects as an integral part of the story, so it is more appropriate to have them in the movie.
I am not a technophobe, but I do think we are letting technology lead our lives in too many problematic ways.
I still think you are overdue for starting your audio book blog.
Jan and I watched Unconditional Love from 2002 starring Kathy Bates, Dan Aykroyd, Jonathon Pryce and Rupert Everett. We had fun watchng this silly movie because we saw it at home and so we could sing along with all the familiar songs. Kathy Bates played a sweet homemaker, an unusual role for her, and she did great, being the good actress she is. It's a silly movie, not trying to be realistic in the least, but it made us laugh, one of the best comdies I've seen in years.
ReplyDeleteSilly movies are fun when you are in the mood. Both Flix and IMDb predict this Bates movie sub-marginal for me. It is not on streaming, so cannot be tried on impulse. The library only has one copy of it in the whole system, so it was not wildly popular. If I want to see it, I would need to order that copy before some appropriately moody person steals it - which is probably highly unlikely to happen (both the theft and the order).
ReplyDelete