The 1937 movie "The Life of Emile Zola" was the 10th movie to win the best picture Oscar. The film, as the title suggests, is a partial biography of Emile Zola. It focuses on his life from when he started as a writer, to his case against the French government and finally his death. It is a story about fighting for what is right, regardless of the price that you may pay. The story focuses heavily on the case between Emile and the French military. While this case brings the most drama to the movie it would have been nice to see some of Zola's hardships before he became an author. This just isn't focused on enough in the movie.
From an acting stand point, the movie is no slouch. All of the actors put in a great performance, with Paul Muni as Emile Zola leading the pack. With much of the movie surrounding his trial, it was really a courtroom drama, something that I typically enjoy. While it isn't as gripping as the dramas of today, it was still a fun watch due to the acting performances.
Overall, there wasn't much to analyze in this movie. It was a good story and put together well but at the end the, movie didn't really stay with me. For this reason it gets 3 out of 5 stars.
With this being the 10th movie I thought now would be a good time to rank the movies based on what I thought about them. So here is my list of the first 10 in the reverse order that I enjoyed them.
10. The Broadway Melody of 1929
9. The Great Ziegfeld
8. Wings
7. The Life of Emile Zola
6. Grand Hotel
5. Cimmaron
4. Cavalcade
3. It Happened One Night
2. All Quiet on the Western Front
1. Mutiny on the Bounty
Monday, October 18, 2010
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
The Social Network - Movie Review
Finally, the long summer is over! Movie lovers can return to the theater. We can see drama, sharp dialogue and character development. Fall is here and with it comes the Oscar season. The year has had a few gems so far, but the next three months will bring the movies we will be talking about next January when the Oscar nominations are announced. The first movie of this season is "The Social Network."
The movie tells the story of the creation and development of Facebook. The movie is actually based on the book "The Accidental Billionaires." The story is told via two depositions that are occuring during the same time period and focusing on who invented Facebook. The story is incredibly interesting, most likely because the movie covers a very current topic. The only issue with the story is that it feels unfinished. This is because the saga of Facebook is unfinished, the site is still changing and constantly makes headlines with privacy issues.
The script was written by Aaron Sorkin ("The West Wing,"SportsNight") and it shows. Anyone familiar with anything he has written can expect the same thing here. Fortunately, his writing has yet to show signs of aging is still sharp and crisp. I am sure that after additional viewing I will be quoting this film as often as possible. The cast is more than capable of handling Sorkin's script. Jessie Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield (the next Spiderman) and Justin Timberlake all play their roles to perfection. Eisenberg shows some amazing talent here. He reminds me of Michael Cera but with depth and the ability to play more then one type of character.
The movie was directed by David Fincher ("Seven", "Fight Club"). However he really didn't have much to work with. The direction was solid but there was nothing really spectacular about it. Looking back at it, I can't think of any standout scene or sequence. However, there was no scene that felt awkward or out of place, an achievement on its own.
Overall it's a great movie, it's only real flaw is that the story ends up being light on any real drama. The movie is incredibly well made and for that reason it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie tells the story of the creation and development of Facebook. The movie is actually based on the book "The Accidental Billionaires." The story is told via two depositions that are occuring during the same time period and focusing on who invented Facebook. The story is incredibly interesting, most likely because the movie covers a very current topic. The only issue with the story is that it feels unfinished. This is because the saga of Facebook is unfinished, the site is still changing and constantly makes headlines with privacy issues.
The script was written by Aaron Sorkin ("The West Wing,"SportsNight") and it shows. Anyone familiar with anything he has written can expect the same thing here. Fortunately, his writing has yet to show signs of aging is still sharp and crisp. I am sure that after additional viewing I will be quoting this film as often as possible. The cast is more than capable of handling Sorkin's script. Jessie Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield (the next Spiderman) and Justin Timberlake all play their roles to perfection. Eisenberg shows some amazing talent here. He reminds me of Michael Cera but with depth and the ability to play more then one type of character.
The movie was directed by David Fincher ("Seven", "Fight Club"). However he really didn't have much to work with. The direction was solid but there was nothing really spectacular about it. Looking back at it, I can't think of any standout scene or sequence. However, there was no scene that felt awkward or out of place, an achievement on its own.
Overall it's a great movie, it's only real flaw is that the story ends up being light on any real drama. The movie is incredibly well made and for that reason it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
The Great Ziegfeld - The Oscar Project Part IX
Released in 1936, "The Great Ziegfeld" tells a fictionalized version of the life of Florenz Ziegfeld. A person I have some familiarity with due to my background in the community theater. In fact I've even played the voice of Ziegfeld in "The Will Rogers Follies." The movie stars William Powell and features music by Walter Donaldson and Irvin Berlin. This adds some authenticity to the movie music as Berlin's music was part of the original Ziegfeld Follies.
The film itself was large in scope and short on actual substance, like many of Ziegfeld's most famous productions. The movie consisted of Ziegfeld being down and out, just to bounce back bigger and more successful then ever. After the third time this happens the movie becomes too predictable. However, since it is about the life of Ziegfeld there is not much that the script writers could do about that.
This leaves the main appeal of the movie to be in the singing and dancing numbers. Fortunately, these are much better then those found in "The Broadway Melody." The numbers made me feel as though I was watching numbers that could be truly labeled as Ziegfeldian. Since the rest of the movie had a sub par plot and no acting that really stood out, the singing and dancing was the only noteworthy part of the movie.
While the singing and dancing was great, it is dated. If you enjoy watching the pageantry of the theater of old than this movie has something for you. If not this probably isn't worth your time. It gets 2 out of 5 stars.
The film itself was large in scope and short on actual substance, like many of Ziegfeld's most famous productions. The movie consisted of Ziegfeld being down and out, just to bounce back bigger and more successful then ever. After the third time this happens the movie becomes too predictable. However, since it is about the life of Ziegfeld there is not much that the script writers could do about that.
This leaves the main appeal of the movie to be in the singing and dancing numbers. Fortunately, these are much better then those found in "The Broadway Melody." The numbers made me feel as though I was watching numbers that could be truly labeled as Ziegfeldian. Since the rest of the movie had a sub par plot and no acting that really stood out, the singing and dancing was the only noteworthy part of the movie.
While the singing and dancing was great, it is dated. If you enjoy watching the pageantry of the theater of old than this movie has something for you. If not this probably isn't worth your time. It gets 2 out of 5 stars.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Just Say No to the 3rd Dimension
America was built on progress. We invent, we discover, we innovate. Our economy is based on new ideas being brought forward and we as a country, embracing it. This process creates new jobs, changes our quality of life and gives us a new way of thinking. Unfortunately, this process is not always perfect. In several instances the changes don't work and they are rejected. Nowhere is this more true then in technology and more specifically entertainment technology. There are landfills filled with abandoned technology like betamax, zip discs and mini discs. Technology that may have made our lives easier that we as a society have rejected.
With each of these failed technologies there was a push to incorporate them into our lives. Over the past year the entertainment industry has been trying to push one of these down our throats. That technology is 3D films and television. Before I continue, let me stress that 3D has it's place. It can enhance film or television, but we are not ready for it and it is being abused.
Every time I go to the theater now to see the latest big budget feature I have to prepare myself to wear a pair of plastic uncomfortable glasses over the glasses I normally have to wear. I also have to bring extra money for me and my date since the movie theater charges extra so that I can wear these glasses. Glasses, which I am asked not to keep, but to recycle into a box so that they can be cleaned so that someone else can pay money to wear them. Technology is being developed that will allow us to watch 3D without the glasses, is it necessary for us to watch movies in 3D now when we could wait and demand that we have 3D when 3D is ready?
This isn't the only area were we are being forced to accept 3D as the norm though. Over the past year, television manufacturers have been pushing us to buy 3D televisions, when many of us have just recently upgraded to a new flat screen HDTV. These 3D TV's are currently a waste of money. There are a handful of channels that offer 3D part of the time and as for those movies we watched in the theater do you know how many of those are available in 3D? Two. That's it. And the big 3D movie, "Avatar," you can't even buy it in 3D yet. And when it does come out in 3D the only way you will be able to get it is if you have a Panasonic 3D television. But wait there's more. Those plastic glasses from the movie theaters that we use don't work with 3D televisions, instead you need $100 dollar a pair glasses for your entire family to enjoy the 3D experience. These glasses are not even standardized yet, meaning that if you have two different brands of televisions, the glasses from one television won't work on the other television.
I wish I could say that technology was the only problem, but it isn't. The actual 3D content is also a problem. Except for cartoons and "Avatar" all of the other 3D films released this year have been shot using a 2D camera and then converted to 3D after. This technique is just a scam to get an extra couple of bucks from all the people going to see the movie so that their box office is a little higher. And this practice is increasing over the next year, the Harry Potter films, Green Lantern, Captain America and Thor will all come out in the next year, all were filmed in 2D and all will be converted to 3D. In addition to this, earlier this week George Lucas announced that he will be converting the Star Wars films into 3D. These films weren't meant to be in 3D. But now George is going to milk his cash cow for a little more money.
I'm not anti-3D, I'm very excited about the new 3D Nintendo DS that will be released next year, a 3D system that doesn't require glasses. I just don't think that the movie industry and the television industry is ready to support the move to 3D. There is something that we can do to show them this. Don't buy into it. When you go see a movie that was not shot in 3D, go see it in 2D. Don't buy the 3D television until it's ready and standardized. We as consumers have the ability to control this. Vote with your dollars and say no to the 3rd dimension.
With each of these failed technologies there was a push to incorporate them into our lives. Over the past year the entertainment industry has been trying to push one of these down our throats. That technology is 3D films and television. Before I continue, let me stress that 3D has it's place. It can enhance film or television, but we are not ready for it and it is being abused.
Every time I go to the theater now to see the latest big budget feature I have to prepare myself to wear a pair of plastic uncomfortable glasses over the glasses I normally have to wear. I also have to bring extra money for me and my date since the movie theater charges extra so that I can wear these glasses. Glasses, which I am asked not to keep, but to recycle into a box so that they can be cleaned so that someone else can pay money to wear them. Technology is being developed that will allow us to watch 3D without the glasses, is it necessary for us to watch movies in 3D now when we could wait and demand that we have 3D when 3D is ready?
This isn't the only area were we are being forced to accept 3D as the norm though. Over the past year, television manufacturers have been pushing us to buy 3D televisions, when many of us have just recently upgraded to a new flat screen HDTV. These 3D TV's are currently a waste of money. There are a handful of channels that offer 3D part of the time and as for those movies we watched in the theater do you know how many of those are available in 3D? Two. That's it. And the big 3D movie, "Avatar," you can't even buy it in 3D yet. And when it does come out in 3D the only way you will be able to get it is if you have a Panasonic 3D television. But wait there's more. Those plastic glasses from the movie theaters that we use don't work with 3D televisions, instead you need $100 dollar a pair glasses for your entire family to enjoy the 3D experience. These glasses are not even standardized yet, meaning that if you have two different brands of televisions, the glasses from one television won't work on the other television.
I wish I could say that technology was the only problem, but it isn't. The actual 3D content is also a problem. Except for cartoons and "Avatar" all of the other 3D films released this year have been shot using a 2D camera and then converted to 3D after. This technique is just a scam to get an extra couple of bucks from all the people going to see the movie so that their box office is a little higher. And this practice is increasing over the next year, the Harry Potter films, Green Lantern, Captain America and Thor will all come out in the next year, all were filmed in 2D and all will be converted to 3D. In addition to this, earlier this week George Lucas announced that he will be converting the Star Wars films into 3D. These films weren't meant to be in 3D. But now George is going to milk his cash cow for a little more money.
I'm not anti-3D, I'm very excited about the new 3D Nintendo DS that will be released next year, a 3D system that doesn't require glasses. I just don't think that the movie industry and the television industry is ready to support the move to 3D. There is something that we can do to show them this. Don't buy into it. When you go see a movie that was not shot in 3D, go see it in 2D. Don't buy the 3D television until it's ready and standardized. We as consumers have the ability to control this. Vote with your dollars and say no to the 3rd dimension.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World
The first decade of the 20th century will be remembered in movie cinema as the rise of the comic book movie. Big budgets, explosions and special effects drove these movies into the theater were they currently seem to be parked and have no intention of leaving. These movies tend to leave little to the imagination and just rely on the costumes to drive the movies with some slick dialogue. Fortunately, these movies have opened the door for other franchises to be revived and for geek movies to rise and be a dominant force in cinema. It also opened the door for non-superhero comics to get a chance at being made into a movie. Thanks to this we were able to get the movie masterpiece of "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World."
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World - New Movie Review
The first decade of the 20th century will be remembered in movie cinema as the rise of the comic book movie. Big budgets, explosions and special effects drove these movies into the theater were they currently seem to be parked and have no intention of leaving. These movies tend to leave little to the imagination and just rely on the costumes to drive the movies with some slick dialogue. Fortunately, these movies have opened the door for other franchises to be revived and for geek movies to rise and be a dominant force in cinema. It also opened the door for non-superhero comics to get a chance at being made into a movie. Thanks to this we were able to get the movie masterpiece of "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World."
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
The movie is based off of the comic series by Bryan Lee O'Malley. I've read the comic series and I love it. The book delves into the attitudes of the so-called "slacker" generation and how they deal with relationships. At first this would seem to be a total turn off for any decent comic nerd, but the author peppers in battles, video game references and plenty of humor to create a wonderful experience. The movie is able to capture the essence of the comic series, which should be the aim of every comic movie. The story focuses on the relationship between Scott Pilgrim and Ramona Flowers. Through the story Scott must deal with Ramona's emotional baggage as well as his own. The story has them deal with this by having the characters actually fight their past romances, and it keeps these fights entertaining by having them be portrayed as if they were from a video game. Added to the movie is a ton of smart and witty comedy that gives you plenty to laugh at while the story moves along.
Casting in this movie did a fantastic job. Michael Cera plays the lead and through most of the movie he is playing his typical Michael Cera character, which works for this role. However, he does have to show a little more emotion than normally is required of him and he pulled it off very well. Mary Elizabeth Winstead also did a great job of portraying Ramona as someone you can understand why Scott falls for her, but also realize that she has problems. That is just the tip of the iceberg in this cast. The supporting characters steal the show with Brandon Routh, Chris Evans, Kieran Culkin, Jason Schwartzman and Ellen Wong leading the way. Each of these actors bring the funny to this film and it's great when any of them are on screen.
The director for this movie had to do a lot of work. Fortunately "Shaun of the Dead" director Edgar Wright was able to take the helm and steer this movie in the right direction. Instead of trying to make this movie work in the "real" world, he embraced the goofiness of the comic. That's the only way this movie works, trying to explain everything would have created a ton of needless exposition. By committing to the world of the comic and not surrendering any of that world, the movie worked. Why? Because they captured the essence of a great comic book.
This movie won't be a huge success. After two weeks in the theaters it's only made about 15 million dollars. I do however see this having a long life after the theaters. It will be a movie that I will pop in the DVD when I feel like watching a movie on a Saturday afternoon. It will be on TBS or Comedy Central constantly and I will turn it on every time. I really enjoyed this movie and that is why it gets 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Mutiny on the Bounty - The Oscar Project Part VIII
Finally the Oscar Project continues!! Part VIII focuses on the 1935 film "Mutiny on the Bounty." It stars Clark Gable as Mr. Christian and Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh. It was directed by Frank Lloyd. Starting this film my only previous exposure to the story was thanks to "The Simpson" spoof done a few years back. The spoof didn't really give away much of the plot since the title takes care of that.
While looking into the history of this movie I learned the fascinating story about which this movie is based. The events depicted in the movie took place near the end of the 18th century. From what I read many of the differences between the movie and the real life events are trivial. The story follows that the H.M.S. Bounty was to travel to Tahiti to transplant Bread Fruit plants to the West Indies. After the ship left Tahiti, the ship crew committed mutiny and overtook it. Captain Bligh and those loyal to him that could fit on the launch boat were set a drift and they miraculously were able to make it to a friendly shore. In the meantime Christian and the mutineers sailed back to Tahiti and then to the island of Pitcairn to hide from a returning British ship. The movie focuses on this being a turning point for the way that sailors were treated by their captain at sea. It was interesting to later learn that several descendants from the voyage of the Bounty are still alive and living on the islands of Tahiti and Pitcairn.
Enough about the history lets take a look at the movie. The scripting of this movie was excellent. It did a very good job of showing why the men needed to commit mutiny and turned Bligh into the villain that he needed to be. Once the mutiny took place it then gave Bligh several chances to show why he was made a captain of a ship and gave him a few redeeming qualities instead of leaving him a villain. I like that this movie included this depth of character. Though a bit more closure on his character would have been welcome. The small bits of humor sprinkled throughout the movie gave welcome relief to how cruel the treatment of the men was portrayed.
Fortunately for the scriptwriter he had some incredible talent reading the lines. Leading the cast was Clark Gable playing the lead mutineer. By placing Gable in the role, he was able to use his ability for reason to show why the crew did not mutiny earlier and allowed the audience to be okay with the mutiny once it happened. He was upstaged I felt however by the performance of Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh. The character could have easily been one note and only portrayed as a villain. However Laughton adds layers. He portrays the wickedness of the character perfectly, but also captures the pride that the character has, his loyalty to the navy and his great skill in being a captain. By the end of the film there is even some sympathy for the character, but the wickedness was portrayed so well that the sympathy that is generated does not take away from the story.
The movie, with it's simple plot, feels like some of the blockbusters of today. While as it is filmed it may not win an Oscar, it feels like one of the tent pole blockbusters that a studio would plan their summer around, and one of the good ones too. If you want to check out an old classic movie but usually aren't into the more "artsy" stories this is for you. I really enjoyed this movie and it gets a 4.5 out of 5 stars.
While looking into the history of this movie I learned the fascinating story about which this movie is based. The events depicted in the movie took place near the end of the 18th century. From what I read many of the differences between the movie and the real life events are trivial. The story follows that the H.M.S. Bounty was to travel to Tahiti to transplant Bread Fruit plants to the West Indies. After the ship left Tahiti, the ship crew committed mutiny and overtook it. Captain Bligh and those loyal to him that could fit on the launch boat were set a drift and they miraculously were able to make it to a friendly shore. In the meantime Christian and the mutineers sailed back to Tahiti and then to the island of Pitcairn to hide from a returning British ship. The movie focuses on this being a turning point for the way that sailors were treated by their captain at sea. It was interesting to later learn that several descendants from the voyage of the Bounty are still alive and living on the islands of Tahiti and Pitcairn.
Enough about the history lets take a look at the movie. The scripting of this movie was excellent. It did a very good job of showing why the men needed to commit mutiny and turned Bligh into the villain that he needed to be. Once the mutiny took place it then gave Bligh several chances to show why he was made a captain of a ship and gave him a few redeeming qualities instead of leaving him a villain. I like that this movie included this depth of character. Though a bit more closure on his character would have been welcome. The small bits of humor sprinkled throughout the movie gave welcome relief to how cruel the treatment of the men was portrayed.
Fortunately for the scriptwriter he had some incredible talent reading the lines. Leading the cast was Clark Gable playing the lead mutineer. By placing Gable in the role, he was able to use his ability for reason to show why the crew did not mutiny earlier and allowed the audience to be okay with the mutiny once it happened. He was upstaged I felt however by the performance of Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh. The character could have easily been one note and only portrayed as a villain. However Laughton adds layers. He portrays the wickedness of the character perfectly, but also captures the pride that the character has, his loyalty to the navy and his great skill in being a captain. By the end of the film there is even some sympathy for the character, but the wickedness was portrayed so well that the sympathy that is generated does not take away from the story.
The movie, with it's simple plot, feels like some of the blockbusters of today. While as it is filmed it may not win an Oscar, it feels like one of the tent pole blockbusters that a studio would plan their summer around, and one of the good ones too. If you want to check out an old classic movie but usually aren't into the more "artsy" stories this is for you. I really enjoyed this movie and it gets a 4.5 out of 5 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)