Followers

This Movie Guy Headline Animator

Showing posts with label Oscar win. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscar win. Show all posts

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

Happy Birthday, Nicole Kidman!

Today, we are celebrating the 45th birthday of Academy Award-winning actress Nicole Kidman. Originally a native of Honolulu, Hawaii, Kidman was born to Australian parents who soon moved back to Australia by the time she was four. As a child, she first loved ballet, but she also enjoyed elements of mime and drama. Acting soon became her refuge, and she spent many an hour in a dark theater practicing and perfecting her craft. While her professional film acting career began in the early 1980s, it really wasn't until her marriage to Tom Cruise in 1990 that Kidman truly burst onto the national scene. The two had two children together, but their marriage only lasted until 2001. Since then, Kidman has channeled her career toward three Oscar nominations - including one win - and she has become one of the most consistent actresses on the Hollywood scene. She re-married in 2006 to country music singer Keith Urban, with whom she also has two children. And now, here are some fun facts and accolades from Kidman's acting career:

Acting
First Film: Bush Christmas (1983)
Last Film: Trespass (2011)
Next Film: The Paperboy (2012)

Academy Awards
 Nominated: Best Actress, Moulin Rouge! (2001)
Won: Best Actress, The Hours (2002)
Nominated: Best Actress, Rabbit Hole (2010)

Over the years, I have managed to see ten of Kidman's films, and on average, her films have received a 'B-' grade. From those ten, I have created the following list of my five favorite of her performances:

5. Lady Sarah Ashley
Australia (2008)

*****

4. Grace Stewart
The Others (2001)

*****

3. Becca
Rabbit Hole (2010)

*****

2. Virginia Woolf
The Hours (2002)

*****

1. Satine
Moulin Rouge! (2001)

Once again, I'd like to wish Nicole Kidman a happy 45th birthday!

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

Movie Review: SONG OF THE SOUTH

SONG OF THE SOUTH
1946
G


"Johnny didn't mean no harm. He was just tryin' to be like Br'er Rabbit."
-- Uncle Remus

Song of the South is a 1946 Disney film directed by Harve Foster and Wilfred Jackson that blends live action with traditional animation. It tells the story of a young boy named Johnny (Bobby Driscoll) who thinks he's going on vacation to his grandmother's plantation. Once his family arrives, however, he learns that only he and his mother Sally (Ruth Warrick) are staying while his father (Erik Rolf) must return to Atlanta for work. Distraught by his father's sudden departure, Johnny decides to run away and make his way back home to Atlanta. As he tries to leave the plantation, however, he stumbles across an elderly African-American gentleman named Uncle Remus (James Baskett), who is known by all for his comical but enlightening tales. He begins to tell Johnny stories about a time long ago, when real folks and "critters" lived in harmony. Through these stories, Johnny starts to learn valuable life lessons, but his mother isn't terribly keen about Uncle Remus filling Johnny's head with these fanciful stories, beneficial as they may seem.

For years and years, Song of the South has been the seeming black mark on the face of Disney films. Although they've had their share of so-so films in the past, there has been nothing to measure up to the controversy surrounding this particular film. The negative publicity towards Song of the South has reached such an uproar that Disney has refused to release the film on any type of home viewing medium since the film was re-released in theaters in 1986. Since that time, it has been nearly impossible to find any copy of the film (although, sources have informed me that DVD copies of the film are available for purchase in England and Japan; I cannot, however, prove these rumors to be true). In today's day and age, most people's most direct contact with the Song of the South story matter comes from the log flume attraction Splash Mountain, located at Disneyland in Anaheim, California, the Magic Kingdom in Orlando, Florida, and Tokyo Disneyland in Japan. For years, I've wanted to see Song of the South to see just how terribly controversial it might be, and today proved to be the opportunity I had always wanted. So let's talk about it, shall we?

The first thing I want to say is this: I loved Song of the South. While I have always been and will always be a bit of a Disney fanatic and shame-lacking apologist, I do have to admit I am a bit biased; however, I do have to say that the film proved to be both entertaining and visually beautiful. I will discuss my opinions about the controversial aspects of this film, but I want to talk about its merits first, if you don't mind.

I think it's best to start with the technical aspects of this film. As one of the first major motion pictures to feature both live-action film and animation, Song of the South can easily be considered groundbreaking. Since this time, the use of both animation and live-action has been utilized on a number of occasions, ranging from tiny snippets here and there to films full-blown with the blend such as 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit. However, I do have to say that, despite its old age and early technology, Song of the South provides some of the most seamless animation and live-action blending I've ever seen. On three separate occasions, we delve into a world of animation in which Uncle Remus often times enters himself, and this effect alone is worth praise. However, I was most blown away by the film's finale, in which a number of the animated characters come to life in the live-action sequences. It's so well-done that it'll have you believing they just shot it that way and happened to have some very colorful critters bouncing around on that sunny day. So, kudos to the animators who helped bring this film to life.

The film's screenplay also manages to offer quite a bit of delight. It's a simple tale about a boy struggling with the idea of an absent father, and in his stead, he finds a mentor and friend in Uncle Remus, who proceeds to tell him a number of fanciful stories that are meant both to entertain and to teach. Where the screenplay succeeds, however, is in taking these stories and bringing them into Johnny's everyday life. We as the audience see him learn and adapt his behavior based off these tales, and it's these parallels that bring the screenplay from a "good" one to a "great" one.

The acting in the film is also relatively good, considering the type of film we're receiving. Baskett is great as Uncle Remus, sticking with the character from start to finish (Fun Fact: Baskett also provides the vocal performance for the clever Br'er Fox in his stories). Driscoll is serviceable as our leading child actor, although I can see where some viewers might get a little annoyed by him. The rest of the cast fills out nicely, and it's nice to see Hattie McDaniel, even if she's in a limited role.

One of the best things about the film is the music. It's billed as a musical, so Song of the South has to deliver on that particular front, and it certainly does not disappoint. Now, everybody knows the song "Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah," but many won't know that it actually took home the Oscar statuette for Best Original Song in 1947. And fans of the Splash Mountain attractions will recognize songs like "How Do You Do?" and "Everybody's Got a Laughing Place." All in all, the soundtrack proves to be fantastic, and all the songs are catchy and are sure to put a smile on your face.

And now, for the controversy. Opponents of this film have often claimed that Song of the South portrays a prejudiced view of African-Americans. The film takes place in the South during a time when slavery was still legal, so it is safe to assume that each of the black actors in the film is, in fact, a slave on the plantation. At times, this can be difficult to remember because of the relationship between the white and the black characters. In nearly every other film that deals with the subject of slavery in the United States, we see a bigoted Caucasian family hatefully driving work from their African-American slaves, all the while standing high above them. Song of the South instead offers a tale where the two races seemingly stand on equal footing, with everyone generally getting along. And that's where some of the controversy has started. Even in 1946, when the film was first released, these ideas were brought to the forefront. One of the heads of the NAACP at the time wrote that the film "unfortunately gives the impression of an idyllic master-slave relationship which is a distortion of the facts." In addition, it has often been claimed that the performances by the black actors are incredibly stereotypical, and for this, the film has been often criticized.

I stand here now to tell you two things: first, I agree with all of the racial issues I have just mentioned, and second, I'm not sure any of it is really that much of a problem. While I can plainly see where the issues might arise, I think that all of this film's opponents are reaching a tad too far into their over-analysis of the film. Yes, there are definitely some stereotypes tossed around here and there, but I think the fact that Disney took the chance to put the African-American characters on equal footing with the white characters is quite a testament in and of itself. For a film to do that in the 1940s is entirely unheard of, and I think that Disney should be commended for the effort. Disney films have always tried to create ideal cinematic worlds, so why shouldn't one of their first major forays into the live-action genre do the same? There's never a sense of hatred or bigotry in the story's telling, so the fact that so many people read that into the story is a terrible notion. The fact that it's been done so much that Disney simply will not release the film is a tragedy.

At the end of the day, Song of the South is a beautifully-crafted film that proves to be entertaining and engaging. While the stigmas of the controversy are sure to swirl around this film until the end of time, I honestly don't think that it's as bad as all the critics make it out to be. I think there's a lot of fun to be had with this film, and if you can find yourself a copy, do yourself a favor and give it a view.


Movie Review Summary
Grade: B+
Should You Watch It? Yes

Saturday, June 9, 2012

Happy Birthday, Natalie Portman!

Today, we are celebrating the 31st birthday of actress Natalie Portman. Born Natalie Hershlag in Jerusalem, her family soon moved to the United States and ultimately settled in New York, where she still currently resides. Although she succeeded academically, Portman managed to nab a few film roles as a teenager that started her on her acting journey. It wasn't until her role as Queen Amidala in the Star Wars prequels that she hit superstardom, and those performances helped open a number of doors for her continuing career. At the same time, however, Portman attended Harvard University and graduated with a degree in psychology. In 2009, Portman started to date her Black Swan choreographer Benjamin Millepied. The two have since been married and have a son. Here's a few fun facts and accolades awarded to Natalie Portman throughout her acting career:

Acting
First Film: Léon: The Professional (1994)
Last Film: Thor (2011)
Next Film: Lawless (2013)

Academy Awards
Nominated: Best Supporting Actress, Closer (2004)
Won: Best Actress, Black Swan (2010)

Over the years, I've managed to see twelve of Portman's films, and on average, her films have received a 'B' grade. From these twelve, I have created the following list of my five favorite of her performances: 

5. Grace Cahill
Brothers (2009)

*****

4. Evey
V for Vendetta (2006)

*****

3. Sara
Cold Mountain (2003)

*****

2. Sam
Garden State (2004)

*****

1. Nina Sayers
Black Swan (2010)

Once again, I would like to wish Natalie Portman a happy 31st birthday!

Friday, June 1, 2012

Happy Birthday, Morgan Freeman!

Today, we're celebrating the 75th birthday of Academy Award-winning actor Morgan Freeman. A native of Memphis, Tennessee, Freeman has continued to gain popularity throughout his career and has become one of the more beloved performers to grace the silver screen. His first big-screen appearance came with an uncredited role in 1964's The Pawnbroker, but it wasn't until 1973's Blade that audiences actually started to take notice. He earned his first Oscar nomination for 1987's Street Smart, but 1989 proved to be his breakout year when he appeared in the films Lean on Me, Glory and Driving Miss Daisy, which would go on to win Best Picture. In the early 1990s, one could find Freeman playing opposite Kevin Costner in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, Clint Eastwood in Unforgiven and Tim Robbins in The Shawshank Redemption. He worked consistently through the end of the millennium and easily transitioned into 21st-century films, breaking through with the role of God in 2003's Bruce Almighty. The following year, Freeman won his first - and to date, only - Oscar for his supporting role in Eastwood's Million Dollar Baby. Most recently, audiences have seen Freeman in 2011's Dolphin Tale, and they'll next be able to see him in theaters reprising his role as Lucius Fox in this summer's The Dark Knight Rises. And so, to celebrate his birthday and honor his career, I've listed my ten favorite of Freeman's acting endeavors. I've found a few videos that correspond with this roles for your viewing pleasure, so I hope you enjoy them. Once again, I'd like to wish Morgan Freeman a very happy birthday.


10. Jack Doyle
Gone Baby Gone (2007)

*****

9. Carter
The Bucket List (2007)

*****

8. Sgt. Maj. John Rawlins
Glory (1989)

*****

7. Detective Lt. William Somerset
Se7en (1995)

*****

6. Principal Joe Clark
Lean on Me (1989)

*****

5. Eddie Scrap-Iron Dupris
Million Dollar Baby (2004)

*****

4. Nelson Mandela
Invictus (2009)

*****

3. Ned Logan
Unforgiven (1992)

*****

2. Ellis Boyd 'Red' Redding
The Shawshank Redemption (2004)

*****

1. God
Bruce Almighty (2003)

Saturday, May 26, 2012

In Memoriam: John Wayne

Today, I would like to celebrate and honor the memory and career of the late John Wayne, who would have turned 105 today were he still alive. Born Marion Robert Morrison in Iowa, Wayne got his acting start in an uncredited role in the 1926 film Brown of Harvard, and he continued to work consistently throughout the 1920s and 1930s before making his big break in John Ford's 1939 film, Stagecoach. Over the course of a career that spanned five decades, John Wayne cemented himself as one of the most beloved actors ever to grace the silver screen. He made a name for himself in the western genre, but he was known to dabble in a slew of different genres, including drama, comedy and the illustrious war film. Wayne appeared in over 170 titles over the course of his career, and within those years he starred in such memorable films as 1945's They Were Expendable, 1949's Sands of Iwo Jima, 1952's The Quiet Man, 1954's The High and the Mighty, 1956's The Searchers, 1959's Rio Bravo, 1960's The Alamo and 1969's True Grit, for which he won his only Academy Award. And so, to honor and celebrate his life and career, I have created a list of my five favorite of John Wayne's film performances, and I've managed to find a few clips for your viewing pleasure. Once again, please help me in remembering this legendary actor.


5. Ringo Kid
Stagecoach (1939)

*****

4. George Washington McLintock
McLintock! (1963)

***** 

3. Rooster Cogburn
True Grit (1969)

***** 

2. Sean Thornton
The Quiet Man (1952)

***** 

1. J.B. Books
The Shootist (1976)

Sunday, May 20, 2012

In Memoriam: James Stewart

Today, we are celebrating and remembering the life and career of Academy Award-winning actor James Stewart on what would have been his 104th birthday. A Pennsylvania native, Jimmy began his acting career in the mid-1930s, landing his first role in a feature film in 1935's The Murder Man. He worked consistently throughout the 1930s, appearing in a total of twenty-one feature films from 1935 to 1939, where he scored his first Oscar nomination for his performance in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The following year, Stewart nabbed his sole Oscar statuette for his role in 1940's The Philadelphia Story, which officially shot him to superstardom. Over the next twenty years, Stewart would score three more Oscar nominations for 1946's It's a Wonderful Life, 1950's Harvey and 1959's Anatomy of a Murder while also appearing in the 1952 film The Greatest Show on Earth, 1954's Rear Window and 1957's The Spirit of St. Louis. Sadly, Stewart passed away in 1997 at the age of 89, but that doesn't mean we can't celebrate his memory. And so, I've listed my five favorite of Jimmy's performances for your viewing pleasure. I hope we can all enjoy the work that Stewart produced throughout his career and cherish the legacy he created on the Hollywood scene.


5. Dr. Hostleter
The Shootist (1977)

*****

4. L.B. 'Jeff' Jefferies
Rear Window (1954)

***** 

3. John 'Scottie' Ferguson
Vertigo (1958)

***** 

2. George Bailey

***** 

1. Jefferson Smith

Monday, May 14, 2012

Happy Birthday, Cate Blanchett!

Today, we're celebrating the 43rd birthday of the Academy Award-winning actress, Cate Blanchett. A native of Melbourne, Australia, Blanchett made her feature film debut in the 1994 film Police Rescue. It wasn't until 1997's Oscar and Lucinda and 1998's Elizabeth - for which she nabbed her first Oscar nomination - that Cate truly started to get noticed by the mainstream public. In the following years, she appeared in higher-profile films such as 1999's The Talented Mr. Ripley and 2000's Bandits before turning into an A-list actor by appearing as Galadriel in all three of Peter Jackson's The Lord of the Rings films. In 2004, Blanchett won her sole Oscar for her portrayal of Katharine Hepburn in Martin Scorsese's The Aviator, and since then, she's been nominated for three more Academy Awards. Most recently, audiences have seen Blanchett in the 2011 film, Hanna, and they'll next see her in 2012's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, where she'll reprise her role as Galadriel. And so, to celebrate her birthday, I've created a list of my five favorite of Blanchett's performances, and I've managed to find a few videos to satisfy your viewing pleasure. I hope you can all join me in wishing a very happy birthday to Cate Blanchett!


5. Daisy
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

*****

4. Galadriel
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)

*****

3. Sheba Hart

*****

2. Katharine Hepburn
The Aviator (2004)

*****

1. Jude
I'm Not There. (2007)

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE

INDIANA JONES AND THE LAST CRUSADE
1989
PG-13


"You call this archaeology?"
-- Professor Henry Jones

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a 1989 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the third installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. This film once again sees our hero, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) doing battle against the Nazis, who are once again on a quest to find a a famous Christian artifact: the Holy Grail. Indy is brought into the chase after wealthy artifact collector Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), who is funding an expedition for the Grail, tells him that his father, Henry Jones Sr. (Sean Connery), has gone missing whilst researching the Grail's whereabouts. Indiana immediately flies to Venice, Italy to pick up the trail where his father left off. He's joined by his close friend Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), and the two join forces with the young Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody), who had been assisting the elder Jones in his search. As the three dig deeper into the Grail legend, it becomes increasingly clear that there are many sides to the tale, both of the Grail and of the people on the journey.

Fans of the Indiana Jones franchise had to wait five years after Temple of Doom for The Last Crusade to hit theaters, but many of them found it to be quite the return to form. It definitely feels a lot more like Raiders of the Lost Ark, and many a fan greatly appreciated the switch back to that particular feel. I've always found to be The Last Crusade my personal favorite in the series, even if it's not necessarily the best of the bunch. There's something incredibly endearing about it as a movie, and it's entertainment factor is only matched by the franchise's first installment.

Part of the reason this film proves to be so good is the fact that we're getting what might arguably be the best screenplay in the franchise. On the one hand, we're getting a clever tale that rivals the quest for the Ark of the Covenant from Raiders, and the twists and turns with that part of the story make this one engaging and entertaining by themselves. It's some of the other facets, however, that push The Last Crusade over the top. The characterization provided by this particular screenplay is the best of the series by far, and for the first time since Raiders, we're given a true sense of being from the Indiana character. We're seeing multiple dimensions added to the character throughout the film, and by film's end, the audience can clearly see that he has changed. And he's not the only character who offers quite a spectacle. By introducing Indy's father into the series, we finally get to see the relationship between Henry Jones Sr. and Henry Jones Jr. We could've made a movie solely centered around that particular relationship, and it probably would've proved to be incredibly insightful and clever, but there's something even deeper going on here.

Although there's always been a facet of either religion or magic or mysticism or what have you in each of the Indiana Jones films, we never really get the sense that Indiana himself is starting to buy into all the hoopla. In Raiders, he merely understands the power of the Ark, but it's not as though he truly comes to respect it. In Temple of Doom, we get a look at an older, more pagan religion, so there wasn't really any sense of conversion on Indy's part. In The Last Crusade, however, there's a definite change in beliefs and ideas on the part of our hero. In order to complete his journey, he's almost required to go through a spiritual conversion, and that bit of personal growth is what makes this film all the more powerful. I know that I only hours ago stated that Temple of Doom was easily the most emotionally powerful of the Indiana Jones films, but after re-watching The Last Crusade, I think I have to change my opinion. With the spiritual change and the relationship between Indy and his father, there's no doubt in my mind that the screenplay allows for this one to take the emotional cake.

The strong characterization in the screenplay also allows for the actors to bring forth some fantastic performances. Of all the Indiana Jones films, I'd have to rank this as the best-acted by Harrison Ford, and a lot of it has to do with the aforementioned points of the script. It gave him the opportunity to flesh out Indy a little bit more than he had been able to do in the previous films, and for that, I think he owes the screenplay a debt of gratitude. It's also a pleasure to see the great Sean Connery on-screen, especially in what might be his most iconic role aside from his numerous portrayals of James Bond. The chemistry between Ford and Connery is so authentic that you'd even start to believe that they could be real-life father and son. They just work that well together. It's astounding, really. We're also getting some good performances from the likes of Doody and Donovan, who's more René Belloq than Mola Ram, and I think that works for the better. Also be on the watch for a short cameo from River Phoenix as a young Indiana Jones that proves to be rather entertaining. The only issue that I had with the acting was the performances by Denholm Elliott and John Rhys-Davies, who both reprise their roles from Raiders of the Lost Ark. Whereas they were both relatively serious characters in the first film, they seem to be more caricatures of themselves this time around. Now, this might be what the screenplay calls for, but it was just a little bit off-putting for me.

And, once again, we're getting a fantastic score from John Williams, who brings a lot of new pieces for this particular film to accentuate the march he established in the first film. One of my favorite pieces from this film is the score he gave to the Grail, which proves to be rather powerful and beautiful, in my opinion. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:


At the end of the day, I'd have to say that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is probably my favorite film in the franchise. Although it's not quite as good as the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, the characterization and spirituality of this film pushes it over the top in terms of personal preference. Ultimately, it's one of my go-to films whenever I need a pick-me-up because it just manages to blend all of its themes and tones together so perfectly. It's just a beautifully-made film, and I have to tip my hat to Spielberg for having the guts to give the Christianity bit another go-around. Kudos, good sir.


Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM

INDIANA JONES AND THE TEMPLE OF DOOM
1984
PG


"Fortune and glory, kid. Fortune and glory."
-- Indiana Jones

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a 1984 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the second installment in the Indiana Jones franchise. Although the film was released after Raiders of the Lost Ark, it actually serves as a chronological prequel to the original Indy adventure. After narrowly escaping a nightclub battle in Shanghai followed by a crash landing in the Himalayas, Dr. Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) finds himself stranded in India with his young partner Short Round (Jonathan Ke Quan) and nightclub performer Willie Scott (Kate Capshaw). They soon find themselves in a small Indian village that has become barren and destitute. Indy learns that the village has lost a sacred stone that kept life amongst the people and their crops and livestock. As Indy listens to the village leader's story, he learns that a group of people known as the Thuggee may have risen from the ashes and has come to inhabit Pankot Palace. These people worship an evil god called Kali-ma, and if they can find all five of the sacred stones, they will be able to unleash Kali-ma's wrath upon the world. Spurred by the thought of profiting from finding the stones, Indy takes Shorty and Willie to Pankot, where the three become more and more entangled in the dark and evil plot.

When one thinks of Temple of Doom, they usually think about how it's often considered the darkest of the Indiana Jones saga. While the first film managed to maintain a seeming lightheartedness throughout its run-time, Temple of Doom never shies away from the fact that we're being taken to a much darker place on this particular adventure. It takes a little while for us to reach the evil that will encircle our heroes, but once we reach it, it's an almost steady stream of pain and suffering.

The film's screenplay works on a couple different levels. It starts out in a seemingly similar fashion as the first film, giving us a little bit of a prelude to the action of the film's main story. This time, however, this little situation leads directly into the rest of the film's storyline, and in a way, the film's prologue sends Indy and his friends on their journey. From there, we get our adventure, but there's a very different feel to this one's storyline. While Raiders presented a screenplay that blended the drama, action and comedy together, Temple of Doom offers a story that presents each of those elements in a more choppy manner. In one scene, we'll be getting a bit of drama; in another, it'll be straight comedy; and in yet another scene, we'll be getting our action sequences, which are just as good - if not better - than those in Raiders. On occasion, the film offers scenes that intertwine drama and comedy well, but for the most part, we're only getting one or the other, and I think that hurts the film a little bit. There was one scene that I thought worked particularly well with combining drama and comedy, in that it keeps things lighthearted while still managing to further the storyline. Here's that clip, for your viewing pleasure:


That being said, when Temple of Doom manages to delve into its darkness, you can be sure that you'll be going as deep into the depths as you can possibly imagine. Although the movie manages to remain fun, we definitely have a bit of an emotional ride to take to reach the film's finale. Another difference between this film and Raiders is that we don't meet our central villain until halfway through the flick. In the first Indy film, we meet our villain at the outset, and we're able to form our feelings against him right away. Here, we have to wait it out, but the screenplay manages to create such a vile human being in Mola Ram that we almost instantly have to root against him. In this, I think Temple of Doom is just as effective as Raiders of the Lost Ark.

Part of the reason we're getting such a disparity between the different genres in the film is the cast the filmmakers chose for the film. We're getting our same Indy as in Raiders, as Harrison Ford isn't necessarily bringing anything terribly different to the table. Aside from what the screenplay calls for, it's the same man we grew to know and love in the franchise's first installment. The biggest changes are the additions of Ke Quan and Capshaw, who both provide a strong level of comic relief. As Indy's partner and romantic interest respectively, there's plenty of opportunity for each of them to shine opposite Ford, and they definitely take advantage of those moments. This film served as Jonathan Ke Quan's first film role, and he definitely stepped up to the challenge of appearing alongside such a big-time star as Harrison Ford. Also worth mention is Amrish Puri, who brings life to the villainous Mola Ram. With a significant lack of screen-time, Puri manages to create a character that's so terrible that, as I previously said, we instantly hate. That takes quite a bit of work, if I must say so myself. All in all, the cast works well.

At the end of the day, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom still manages to be quite the exciting adventure, and it fits well with the rest of the Indy franchise. Yes, it delves into some darker themes here and there, but at its base, it still manages to follow the very distinct Indiana Jones format. If anything, I think there's more emotion to this film than any of the other films in the franchise, and that says quite a bit for this one's accolades. Does it measure up to Raiders of the Lost Ark? Not quite, but it's pretty darn close.


Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
Should You Watch It? Yes

Movie Review: RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK

RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
1981
PG


"I'm going after a find of incredible historical significance, you're talking about the boogie man. Besides, you know what a cautious fellow I am."
-- Indiana Jones

Raiders of the Lost Ark is an Academy Award-winning 1981 action-adventure film directed by Steven Spielberg that serves as the first installment in the ever-popular Indiana Jones franchise. Renowned archaeologist Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford) is approached by United States Army Intelligence after they intercept Nazi transmissions about an excavation in Cairo that may be digging in the lost city of Tanis in the hopes of finding the Ark of the Covenant. Because Jones has a penchant for acquiring rare artifacts and antiquities, the Army wants him to take possession of the Ark before Hitler and the Nazis can wield it as a weapon at the front of their own armies. To help in his quest, Jones makes his way to Nepal to find his old professor Abner Ravenwood, who is an expert on the city of Tanis. Instead of finding his mentor, however, Indy finds his daughter Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen), with whom he had had a past romance. With the Nazis nipping at their heels, the two take one of Abner's Tanis artifacts and make their way to Cairo in the hopes of beating the Germans to the prize. Little do they know that the Nazis have enlisted the aid of one of Indiana's chief competitors in the French archaeologist Dr. René Belloq (Paul Freeman).

Ever since I was a child, I have been a bit of a fan of the Indiana Jones series, and to have the opportunity to review the original Indiana Jones adventure is quite a treat for me. It's going to be a little difficult not to be biased about reviewing this film because it has become so ingrained into my own consciousness; however, I think that so many people out there can probably say the same thing about this particular film franchise.

Let's start by taking a look at the cinematic landscape in which Raiders of the Lost Ark was released. By this time, Spielberg had made quite a name for himself with films like 1975's Jaws and 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Although both of those films had managed to garner both critical and audience endorsement, Raiders proved to be a different kind of film altogether. It marked Spielberg's first real foray into the action-adventure genre as he tried to bring to life a type of 1930s serial, and boy did he do it successfully. But more on that in a moment. We also need to understand the star-power of Harrison Ford in making Raiders a success. By this time, he had appeared as Han Solo in both Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, so it goes without saying that he had become quite the household name. He had even had a bit of a cameo in 1979's Apocalypse Now. But it was the high-profile inclusions of Spielberg and Ford that made this film a must-see for many a film-goer back in 1981.

Raiders of the Lost Ark manages to succeed on a number of levels. First, we're getting a clever and original story that effectively keeps the audience engaged from the opening scene. By taking the Ark of the Covenent, a familiar artifact from the Bible, I think that a lot of people were able to relate with the story. This film proves to be very Christian-based in its mythology and storytelling, and because the Christian population (at least in the United States) is relatively high, you can be sure that many a viewer had some sort of previous knowledge of the Ark going into the film. Another reason the film works so well is that we're getting a very clear sense of good versus evil. Much in the way that Star Wars was able to establish the good guys and the bad guys quickly and clearly, Raiders manages to do the same with Indy and his adversaries. You can easily see the enemy in the form of the German Nazis, who have become almost synonymous with evil in the seventy years since World War II; however, I think the better differentiation between good and evil occurs in the opening scenes when we meet both Indiana and Belloq. It's immediately made clear as to which man has the higher moral fiber, and from that moment, we know for whom we should root. I also thought the dialogue was very well-written, and the characters are incredibly well-crafted. We easily get a sense of each character after only a few moments with them, and this ability to relate to the personalities on-screen only helps to bring the viewer in further.

I also thought that the cast performed rather well throughout the film. As one can imagine, this is Ford's show all the way, but he has some rather deft supporting actors that complement him quite well. I think Allen manages to keep pace with Ford's Indy, even if she goes a little over-the-top here and there. Freeman proves to be a fine central villain, bringing a little bit of brains to the antagonists side. He's not likely to be remembered as one of the better villains in cinematic history, but his Belloq is definitely worthy of at least an honorable mention. From there, we move onto some of the minor - albeit important - characters. We're getting a fun turn from John Rhys-Davies as Indy's friend Sallah as well as a pitch-perfect turn from Denholm Elliott as Marcus Brody, Indy's friend and boss. On the villainous side, I have to take the time to mention Ronald Lacey, whose creepy performance might be the most memorable in the film. Overall, however, the entire cast brings forth their A-game, making this quite the ensemble performance.

Raiders of the Lost Ark would go on to be nominated for eight Academy Awards, and it ultimately took home four Oscars: Best Art Direction; Best Visual Effects; Best Editing; and Best Sound. One of the categories it lost in, however, was for Best Original Score. Now, those of you who have been reading me for a while know that I will skip out on an opportunity to mention the great John Williams, and seeing as he composed the score for this film, I have to bring him up yet again. It's one of his better scores, and as with most of his work, it manages to fit the film perfectly. Here's the theme, for your listening pleasure:


At the end of the day, Raiders of the Lost Ark has become one of the most well-received and most-beloved films ever to be released. The Internet Movie Database (IMDb), which allows its followers to score the films they've seen, currently ranks Raiders as the 23rd greatest film of all time. The American Film Institute (AFI) currently lists it as the 66th greatest film. And Rottentomatoes.com currently gives the film a 94% approval rating based off critical reviews, and I will leave you with the site's critical consensus, which sums up my own thoughts on this brilliant piece:
Featuring bravura set pieces, sly humor and white-knuckle action, Raiders of the Lost Ark is one of the most consummately entertaining adventure pictures of all time.


Movie Review Summary
Grade: A+
Should You Watch It? Yes 

Monday, April 30, 2012

Movie Review: E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL

E.T.: THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL
1982
PG


"I'll be right here."
-- E.T.

E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial is a 1982 sci-fi film directed by Steven Spielberg that went on to win four Academy Awards. The film follows the story of small, friendly alien who is unintentionally left on Earth when his fellow aliens are forced to escape during a foraging expedition. The alien stumbles upon a house where he meets a young boy named Elliott (Henry Thomas). Although initially frightened, Elliott elects to bring the alien into the family home, hiding him inside his bedroom closet to keep him safe. He affectionately names the creature "E.T.," and he soon introduces the creature to his older brother Michael (Robert MacNaughton) and his younger sister Gertie (Drew Barrymore). Together, they do their best to hide E.T. from their mother Mary (Dee Wallace), but it becomes increasingly clear that E.T. simply wants to find his way home. E.T. and Elliott band together to create a communicating device that will send a signal into space in the hopes that E.T.'s ship may hear it and come to his rescue. However, a crew of government agents led by a man only referred to as Keys (Peter Coyote) learns of E.T's existence and moves into position to capture him for themselves.

I have to say that it's going to be difficult to write a review for a film so universally beloved as E.T. The film itself will turn thirty this year, and in that span of time, I'm sure millions, if not billions, of people have had the opportunity to watch it. It's a timeless tale about love and friendship, and even today, it still manages to find its way into the hearts of so many viewers. It had been quite a while since I'd had the opportunity to see the film in its entirety, but I was able to do just that yesterday, so here we go with my review.

I think we first have to take a look at the cinematic landscape in which E.T. was initially released. In the five years prior to E.T.'s release, the sci-fi world had seen the likes of 1977's Star Wars, 1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1979's Alien and 1980's The Empire Strikes Back. To release a science-fiction film in the late-1970s or early 1980s was to have it compared to a slew of fantastic fare. At the same time, we need to look at the exploding Spielberg career. In 1975, he released Jaws, which he followed with Close Encounters. Then, in 1981, he released Raiders of the Lost Ark. With three preceding films like that, it was going to be tough to create something just as good. And still, Spielberg still managed to craft something truly brilliant with E.T.

Let's start with the film's screenplay, shall we? At it's base, it's a very simple story. A lost alien enlists the help of a young boy to aid him in getting home, and the two develop a beautiful friendship along the way. That's essentially the plotline in a nutshell. Sure, there are a few twists and turns here and there, but at the end of the day, that's the basics of what we're getting. Where E.T.'s screenplay excels is in its point of view. The film has a very childlike angle, placing the tale of first contact into the mind of a child. For the first two-thirds of the film, the adult perspective is essentially removed from the film - a feat achieved by denying the audience a view of any adult's face, save for Mary's. The story is strictly told from the child's perspective, and screenwriter Melissa Mathison didn't stop there. She managed to weave three different levels of childlike interaction into the film. We get the boyhood perspective from Elliott, the young girl's perspective from Gertie and the teenage perspective from Michael. Just seeing the difference in their reactions to E.T. is enough to make a quality film, but the interaction between the four characters is so brilliantly-crafted that it has to be applauded.

Fortunately, we're getting a well-cast group of actors to bring all these characters to life. As a younger movie-watcher, I had never noticed the merits of the acting in the film. It had always been about E.T. for me, but after re-watching it now, I have to say that the cast does a marvelous job. A lot of credit has to be given to Thomas, who plays the film's emotional lead. His relationship with E.T. is so genuine, and that couldn't have been an easy feat to achieve considering the puppetry used to bring the creature to life. And what a puppet it is! Even thirty years later, one can still marvel at how intricate and beautiful E.T. must have been to moviegoers in 1982. (Note: When the film was re-released in 2002 for the twentieth anniversary, some of the E.T. scenes had been reworked with CGI, but if you're looking for the better version, I still think the original 1982 flick is the way to go. Yes, the CGI brought forth a little bit more emotion for the E.T. character, but it just seemed - and still seems - a little out of place with the film.) I also have to give credit to the young Barrymore, who provides quite the comedic presence throughout the film. The rest of the cast fills out nicely, and as I said before, it's much better than I remember.

I also have to take a moment to give credit to John Williams, who composed one of this best scores for E.T. By this time, Williams had become Spielberg's go-to guy, and this was the second Spielberg film that Williams composed that nabbed him an Oscar for Best Score. Although I'm not sure whether it's his best score, I think that E.T. has to rank as one of Williams' most beautiful. Here's a snippet for your listening pleasure:


At the end of the day, E.T. is one of the most beloved films ever to grace the silver screen. As with Williams' score, I'm not sure I'm ready to crown this film as Spielberg's best; however, I certainly think it has the most heart out of any of his films to date. There's something timeless about this tale that keeps audiences rushing back to see it. E.T. is beautiful in its simplicity, and it tells a tale of friendship and love with which anyone can relate. It has rightfully earned its place amongst the best films ever created, and it has every right to remain on that pedestal.


Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
Should You Watch It? Yes

Sunday, April 29, 2012

Happy Birthday, Daniel Day-Lewis!

On this April 29th, I would like to send some hearty birthday wishes to Daniel Day-Lewis, who turns 55 today. The English actor has easily cemented himself as one of the top actors of today's Hollywood generation by turning in brilliant performance after brilliant performance. He's a four-time Oscar nominee and two-time Oscar winner, nabbing those illustrious statuettes for his leading roles in 1989's My Left Foot and 2007's There Will Be Blood. Day-Lewis is rather selective of his roles (for example, his next scheduled role won't come until 2013), so he doesn't have the massive quantity of films in his repertoire as some other actors; however, it really comes down to quality, and there are few - if any - of Day-Lewis's peers who come close to matching his level. As usual, I've broken down my five favorite roles for the birthday boy or girl, so here's a look at the five characters that Day-Lewis has brought to the screen that I've enjoyed the most. Once again, happy birthday Daniel Day-Lewis.


#5. Guido Contini
Nine (2009)


----------

#4. Hawkeye
The Last of the Mohicans (1992)


----------

#3. Bill 'The Butcher' Cutting
Gangs of New York (2002)


----------

#2. Daniel Plainview
There Will Be Blood (2007)


----------

#1. Gerry Conlon
In the Name of the Father (1993)


Monday, April 23, 2012

Movie Review: DOCTOR ZHIVAGO

DOCTOR ZHIVAGO
1965
Not Rated



Doctor Zhivago is a 1965 dramatic epic directed by David Lean that is set against the backdrop of the Russian Revolution. It tells the intertwining stories of Yuri (Omar Sharif) and Lara (Julie Christie) as they meet time and again over the course of many years. I would go more into the details of the actual storyline, but if I start describing the plot, this post will ultimately turn into something ridiculously long and drawn-out. All you really need to know is that the film, at its core, is a love story, but by setting it against the backdrop of war, we get something a little more complex.

So you'll have to forgive me in advance if this review proves to be rather short. I'm a little bit drained from this particular movie-going experience, considering the film itself runs for over three hours. It's rare to see movies this long nowadays, but back in the day, they were a little more commonplace.

We receive a very good screenplay that won an Oscar back in 1966, and it takes us through nearly every minute detail of the major experiences lived and suffered by Yuri and Lara. The length of the film gives it the opportunity to delve into such detail, and it definitely does well enough to keep you engaged despite its terribly slow pace. At its heart, we get a rather endearing love story, but when its set against the aforementioned backdrop of war, it's almost as though the romance doesn't necessarily take center stage. At moments, it does, but there are definite times within the film where it's difficult to remember that the core element of the story rests with the ever-growing romance between Yuri and Lara. It's like the 1939 film Gone With the Wind, in a way. That film also has a strong romance at its center, but the backdrop of the Civil War starts to take precedence at certain moments. Substitute the Russian Revolution with the Civil War, and you've got Doctor Zhivago.

We get some great performances from our leads, who do their best to remain strong and even-keeled throughout the film's entirety. With a movie this long, it's difficult to remain consistent throughout, but Sharif and Christie succeed in doing just that. We also get a number of great supporting performances, highlighted by Tom Courtenay, who played Lara's husband Pasha and was nominated for an Academy Award for his role. Rod Steiger also gives a good performance in a limited amount of screen-time. And how could I ever forget the power of our fantastic narrator, played by none other than Sir Alec Guinness. He doesn't appear often, but he's probably the best part of the film by far.

Mention should be given to Maurice Jarre for composing a fantastic score that perfectly sets the mood of the entire piece. The sweeping composition brings a true sense of life to the film, and it's the first thing you'll notice right from the opening credits.

Overall, Doctor Zhivago is a long and drawn-out film that's not the easiest to watch if you tend to get bored easily. However, if you are capable of sitting and devoting your full attention a movie for over three hours - a difficult task in today's tech-savvy environment - then I'm sure you'll find great rewards in watching this particular film.

Movie Review Summary:
Grade: A-
1.5 Thumbs Up

Sunday, April 22, 2012

Happy Birthday, Jack Nicholson!

Today, we're celebrating the 75th birthday of the legendary, three-time Academy Award-winning actor, Jack Nicholson. He started acting in the mid-1950s and made his first feature film appearance in 1958's The Cry Baby Killer, but it wasn't until his performance in 1969's Easy Rider that he truly entered the public consciousness. Six years later, after hitting it big in 1974's Chinatown, Nicholson won his first Oscar for his leading role in the 1975 film One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and a star was born. Since then, Jack has appeared in such big-time fare as 1980's The Shining, 1983's Terms of Endearment, 1989's Batman, 1992's A Few Good Men, 1997's As Good As It Gets and 2006's The Departed. Most recently, audiences have seen Nicholson in 2010's How Do You Know, and it is currently unknown as to what his next project might be. And so, to celebrate his birthday, I've listed my ten favorite of his performances, and I've managed to find clips for each for your viewing pleasure. Once again, happy birthday, Jack!


10. President James Dale
Mars Attacks! (1996)

*****

9. Edward
The Bucket List (2007)

*****

8. Dr. Buddy Rydell
Anger Management (2003)

*****

7. Warren Schmidt
About Schmidt (2002)

*****

6. Joker / Jack Napier
Batman (1989)

*****

5. Melvin Udall
As Good As It Gets (1997)

*****

4. Wilbur Force
The Little Shop of Horrors (1960)

*****

3. Frank Costello
The Departed (2006)

*****

2. Jack Torrance
The Shining (1980)

*****

1. R.P. McMurphy
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Friday, April 20, 2012

Movie Review: CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND

http://thismovieguy.blogspot.com/search/label/Melinda%20DillonCLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND
1977
PG


"I just want to know that it's really happening."
-- Roy Neary

Close Encounters of the Third Kind is a 1977 dramatic sci-fi film directed by Steven Spielberg that has become one of the more iconic films of the 1970s. After strange occurrences are reported all around the globe, a team of scientists and investigators led by Claude Lacombe (François Truffaut) desperately attempts to discover the meaning of these seemingly supernatural events. At the same time, the audience meets Roy Neary (Richard Dreyfuss), an electrician who has a close encounter with "something unusual" late one night. After his meeting, however, Roy starts to see a vision that he can't quite make out, and it slowly starts to drive him mad. He becomes invested in the idea of another alien encounter, and his apparent delirium is enough to drive his wife Ronnie (Teri Garr) and his children out of there home. Roy keeps at it, however, and he ultimately learns that he must make his way to a remote area of Wyoming. Joined by a woman named Jillian Guiler (Melinda Dillon), whose son Barry (Cary Guffey) was taken by the aliens, Roy sets out for Devil's Peak in Wyoming, only to face resistance from the United States Army and the aforementioned Lacombe.

Close Encounters was one of those films that I grew up seeing here and there, but I'm not quite sure when I actually first had the chance to sit down and watch it in its entirety. I can distinctly remember seeing the Barry abduction scene as a child because I can recall the sheer terror it made me experience. It was only recently that I was able to find a copy of the 30th Anniversary Edition DVD that I had the time to sit down and watch the film again, and boy, was it grand. I had almost forgotten just how good the movie actually was.

Let's start out with some of its accolades, shall we? For starters, the film has been recognized by audiences and critics alike as one of the better films to emerge from the 1970s. At the time, it was nominated for eight Academy Awards, including nominations for Spielberg's directing and Dillon's acting. It ultimately won the award for Best Cinematography. Today, the film currently holds a 95% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com, which offers the following critical consensus:
Close Encounters' most iconic bits (the theme, the mashed-potato sculpture, etc.) have been so thoroughly absorbed into the culture that it's easy to forget that its treatment of aliens as peaceful beings rather than warmongering monsters was somewhat groundbreaking in 1977.
I actually hadn't thought about this point until re-watching the movie yesterday. When you take a look back at the films that dealt with extraterrestrial life before 1977, you'll find a lot of movies where the creatures from outer space are attempting to destroy the human race. I mean, take films like 1958's The Blob or the classic 1953 film The War of the Worlds. It was films like these that offered the standard idea of alien life back in the 1950s and 1960s, and although the concept of a friendly alien was not entirely unprecedented - one need only look to the brilliant 1951 film The Day the Earth Stood Still - it simply wasn't the idea that had forced its way into the collective public consciousness.

In a way, it's surprising that Close Encounters continues to have a staying power with audiences today, seeing as most alien-centric films in today's Hollywood are all about violence and destruction. I mean, if you take a look at 2011 alone, you'll find films like Apollo 18, Attack the Block, Battle: Los Angeles, Cowboys & Aliens, The Darkest Hour and The Thing that all follow that basic premise. And so, it's something quite refreshing to know that at one time, a cast and crew of actors and filmmakers were able to create something so special and so unique, and even thirty-five years later, the film can still have an emotional impact on an audience.

There are a number of reasons as to why Close Encounters works so well as a film. For starters, we're offered a brilliant screenplay written by Spielberg and a few other collaborators. While the film offers a relatively simple story, it manages to show that story from a number of angles, giving the audience an eclectic view of the extraterrestrial occurrences throughout the film. On one side, we're seeing Roy and Jillian's reaction to their alien encounters; on the other, we see the scientists and military. What's interesting, however, is that all parties are working toward the same goal: understanding. Often times in alien-centric films, you'll have a military force who simply wants to eliminate the alien presence, even while a few scientists and civilians want to study and learn from them. The somewhat forced collaboration between the two groups in this film makes for a bit of drama as well as a sense of unity in the face of first contact with life from another world. And, at the end of the day, the film is entirely about communication. While the central focus will always be on the way the humans first communicate with the aliens, there's a lot of room to notice the communication between the humans as well. At nearly every stage of the film, we have some sort of translator for the Lacombe character, and at times, the dialogue between he and someone else can get a little confusing and convoluted. I think that only enhances the brilliance of the film's final act, when the humans are able to make contact with the aliens in a beautifully simple fashion.

We're also getting a string of quality acting throughout the film, and the actors easily find ways to bring their characters to life. It's hard to imagine that the role of Roy Neary wasn't written with Richard Dreyfuss in mind because it fits his personality to a tee. He has the opportunity to let loose and have fun with his performance, and it ultimately proves to be a compelling one. As was previously mentioned, Dillon managed to secure an Oscar nomination for her supporting performance, and I think that says enough about how well she does in the film. I also thought that Truffaut, who perhaps may be more famous as a writer and director than as an actor, did a splendid job as well.

One of the defining parts of this film, however, has to be the musical score, which was composed by none other than the great John Williams. I grew up listening to Williams' scores as a child, and in many cases, I knew a film's music before I ever had a chance to see the film. Close Encounters was one such case, but now that I'm able to see how well the music fits into this particular film. While it may not be his most iconic score, I would argue that Williams may have created one of his most beautiful here. For those of you who may be unfamiliar, here's a little taste of what he brought to the table for Close Encounters:


At the end of the day, Close Encounters of the Third Kind is one of the more iconic films ever to grace the silver screen. I'm sure there's been a point in your life where you've seen a snippet of the film here and there, but if you haven't had a chance to take in the film in its entirety, I strongly suggest you do, and do so soon. The film is simply brilliant, and although it may have been a tad bit overshadowed in 1977 by a little film called Star Wars, there's still so much to love about Close Encounters that I'm sure you'll find a way to enjoy it.


Movie Review Summary
Grade: A-
2 Thumbs Up