Conan is in Chicago for a week of shows. Today he learned how to do traditional Irish stepdancing.
I think Conan's confusing a leprechaun finding a pot of gold with a prospector (Walter Huston in "The Treasure of the Sierre Madre") when he finds a vein of gold. You decide.
TAYYYYYTOOOOSS!
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Movie Review: The Longest Day (1962)
The Longest Day (1962)
"We are witnessing something which historians will always say is completely improbable... and yet it is true."
The "Longest Day" depicts the events of D-Day from all sides (German, British, French, American) and at every level (civilians, soldiers, generals, soldiers, medics) and on all five beaches. Stars Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne within a cast of thousands.
I was told that "The Longest Day" was a fantastic movie but had not given watching it high priority because I assumed that a movie from 1962 and starring John Wayne was bound to be laden with old Hollywood war cliches. I couldn't have been more wrong.
That realism is the goal is evident from the outset. Scenes depicting Americans end only to give way to scenes of the British. When those end, the focus turns to the Nazis - depicted as intelligent military men and speaking in actual German with subtitles at the bottom of the screen. Next the French Resistance, speaking French, again with subtitles. The movie has the audacity of not just introducing a cast of characters, but listing their name, rank and country at the bottom of the screen as they do it. Instead of just "based on true events", the movie attempts to be accurate down to the real individuals and demands that viewers hold them to that standard.
Although there are innumerable storylines, the viewer gets the sense that there is only one storyline. The story is the day. The story is history unfolding. The constant changes of context from one group at one location in one aspect of battle, to another group at another location in another aspect of battle, gives the movie a sense of urgency and modernity. The vast number of characters/real people and situations depicted almost give it a documentary feeling. There are shots in this movie that involve so many men and so many explosions that you feel it must be actual footage of the landing. There is a long, continuous shot during the fight in Ouisterham that is as startling and amazing as you will see in any movie.
Perhaps my opinion is skewed by the day I watched it. Nevertheless, I found it as intense and adrenaline filled as any movie I've seen. The film does the only thing a war movie should do - and the thing that every great war movie ("Glory", "Saving Private Ryan") does - it strives for absolute realism, knowing that the reality of war is more exciting, more intense, more depressing, and more horrible than any fiction.
9/10.
"We are witnessing something which historians will always say is completely improbable... and yet it is true."
The "Longest Day" depicts the events of D-Day from all sides (German, British, French, American) and at every level (civilians, soldiers, generals, soldiers, medics) and on all five beaches. Stars Richard Burton, Sean Connery, Henry Fonda, Robert Mitchum, John Wayne within a cast of thousands.
I was told that "The Longest Day" was a fantastic movie but had not given watching it high priority because I assumed that a movie from 1962 and starring John Wayne was bound to be laden with old Hollywood war cliches. I couldn't have been more wrong.
That realism is the goal is evident from the outset. Scenes depicting Americans end only to give way to scenes of the British. When those end, the focus turns to the Nazis - depicted as intelligent military men and speaking in actual German with subtitles at the bottom of the screen. Next the French Resistance, speaking French, again with subtitles. The movie has the audacity of not just introducing a cast of characters, but listing their name, rank and country at the bottom of the screen as they do it. Instead of just "based on true events", the movie attempts to be accurate down to the real individuals and demands that viewers hold them to that standard.
Although there are innumerable storylines, the viewer gets the sense that there is only one storyline. The story is the day. The story is history unfolding. The constant changes of context from one group at one location in one aspect of battle, to another group at another location in another aspect of battle, gives the movie a sense of urgency and modernity. The vast number of characters/real people and situations depicted almost give it a documentary feeling. There are shots in this movie that involve so many men and so many explosions that you feel it must be actual footage of the landing. There is a long, continuous shot during the fight in Ouisterham that is as startling and amazing as you will see in any movie.
Perhaps my opinion is skewed by the day I watched it. Nevertheless, I found it as intense and adrenaline filled as any movie I've seen. The film does the only thing a war movie should do - and the thing that every great war movie ("Glory", "Saving Private Ryan") does - it strives for absolute realism, knowing that the reality of war is more exciting, more intense, more depressing, and more horrible than any fiction.
9/10.
Monday, June 4, 2012
IMDB 250 7.12 - The Artist (2011)
The Artist (2011)
George Valentin is one of the top silent stars in the world. But when the new "talkies" capture the imagination of the public, he goes from being on top of the world to hitting rock bottom. The twist of "The Artist" is that it tells the story of the death of silent pictures with a silent picture.
As an appreciator of the silent film genre, I've often wondered whether a modern silent could be made today. There's no doubt - in my mind - that visuals, lush orchestration and minimal dialogue (displayed on title cards, of course) can create a compelling and moving story. But would anyone believe that enough to actually make one? And even if they did would anyone go to see it?
Of course, when I thought about a "modern silent", I had in mind a color picture, set in the present day, using modern film making techniques. As "The Artist" is black and white, set in the '20s and '30s and styled after the silent pictures of old, it's a case of "so close but so far."
My own personal curiosities aside, "The Artist" is a good movie, full of laughs, drama, romance and some touching moments. It's not only a sweet homage to the silent picture era films, but also a flawless recreation. Every minute of the movie feels totally authentic to the period. Even as the acting mimics the slightly over the top style of the 30's, you can't help but be engrossed in the emotion.
Watching it, the thing that jumped out to me is how inaccurate the term "silent movie" is. When a movie has a larger than life classical score that's front and center all the time, there's nothing "silent" about it.
"The Artist" is a worthy homage to the pictures of the silent era but it doesn't surpass them. If you want to see a silent movie, and can find one, watch a movie by Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd. If not, "The Artist" is not a bad choice.
7/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 361.
[End of Revision 7.]
George Valentin is one of the top silent stars in the world. But when the new "talkies" capture the imagination of the public, he goes from being on top of the world to hitting rock bottom. The twist of "The Artist" is that it tells the story of the death of silent pictures with a silent picture.
As an appreciator of the silent film genre, I've often wondered whether a modern silent could be made today. There's no doubt - in my mind - that visuals, lush orchestration and minimal dialogue (displayed on title cards, of course) can create a compelling and moving story. But would anyone believe that enough to actually make one? And even if they did would anyone go to see it?
Of course, when I thought about a "modern silent", I had in mind a color picture, set in the present day, using modern film making techniques. As "The Artist" is black and white, set in the '20s and '30s and styled after the silent pictures of old, it's a case of "so close but so far."
My own personal curiosities aside, "The Artist" is a good movie, full of laughs, drama, romance and some touching moments. It's not only a sweet homage to the silent picture era films, but also a flawless recreation. Every minute of the movie feels totally authentic to the period. Even as the acting mimics the slightly over the top style of the 30's, you can't help but be engrossed in the emotion.
Watching it, the thing that jumped out to me is how inaccurate the term "silent movie" is. When a movie has a larger than life classical score that's front and center all the time, there's nothing "silent" about it.
"The Artist" is a worthy homage to the pictures of the silent era but it doesn't surpass them. If you want to see a silent movie, and can find one, watch a movie by Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd. If not, "The Artist" is not a bad choice.
7/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 361.
[End of Revision 7.]
Saturday, June 2, 2012
IMDB 250 7.11 - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows : Part 2 (2011)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2 (2011)
"The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter. That much has always been clear to those of us who have studied wand lore."
So says Dingus Jinglegargle in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2", the 91st installment of the Harry Potter series. Unfortunately this quote is one of the few times in the film that wand lore is mentioned or discussed. If there's one problem I had with HPatDH:P2 it's the stunning lack of wand lore discussion. There are so many Harry Potter movies, would it be so hard to devote one movie to wand lore? How about it, Hollywood?
The drama in action movies, is the tension between hoping the protagonist succeeds and fearing that he'll fail. If you know the protagonist will succeed, there is no tension. You know how I knew Harry Potter was going to be OK? Magic. It doesn't matter what happens to him, everything can be solved with magic. It's what makes magic so magical. Watch what happens to classic movies when you insert this one element.
Jaws
Fisherman: Uh oh, there's a giant shark in these waters.
Robert Shaw: Don't worry I'll banish it with a spell.
The End.
The Bicycle Thief
Antonio Ricci: Someone stole my bicycle and without it, I'll lose my job.
[Ricci conjures another.]
The End.
Back to the Future
Marty: I've disrupted the space-time continuum and now I'm in danger of never being born, Doc!
Doc Brown: This is indeed serious. Fortunately, I have a incantation which will make your mother and father fall in love and set everything right again!
Marty: That's great, Doc!
The End.
To its credit, the film counters this uphill battle in two ways. First, they put limitations on the magic. But as far as I can tell, the limitations are completely arbitrary and totally unpredictable. In one scene magic critically injures a man, but isn't used to heal him. Why one and not the other? I suspect it's that the writer wanted a powerful "deathbed" scene. People die all throughout the film but late in the film, someone dies but then magically comes back to life. Why one and not the others? In another scene, a wizard has to run across a bridge before it collapses. Is there no spell for super speed or levitation or flying or holding bridges together? If I was on the board of wizard research, that would be a top priority.
The second way the movie counters the "magic problem" is to counter the good guys' magic with villains who also have magical abilities - that way they cancel each other out. But that's just as confusing and nonsensical. One guy's blue lightning throws someone back but someone else's blue lightning disintegrates someone, then blue lightning and orange lightning have a fight and orange gets overpowered. What? How exciting. It's just a good thing that when two people point magical wands at each other it looks cool and macho on screen.
Potter fans might argue that in order to appreciate HPatDH:P2 I'd need to watch all 90 previous Harry Potter movies. Hey, I may have more free time than anyone I know but life's too short for this wizards and warlocks crap.
4/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 360.
"The wand chooses the wizard, Mr. Potter. That much has always been clear to those of us who have studied wand lore."
So says Dingus Jinglegargle in "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2", the 91st installment of the Harry Potter series. Unfortunately this quote is one of the few times in the film that wand lore is mentioned or discussed. If there's one problem I had with HPatDH:P2 it's the stunning lack of wand lore discussion. There are so many Harry Potter movies, would it be so hard to devote one movie to wand lore? How about it, Hollywood?
The drama in action movies, is the tension between hoping the protagonist succeeds and fearing that he'll fail. If you know the protagonist will succeed, there is no tension. You know how I knew Harry Potter was going to be OK? Magic. It doesn't matter what happens to him, everything can be solved with magic. It's what makes magic so magical. Watch what happens to classic movies when you insert this one element.
Jaws
Fisherman: Uh oh, there's a giant shark in these waters.
Robert Shaw: Don't worry I'll banish it with a spell.
The End.
The Bicycle Thief
Antonio Ricci: Someone stole my bicycle and without it, I'll lose my job.
[Ricci conjures another.]
The End.
Back to the Future
Marty: I've disrupted the space-time continuum and now I'm in danger of never being born, Doc!
Doc Brown: This is indeed serious. Fortunately, I have a incantation which will make your mother and father fall in love and set everything right again!
Marty: That's great, Doc!
The End.
To its credit, the film counters this uphill battle in two ways. First, they put limitations on the magic. But as far as I can tell, the limitations are completely arbitrary and totally unpredictable. In one scene magic critically injures a man, but isn't used to heal him. Why one and not the other? I suspect it's that the writer wanted a powerful "deathbed" scene. People die all throughout the film but late in the film, someone dies but then magically comes back to life. Why one and not the others? In another scene, a wizard has to run across a bridge before it collapses. Is there no spell for super speed or levitation or flying or holding bridges together? If I was on the board of wizard research, that would be a top priority.
The second way the movie counters the "magic problem" is to counter the good guys' magic with villains who also have magical abilities - that way they cancel each other out. But that's just as confusing and nonsensical. One guy's blue lightning throws someone back but someone else's blue lightning disintegrates someone, then blue lightning and orange lightning have a fight and orange gets overpowered. What? How exciting. It's just a good thing that when two people point magical wands at each other it looks cool and macho on screen.
Potter fans might argue that in order to appreciate HPatDH:P2 I'd need to watch all 90 previous Harry Potter movies. Hey, I may have more free time than anyone I know but life's too short for this wizards and warlocks crap.
4/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 360.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
IMDB 250 7.10 - Throne of Blood (1957)
Throne of Blood (1957)
Between battles within medieval Japan, two warriors are lost in a mysterious forest. Suddenly an old man appears (possibly a ghost) and prophecies that one of the men will become Emperor and the other will be the father of an Emperor. Do you take this prediction seriously? And if so, what do you do?
The film deals with questions of fate, predestination, free will and Machiavellian politics. You almost feel that knowing the future makes life MORE confusing, not less. Even if you know your future and it's something good, can you screw it up? Do you do nothing and suppose it happens "magically" or should you act? The questions are delicious.
It's another example of East meets West as the story is based on Macbeth, replacing medieval Europe with medieval Japan. A pleasant surprise is the "special effects" (for lack of a better word). The final scene features a man under attack by a barrage of arrows and, in 1957, you know it's not CGI. But how?
Not Kurosawa's best but even on a bad day he's still excellent.
7/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 359.
Between battles within medieval Japan, two warriors are lost in a mysterious forest. Suddenly an old man appears (possibly a ghost) and prophecies that one of the men will become Emperor and the other will be the father of an Emperor. Do you take this prediction seriously? And if so, what do you do?
The film deals with questions of fate, predestination, free will and Machiavellian politics. You almost feel that knowing the future makes life MORE confusing, not less. Even if you know your future and it's something good, can you screw it up? Do you do nothing and suppose it happens "magically" or should you act? The questions are delicious.
It's another example of East meets West as the story is based on Macbeth, replacing medieval Europe with medieval Japan. A pleasant surprise is the "special effects" (for lack of a better word). The final scene features a man under attack by a barrage of arrows and, in 1957, you know it's not CGI. But how?
Not Kurosawa's best but even on a bad day he's still excellent.
7/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 359.
Monday, May 28, 2012
IMDB 250 7.9 - The Intouchables (2011)
The Intouchables (2011)
When an extremely wealthy quadriplegic (played by French Dustin Hoffman) hires a black man from the inner-city (played by French Taye Diggs), an unusual friendship forms.
We've seen this movie many times before (though never from the French). The poor man moves into a mansion and lives the good life for the first time. The "regular guy" that brings new life to a stodgy household. The white guy introduces the black guy to classical music. The black guy introduces the white guy to Earth, Wind and Fire. The fact that they are so different makes their friendship that much more fun.
Still, it is done well. It's amusing, heartfelt, sometimes fun, light entertainment.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 358.
When an extremely wealthy quadriplegic (played by French Dustin Hoffman) hires a black man from the inner-city (played by French Taye Diggs), an unusual friendship forms.
We've seen this movie many times before (though never from the French). The poor man moves into a mansion and lives the good life for the first time. The "regular guy" that brings new life to a stodgy household. The white guy introduces the black guy to classical music. The black guy introduces the white guy to Earth, Wind and Fire. The fact that they are so different makes their friendship that much more fun.
Still, it is done well. It's amusing, heartfelt, sometimes fun, light entertainment.
6/10.
Total "Top 250" Movies Seen: 358.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
