"Cavalcade" was released in 1933 and was the 6th film to win the Oscar for Best Picture.
This is the only other movie (in addition to "Wings") that is currently not available on DVD. Fortunately I was able to track down a digital copy to watch it. Why these two movies are not on DVD I don't know, but hopefully they will be released soon.
The movie follows a family from the beginning of the 20th century to 1933, focusing on how the family is changed and affected by the events that happened during these years. The story starts with New Year's Eve 1899 and jumps right into the second Boer War. The movie captures the departure of the men to the war well, with the different reactions from the women they are leaving behind done very well. Some of it was over dramtic, but this was the style at the time. Once the men come back we see how they have changed and how these changes effect their family dynamic. This is followed quickly by the death of the Queen of England. The story jumps ahead several years and we see the children develop further and see how the war has affected the men over a long period of time. The story moves on and covers the sinking of the Titanic. This was the only part of the story that I felt was handled poorly. It features a young couple talking about how happy they are and that they would be happy even if they ended up dying tonight. It is at this point that they move and we see they are on the Titanic, there is also no reaction to their death, we instead skip ahead to World War I. Again we see a new generation of men go off to war and they do a fantastic job of how war changes a man through his relationship with a young girl. The movie ends on New Years Eve of 1933 with an awkward toast that is given directly to the camera that tells the audience to remember the past and look forward to the future.
The directing in this movie was handled well for most of it. The sets felt authentic and the shots were well done. The addition of musical numbers throughout the movie felt forced and seemed to only be there to attract more movie goers with song and dance. The scenes used to depict World War I were handled very well. They used a montage of scenes overlapped on top of each other. I thought this showed the deadliness of the war without having to focus on any actual events or battles. I found the acting in the movie to be decent and appropriate for the movie. There was nothing that really stood out, but there was nothing that really ruined the movie either.
Overall this was a decent movie, but had nothing spectacular. It gets 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
New Movie Review - Iron Man 2
And the movie summer of 2010 has begun, the first entry is Iron Man 2. As most will have already seen it before reading this I will go heavy into spoilers so if you haven't seen it, crawl out from under your rock go see it , then read this review.
I find it hard to truly approach this movie from a review stand point. I really enjoyed the first film and the biggest part of that enjoyment was the surprise. I didn't have any expectations and I hadn't given the plot any thought. Not so for this movie, thanks to the trailers and my knowledge of comics I had a guess for what this movie would contain and I was completely correct. This took away my anticipation for what would happen next making my enjoyment of the movie solely reliant on the performance of the actors and the action sequences.
For the action sequences, I feel that they went 2 for 3. The sequence at Monte Carlo was great, it felt like Iron Man was in danger and Whiplash was great. The final fight scene was also pretty good and had some real good moments and got me excited. The only one that fell flat was the first fight between Iron Man and War Machine. I just wanted it to end. There was no danger in it and it telegraphed how the final fight would end, which I wish would have been more inventive then going with the "Ghostbusters" ending of them crossing the beams.
The characters from this movie transferred over well from the first movie, but are beginning to suffer from becoming one note characters. Robert Downey Jr., while terrific, is making Tony Stark a little too eccentric. Gwenyth Paltrow made Pepper Potts too flustered and everyone else seemed to have an endless list of jokes to tell. That being said, I did enjoy the performances from all the actors, but in the next film I need to see a little drama. My favorite performance came from Micky Rourke, because he had a balance between drama and comedy. Everyone else seemed to think their main job was making jokes. Again this works here, but if the next movie continues this pattern I will probably be upset.
Now lets get to the actual plot. The plots for the previous movie and this one really aren't that cerebral. They are simple so I shouldn't really be let down that I wasn't surprised. For those unfamiliar with the comics, the movie combines elements of a story line called "Armor Wars" which involved Justin Hammer trying to build Iron Man suits and "Demon in a Bottle" which focuses on Stark's drinking problem. While I wish they could have made that dark turn into his drinking problem, I realize that this would be opposite to the tone and feeling that the movie series has built up. However, I do feel that they could have delved a little deeper into the topic. The only really bad turn I found was with the use of the Black Widow. I know why she was there, anyone with eyes knows why she is in this movie. That being said her character added little to the movie. Her character did not need to be there. Everything that she did could have been explained in a different way or performed by someone else. Except for some obvious assets, her character added nothing to the movie. For those that missed it, there was a scene after the credits. In it, we got a glimpse of the hammer of Thor, which is the next Marvel movie that will come out next year. While I am excited for this movie, the hammer did look a little plastic.
The movie took most of the elements that I loved about the first movie and tried to add a few new elements. Some of these worked and some didn't. Bottom line is if you liked the first movie, you will most likely like this one. I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars.
I find it hard to truly approach this movie from a review stand point. I really enjoyed the first film and the biggest part of that enjoyment was the surprise. I didn't have any expectations and I hadn't given the plot any thought. Not so for this movie, thanks to the trailers and my knowledge of comics I had a guess for what this movie would contain and I was completely correct. This took away my anticipation for what would happen next making my enjoyment of the movie solely reliant on the performance of the actors and the action sequences.
For the action sequences, I feel that they went 2 for 3. The sequence at Monte Carlo was great, it felt like Iron Man was in danger and Whiplash was great. The final fight scene was also pretty good and had some real good moments and got me excited. The only one that fell flat was the first fight between Iron Man and War Machine. I just wanted it to end. There was no danger in it and it telegraphed how the final fight would end, which I wish would have been more inventive then going with the "Ghostbusters" ending of them crossing the beams.
The characters from this movie transferred over well from the first movie, but are beginning to suffer from becoming one note characters. Robert Downey Jr., while terrific, is making Tony Stark a little too eccentric. Gwenyth Paltrow made Pepper Potts too flustered and everyone else seemed to have an endless list of jokes to tell. That being said, I did enjoy the performances from all the actors, but in the next film I need to see a little drama. My favorite performance came from Micky Rourke, because he had a balance between drama and comedy. Everyone else seemed to think their main job was making jokes. Again this works here, but if the next movie continues this pattern I will probably be upset.
Now lets get to the actual plot. The plots for the previous movie and this one really aren't that cerebral. They are simple so I shouldn't really be let down that I wasn't surprised. For those unfamiliar with the comics, the movie combines elements of a story line called "Armor Wars" which involved Justin Hammer trying to build Iron Man suits and "Demon in a Bottle" which focuses on Stark's drinking problem. While I wish they could have made that dark turn into his drinking problem, I realize that this would be opposite to the tone and feeling that the movie series has built up. However, I do feel that they could have delved a little deeper into the topic. The only really bad turn I found was with the use of the Black Widow. I know why she was there, anyone with eyes knows why she is in this movie. That being said her character added little to the movie. Her character did not need to be there. Everything that she did could have been explained in a different way or performed by someone else. Except for some obvious assets, her character added nothing to the movie. For those that missed it, there was a scene after the credits. In it, we got a glimpse of the hammer of Thor, which is the next Marvel movie that will come out next year. While I am excited for this movie, the hammer did look a little plastic.
The movie took most of the elements that I loved about the first movie and tried to add a few new elements. Some of these worked and some didn't. Bottom line is if you liked the first movie, you will most likely like this one. I give it 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Advanced Movie Review - Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Earlier this week I had the chance to catch an early viewing of "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time." With the movie not opening for a couple of weeks I will leave this review as spoiler free as possible. I have played this video game and its sequel so I am reviewing it from that perspective. If you have not played the game then your experience may be different and I would guess make for a better movie.
Coming into the movie I was expecting a fun popcorn movie at best I was hoping for something akin to "The Mummy." However, with it being based off of a video game, I was still apprehensive. However after watching it I can say it was one of the best movies based off of a video game that I have ever seen. To be fair though it doesn't have much competition.
While the detailed plot of the movie does not follow the video game story line, the general plot of the movie does. The added plot details are done well and overall I have no problems with the plot decisions that they make. Each point on the journey makes sense and the enemies that the heroes must face are able to capture the creepiness of the video enemies and have them make sense in the movie world. There was one moment at the beginning of the movie that made me worry a little that they were trying to make the movie feel like a video game, but this only happened once.
The acting is decent. The weakest here was the Princess. Gylenhal puts in a decent enough performance, but the weak performance from the actress playing his opposite, hurts his performance. The rest of the cast is rounded off by Ben Kinsley and Alfred Molina, both of whom put in great performances.
The action sequences also shine in the movie and brings back memories of the video game. They were very enjoyable and will most likely be the star of this movie.
I won't go into anything else since I don't want to spoil the movie, if you've played the video game then this movie won't disappoint you. And if you enjoyed "The Mummy Returns," you will enjoy this movie as well. For me the movie gets 3 out of 5 stars
Coming into the movie I was expecting a fun popcorn movie at best I was hoping for something akin to "The Mummy." However, with it being based off of a video game, I was still apprehensive. However after watching it I can say it was one of the best movies based off of a video game that I have ever seen. To be fair though it doesn't have much competition.
While the detailed plot of the movie does not follow the video game story line, the general plot of the movie does. The added plot details are done well and overall I have no problems with the plot decisions that they make. Each point on the journey makes sense and the enemies that the heroes must face are able to capture the creepiness of the video enemies and have them make sense in the movie world. There was one moment at the beginning of the movie that made me worry a little that they were trying to make the movie feel like a video game, but this only happened once.
The acting is decent. The weakest here was the Princess. Gylenhal puts in a decent enough performance, but the weak performance from the actress playing his opposite, hurts his performance. The rest of the cast is rounded off by Ben Kinsley and Alfred Molina, both of whom put in great performances.
The action sequences also shine in the movie and brings back memories of the video game. They were very enjoyable and will most likely be the star of this movie.
I won't go into anything else since I don't want to spoil the movie, if you've played the video game then this movie won't disappoint you. And if you enjoyed "The Mummy Returns," you will enjoy this movie as well. For me the movie gets 3 out of 5 stars
The Oscar Project Part V - Grand Hotel
The fifth movie to win the award for Best Picture was "Grand Hotel." The movie is considered to have, for the time it was filmed, an all star cast, featuring Greta Garbo, John Barrymore, Joan Crawford and many others. The movie is based off of a novel that was first adapted into a successful Broadway play.
The plot of the movie follows several different guests of the Grand Hotel with all of their stories interweaving with each other. It was interesting to see a technique that I typically associate with modern films. While most of this worked, there were a few connections that just didn't make sense. Particularly at the end of the movie with Kringelein and Flaemmchen. It didn't make a lot of sense for these two to end up traveling together and it felt forced. The interactions of the Doctor with Kringelein also felt forced as it appeared that these characters would not have anything to do with each other. The doctor character himself seemed to be there to only deliver the closing line of the movie. A great line but there were other people that could have given this line and this character did not have to be forced into the movie.
Acting in the movie for most was top notch. The only character I didn't really enjoy was Kringelein. He seemed to be brought in for what we now consider comedy relief. However, in this movie it wasn't perfected. I found the character annoying and was played as a whiny drunk. In the movie the character tells us he will be dying soon, but I feel no sympathy for him throughout the movie. In fact by the end I was waiting for him to die so that I wouldn't have to put up with him anymore. Unfortunately, he lives. But Greta Garbo, John Barrymore and Joan Crawford all put in magnificent performances.
This was also the first movie in my journey that I noticed some great technical aspects. There are a few scenes where the shots are filmed with a moving camera that gives us a full view of the desk at the front of the hotel. These shots injected some energy into the film and really brought me into the movie.
Overall I thought it was a decent movie with a few flaws. It get 3.5 out of 5 stars. The next film is "Cavalcade."
The plot of the movie follows several different guests of the Grand Hotel with all of their stories interweaving with each other. It was interesting to see a technique that I typically associate with modern films. While most of this worked, there were a few connections that just didn't make sense. Particularly at the end of the movie with Kringelein and Flaemmchen. It didn't make a lot of sense for these two to end up traveling together and it felt forced. The interactions of the Doctor with Kringelein also felt forced as it appeared that these characters would not have anything to do with each other. The doctor character himself seemed to be there to only deliver the closing line of the movie. A great line but there were other people that could have given this line and this character did not have to be forced into the movie.
Acting in the movie for most was top notch. The only character I didn't really enjoy was Kringelein. He seemed to be brought in for what we now consider comedy relief. However, in this movie it wasn't perfected. I found the character annoying and was played as a whiny drunk. In the movie the character tells us he will be dying soon, but I feel no sympathy for him throughout the movie. In fact by the end I was waiting for him to die so that I wouldn't have to put up with him anymore. Unfortunately, he lives. But Greta Garbo, John Barrymore and Joan Crawford all put in magnificent performances.
This was also the first movie in my journey that I noticed some great technical aspects. There are a few scenes where the shots are filmed with a moving camera that gives us a full view of the desk at the front of the hotel. These shots injected some energy into the film and really brought me into the movie.
Overall I thought it was a decent movie with a few flaws. It get 3.5 out of 5 stars. The next film is "Cavalcade."
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Classic Movie Review - The Natural
Over the weekend I had the chance to watch a classic baseball movie, "The Natural." This Robert Redford classic is known as being one of the best baseball movies ever and is full of more classic moments than I can count.
The biggest part of the movie that stands out is the acting. Robert Redford plays a timeless character in Roy Hobbs. He really captures the characters love of the game and his regret in how he has spent his life. Kim Basinger as Memo Paris creates what may be the most complicated character in the movie as the girl that brings bad luck. By the end of the movie I felt as if she was a tragic character, but the movie does not really effectively capture this. Wilford Brimley as Pop was just another classic portrayal by this character actor. The rest of this cast rounds out the movie nicely with solid performances by everyone.
Direction wise the film does little wrong. Their are so many classic moments it is hard to pick out just one to highlight. But it is not these moments that bring this movie to life, but the smaller moments, that tied this movie together. Though I would be remiss if I didn't mention the final at bat with the stadium lights exploding. That scene was beautiful and there is a reason that it is constantly referenced in cinema.
What doesn't hold up well today is the plot. The movie really focuses on one ball player, while most baseball movies today focus on several players. This focus on a single player took away from the importance of the team doing well and made me only care about Roy doing well. Second the movie is told without a real narrative voice. It is up to the audience to figure things out for themselves, however there is a little to much room for interpretation for a movie like this.
So overall, great acting, great directing and an okay plot. It gets 4 out of 5 stars.
The biggest part of the movie that stands out is the acting. Robert Redford plays a timeless character in Roy Hobbs. He really captures the characters love of the game and his regret in how he has spent his life. Kim Basinger as Memo Paris creates what may be the most complicated character in the movie as the girl that brings bad luck. By the end of the movie I felt as if she was a tragic character, but the movie does not really effectively capture this. Wilford Brimley as Pop was just another classic portrayal by this character actor. The rest of this cast rounds out the movie nicely with solid performances by everyone.
Direction wise the film does little wrong. Their are so many classic moments it is hard to pick out just one to highlight. But it is not these moments that bring this movie to life, but the smaller moments, that tied this movie together. Though I would be remiss if I didn't mention the final at bat with the stadium lights exploding. That scene was beautiful and there is a reason that it is constantly referenced in cinema.
What doesn't hold up well today is the plot. The movie really focuses on one ball player, while most baseball movies today focus on several players. This focus on a single player took away from the importance of the team doing well and made me only care about Roy doing well. Second the movie is told without a real narrative voice. It is up to the audience to figure things out for themselves, however there is a little to much room for interpretation for a movie like this.
So overall, great acting, great directing and an okay plot. It gets 4 out of 5 stars.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Oscar Project Interlude - You Don't Know Jack
As I continue working my way through the Oscar movies, I of course will have the opportunity to watch many other non-winning Oscar Films and new films as they come out. This past Thursday I had the opportunity to go to the Detroit premiere of "You Don't Know Jack," the new biopic about Jack Kevorkian. I was a teenager when the doctor was in full operation so my memory of how everything occurred is not great, but it is something that I do remember. I will say that sitting in a theatre with Dr. Kevorkian, Jeffery Fieger and several other players in the story while we all watched it play out on screen was an interesting way to watch the movie.
The most memorable part of this movie was the performance made by Al Pacino. In most movies Pacino is playing Pacino. While that still gives him great range as an actor, it is something he will always be saddled with. Not a bad thing but it makes it difficult to accept him playing someone that is real. In this portrayal however he is completely immersed in the role. The accent, the look, the mannerisms, all of it fits perfectly into the character of Jack Kevorkian. The rest of the cast performs incredibly well, but it is Pacino that owns this movie and no one rises above him.
The story is told very well and remains compelling even though I knew how it ends. The movie is about Kevorkian and sticks to his side of the Assisted Suicide issue. It does treat the anti-assisted suicide party as enemies, but since it is about Kevorkian it doesn't matter. The movie mixes in actual footage from reporting, trials and announcements seamlessly into the plot and handles all of the patients of Kevorkian very well. In between the drama the movie is kept light and funny. Kevorkian becomes a very sympathetic and likable character.
The movie premiers tonight on HBO, but could have performed very well on the big screen. If you get the chance to see it do so. It gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The most memorable part of this movie was the performance made by Al Pacino. In most movies Pacino is playing Pacino. While that still gives him great range as an actor, it is something he will always be saddled with. Not a bad thing but it makes it difficult to accept him playing someone that is real. In this portrayal however he is completely immersed in the role. The accent, the look, the mannerisms, all of it fits perfectly into the character of Jack Kevorkian. The rest of the cast performs incredibly well, but it is Pacino that owns this movie and no one rises above him.
The story is told very well and remains compelling even though I knew how it ends. The movie is about Kevorkian and sticks to his side of the Assisted Suicide issue. It does treat the anti-assisted suicide party as enemies, but since it is about Kevorkian it doesn't matter. The movie mixes in actual footage from reporting, trials and announcements seamlessly into the plot and handles all of the patients of Kevorkian very well. In between the drama the movie is kept light and funny. Kevorkian becomes a very sympathetic and likable character.
The movie premiers tonight on HBO, but could have performed very well on the big screen. If you get the chance to see it do so. It gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The Oscar Project Part IV - Cimarron
Released in 1931, "Cimarron" won the fourth best picture Oscar. Being produced and released in the middle of the great depression, I expected to see a small scale movie that relied more on character than anything else. I was wrong. "Cimarron" turned out to be a large scale blockbuster of a movie. It featured gun fights, politics and even courtroom drama.
The movie tells the tale of the settlement of Oklahoma after the release of the land by the government. It centers around a man named Yancy Cravat, who starts a newspaper, runs a church, fights in the Spanish-American War and runs for Governor. At first it felt like a western retelling of "Citizen Kane", another RKO production. However, it had a lot of messages that I would not expect from a movie from this time period.
The movie itself shows the downside to the exploration that men would do during this time period. Men would leave their family behind to go exploring and search for that new opportunity. In the movie we see two different women affected by men leaving them. One of them is not able to follow any options and is forced to become a whore. The other is eventually elected to congress. This message of women empowerment was surprising and was not something I was expecting from a movie labeled as a western.
The movie doesn't just stop with empowering women. It also made statements about the treatment of Native Americans. Besides being a second message that this movie was trying to make, it came as a surprise since the movie starts with many racial slurs against Native Americans that wouldn't be acceptable by today's standards.
However the movie makes a smart move by centering the movie around Yancy Cravat, who comes across as one of the action heroes of today that everyone would love. He did the right thing and was a real man's man. By having this be the center of the movie they could make the statements they wanted to make and still have a movie that would be accepted by the audience.
Overall the movie was a pleasant surprise and I give it 4 out of 5 stars. Next on the list, "Grand Hotel."
The movie tells the tale of the settlement of Oklahoma after the release of the land by the government. It centers around a man named Yancy Cravat, who starts a newspaper, runs a church, fights in the Spanish-American War and runs for Governor. At first it felt like a western retelling of "Citizen Kane", another RKO production. However, it had a lot of messages that I would not expect from a movie from this time period.
The movie itself shows the downside to the exploration that men would do during this time period. Men would leave their family behind to go exploring and search for that new opportunity. In the movie we see two different women affected by men leaving them. One of them is not able to follow any options and is forced to become a whore. The other is eventually elected to congress. This message of women empowerment was surprising and was not something I was expecting from a movie labeled as a western.
The movie doesn't just stop with empowering women. It also made statements about the treatment of Native Americans. Besides being a second message that this movie was trying to make, it came as a surprise since the movie starts with many racial slurs against Native Americans that wouldn't be acceptable by today's standards.
However the movie makes a smart move by centering the movie around Yancy Cravat, who comes across as one of the action heroes of today that everyone would love. He did the right thing and was a real man's man. By having this be the center of the movie they could make the statements they wanted to make and still have a movie that would be accepted by the audience.
Overall the movie was a pleasant surprise and I give it 4 out of 5 stars. Next on the list, "Grand Hotel."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)