Well my goal was to try and have a new post every Monday. I know I haven't really had a schedule but was going to try. Well didn't make it this week. The Lost Series finale took up four and a half hours of my time on Monday. That used up all my thinking for the day. So here it is a day late.
I decided to try something new this week. For the first time I watched a movie from netflix.com. I didn't realize that I could watch movies on the Internet and it didn't affect how many DVDs I would get a month. And it worked pretty well. I watched most of it at once but towards the end my dog was making a lot of noise and wanted to eat. I was hoping she would let me finish the last 15 minutes but she wouldn't wait. So I paused till the next day when I watched the last 15 minutes.
The movie is about a rich heiress(Claudette Colbert) who runs away from her father to meet up with a man she secretly married. She leaves her father in Florida and takes a bus up to New York. On the bus she meets up with a reporter(Clark Gable) looking for his next story. He promises to help her as long as he can have exclusive rights to the story. Of course as they travel together they fall in love and by the time she gets to New York she needs to make a decision as to stay married to her husband or have that marriage annulled and marry the man she just fell in love with.
This was the first romantic comedy to win Best Picture, and it was funny and entertaining. The playful banter between the two stars is great, and they get into some funny situations.
The end when she finally admits she loves him is a little over the top for my tastes but not horribly bad. The best line in the movie is at the end when the father asks Clark Gables character if he loves his daughter and Clark Gable says "YES! But don't hold that against me, I'm a little screwy myself!" Although one of the most famous scenes is probably the hitchhiking scene where Clark Gable is trying to show her how to hitchhike using his thumb and it isn't working. And she goes out there and shows a little leg and gets a car on the first try. He says "Why didn't you take off all your clothes? You could have stopped forty cars." Then she replies "Well, ooo, I'll remember that when we need forty cars."
It was one of the first movies to go on to become a real classic. The American Film Institute had it listed as 35 on their Top 100 movies and 8 on the Top 100 Comedies and 38 on their Top 100 Romantic movies. And not only was it the first romantic comedy to win best picture but it was the first of only 3 movies all time to win all 5 of the top Academy Awards. Those are Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Screenplay. That wouldn't happen again for over 40 years. It was also the first of three wins in five years for Frank Capra for Best Director.
While the movie was good and went on to become a classic and probably deserved to win. I am personally liked The Thin Man better. The Thin Man is another comedy (ranked #32 on AFI List of Comedies) about at Nick and Nora Charles a private detective and his rich wife and cant forget their dog Asta who help the police solve a murder while on vacation in New York. This movie is very funny with a lot of good one liners. After watching It Happened One Night I decided to rewatch this one to compare the two. And while The Thin Man had some slow moments I still find it funnier. All Nick cares about is getting his next drink but he still solves the case. The dinner party at the end is hilarious when he invites all the suspects to dinner to reveal who the killer is. They ended up making 5 more Thin Man movies. Definitely one of my favorite movies of the 30's.
Its interesting that both movies were up for best picture. These days you hardly ever find any comedies nominated for best picture and here you had two really funny movies nominated. And they both have to do with rich heiress'. I think its because of when they were made. It was in the middle of the depression and people just needed an escape. And what is better then seeing rich people just enjoying themselves and getting into hilarious situations. And after saying that we will see how Sex and the City 2 does this weekend. Another movie about rich women in funny situations. Funny how history repeats itself. I just don't think Sex and the City 2 will be nominated for best picture. But you never know now that there are 10 movies nominated.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
Cavalcade
I was excited to rent this movie since I had never seen it before. The problem is that it is one of the two movies that won best picture that are not available on DVD. So I had to go down to the local library and get a library card then have the VHS tape sent over from another library since my library didn't have it. Then when I finally got it I wasnt sure if my VCR would work since I havent used it in so long. I was just glad the VCR was connected to the TV since I wasnt sure I did that last time I moved. So I popped in the tape and started watching the movie. And at first it was all snowy and staticy. I was like oh crap how do I adjust tracking again??But it must have been the tape because after a minute or two it started working. So all I missed was the begining title cards. But at one point I was having trouble hearing because the sound quality was kind of poor I was thinking I should put subtitles on but then realized you cant do that with a VCR. After changing the battery in the remote I was finally all set so I could pause and rewind when needed(for example when the dog was barking or my wife called me on the phone).
So after all the excitement of getting the movie and getting the VCR to work I finally watched it. The movie follows two British families from 1899 to 1933. One a rich family with two sons and the other their servent family with a daughter. It starts with the two fathers going off to fight in the Boer War then moves on from there. Most movies like this would take about 2-3 hours to tell the story this one did it in 1 and a half hours. So, it moved pretty quick through time. First their kids are young then the one is getting married, then he dies on the titanic, then their other son joins the army and fights in WWI.
The quick pace of the movie makes it hard to really get invested in any of the characters. Its hard to really care about any of them. The one we are supposed to care about is the mother of the rich family who struggles through all the hardships of losing her boys. But that doesn't really come across very well and she just turns into a depressing character. The only real interesting part is how the one family goes from being servents to being upper class when their daughters becomes a famous dancer. The movie definetly falls to the bottom of best picture winners. Maybe not the worst but very close.
Other movies that came out in 1933 that went on to become classics.
So after all the excitement of getting the movie and getting the VCR to work I finally watched it. The movie follows two British families from 1899 to 1933. One a rich family with two sons and the other their servent family with a daughter. It starts with the two fathers going off to fight in the Boer War then moves on from there. Most movies like this would take about 2-3 hours to tell the story this one did it in 1 and a half hours. So, it moved pretty quick through time. First their kids are young then the one is getting married, then he dies on the titanic, then their other son joins the army and fights in WWI.
The quick pace of the movie makes it hard to really get invested in any of the characters. Its hard to really care about any of them. The one we are supposed to care about is the mother of the rich family who struggles through all the hardships of losing her boys. But that doesn't really come across very well and she just turns into a depressing character. The only real interesting part is how the one family goes from being servents to being upper class when their daughters becomes a famous dancer. The movie definetly falls to the bottom of best picture winners. Maybe not the worst but very close.
Other movies that came out in 1933 that went on to become classics.
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
Grand Hotel
Grand Hotel
The 5th movie to win Best Picture. The story of the comings and goings of people at a luxurious hotel in Berlin. The movie mostly focuses on The Baron who is friendly and charmes almost everyone. We come to find out that he is a gambler and a thief and his only reason for being at the hotel is steal some pearls from a famous ballerina. The rest of the cast of characters are just a interesting. Especially Mr. Kringelein who is dying and decides to spend his savings and his last precious time living life to the fullest. He even gets to confront the owner of the company that he worked for who also happens to be staying in the hotel.
The appeal of the movie during the original release was the cast. It had some of MGM’s largest stars of the time and was considered financially risky because of the large salaries paid to the stars. Guess it would be similar to Oceans 11 today,lets see how many big name stars we can get into one movie. The two biggest stars in it are the two female actresses Joan Crawford and Greta Garbo. Also in the movie are the brothers John and Lionel Barrymore who are the grandfather and grand-uncle of Drew Barrymore. It seems like the behind the scenes of the movie might be more interesting then the movie. Apparently Greta Garbo and Joan Crawford did not get along and the never appeared in a single scene together so neither one could upstage the other, and after initial previews MGM went and added more scenes of Greta Garbo so it didn't seem like Joan Crawford was the star of the movie.
The first time I watched this movie a few years ago I must have been real tired and fell asleep or just wasn't paying attention. I remember thinking the movie made no sense. But this time I paid attention and actually followed the movie. I found out its really not that bad. The characters were really interesting and I enjoy movies that have multiple characters that meet randomly and we get to see how each one makes a difference in the others life. It reminds me a little of another best picture winner Crash just on a smaller scale. The love stories in the movie were kind of the least interesting part but overall the movie was good. I was reading something online about movies that aged badly over time. It listed this one as an example. While it might not be a great movie it certainly isn't the worst movie, and I don't think it aged that badly.
Interesting note. This is the only movie to win Best Picture that was not nominated for any other Academy Awards. Also AFI had the line "I want to be Alone" as number 50on their 100 Best Lines from movies list(Not sure why, I don't think it was that memorable). Also that year at the Academy Awards Walt Disney won an honorary award for the creation of Mickey Mouse.
The 5th movie to win Best Picture. The story of the comings and goings of people at a luxurious hotel in Berlin. The movie mostly focuses on The Baron who is friendly and charmes almost everyone. We come to find out that he is a gambler and a thief and his only reason for being at the hotel is steal some pearls from a famous ballerina. The rest of the cast of characters are just a interesting. Especially Mr. Kringelein who is dying and decides to spend his savings and his last precious time living life to the fullest. He even gets to confront the owner of the company that he worked for who also happens to be staying in the hotel.
The appeal of the movie during the original release was the cast. It had some of MGM’s largest stars of the time and was considered financially risky because of the large salaries paid to the stars. Guess it would be similar to Oceans 11 today,lets see how many big name stars we can get into one movie. The two biggest stars in it are the two female actresses Joan Crawford and Greta Garbo. Also in the movie are the brothers John and Lionel Barrymore who are the grandfather and grand-uncle of Drew Barrymore. It seems like the behind the scenes of the movie might be more interesting then the movie. Apparently Greta Garbo and Joan Crawford did not get along and the never appeared in a single scene together so neither one could upstage the other, and after initial previews MGM went and added more scenes of Greta Garbo so it didn't seem like Joan Crawford was the star of the movie.
The first time I watched this movie a few years ago I must have been real tired and fell asleep or just wasn't paying attention. I remember thinking the movie made no sense. But this time I paid attention and actually followed the movie. I found out its really not that bad. The characters were really interesting and I enjoy movies that have multiple characters that meet randomly and we get to see how each one makes a difference in the others life. It reminds me a little of another best picture winner Crash just on a smaller scale. The love stories in the movie were kind of the least interesting part but overall the movie was good. I was reading something online about movies that aged badly over time. It listed this one as an example. While it might not be a great movie it certainly isn't the worst movie, and I don't think it aged that badly.
Interesting note. This is the only movie to win Best Picture that was not nominated for any other Academy Awards. Also AFI had the line "I want to be Alone" as number 50on their 100 Best Lines from movies list(Not sure why, I don't think it was that memorable). Also that year at the Academy Awards Walt Disney won an honorary award for the creation of Mickey Mouse.
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Cimarron
Cimarron the 4th movie to win best picture and the first western to win. The movie follows a family during the turn of the 20 century as Oklahoma goes from Indian territory to statehood. It starts with a great land rush scene and how Yancey Cravat an adventurer moves his wife and son to a small town and starts a little local newspaper. We get to see the town grow into a big city and how people change.
The first time I saw this movie a while back I thought it was the worst movie to win best picture. Now after watching it a second time I still think its one of the worst movies to win. I hate to say it was good for its time because it wasn't. All Quiet on the Western Front won the year before was a great movie, and Charlie Chaplin's movie City Lights (which is on The American Film Institutes Top 100 movies of all time) and Fritz Lang's movie M (although its in German is a great movie and ranks on IMDB list of top 250 movies) both came out the same year as Cimarron. Neither of those two movies were nominated for best picture proving that the academy except in a few cases was never very good at nominating movies that will go on to be classics.
So what made Cimarron so bad. It was just boring. After the initial land rush scene which was the most exciting part of the movie it was all downhill from there. Typical with other early 30's movies there was no background music. I read somewhere that directors felt it would confuse the audience if there was background music and they didn't know where it was coming from. Also the acting was a little over the top, and the story kind of meanders. The biggest problem I had with the movie was the racial stereotypes. Maybe I am a product of the age of political correctness but it seems like this movie set out to offend everyone, Blacks, Indians, Jews, and people with disabilities. I know that at the time these things weren't considered but it made it a little difficult to watch for me. I find it interesting that the Disney movie Song of the South has never been released on DVD in the United States because of the racial stereotypes but no one seems to have a problem with this movie and I think the racial stereotypes in this movie were much worse.
The one scene that was very odd to me was the Gospel meeting they had during the early creation of the town. During this gospel meeting they ask Yancey to give a little sermon even though he is not a minister. So during the sermon he is talking about some outlaws then he pulls out his gun and shots the outlaw that is there. Then he says "Fellow citizens! Under the circumstances, we will fore go the sermon and conclude this service with a brief word of prayer". Guess after killing someone the only thing left to do is pray. Very odd.
Some other options from 1931 if you are looking for a good movie
The first time I saw this movie a while back I thought it was the worst movie to win best picture. Now after watching it a second time I still think its one of the worst movies to win. I hate to say it was good for its time because it wasn't. All Quiet on the Western Front won the year before was a great movie, and Charlie Chaplin's movie City Lights (which is on The American Film Institutes Top 100 movies of all time) and Fritz Lang's movie M (although its in German is a great movie and ranks on IMDB list of top 250 movies) both came out the same year as Cimarron. Neither of those two movies were nominated for best picture proving that the academy except in a few cases was never very good at nominating movies that will go on to be classics.
So what made Cimarron so bad. It was just boring. After the initial land rush scene which was the most exciting part of the movie it was all downhill from there. Typical with other early 30's movies there was no background music. I read somewhere that directors felt it would confuse the audience if there was background music and they didn't know where it was coming from. Also the acting was a little over the top, and the story kind of meanders. The biggest problem I had with the movie was the racial stereotypes. Maybe I am a product of the age of political correctness but it seems like this movie set out to offend everyone, Blacks, Indians, Jews, and people with disabilities. I know that at the time these things weren't considered but it made it a little difficult to watch for me. I find it interesting that the Disney movie Song of the South has never been released on DVD in the United States because of the racial stereotypes but no one seems to have a problem with this movie and I think the racial stereotypes in this movie were much worse.
The one scene that was very odd to me was the Gospel meeting they had during the early creation of the town. During this gospel meeting they ask Yancey to give a little sermon even though he is not a minister. So during the sermon he is talking about some outlaws then he pulls out his gun and shots the outlaw that is there. Then he says "Fellow citizens! Under the circumstances, we will fore go the sermon and conclude this service with a brief word of prayer". Guess after killing someone the only thing left to do is pray. Very odd.
Some other options from 1931 if you are looking for a good movie
Saturday, April 17, 2010
War Movies
After watching All Quiet on the Western Front I began thinking that there isn't that many movies about WWI. Then it got me thinking about other wars. The war with the most movies based on it is WWII, which it probably should be as there are many different stories to be told about that war. But what about other wars. Each war has their own stories.
Take for instance The Revolutionary War. Lots of good stories from that war and the only movies I can think of that are about it are 1776, The Patriot and a movie on the History Channel about Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The website ranker.com lists only 13 movies about the revolutionary war. I guess after living in Boston and being around all that history it surprises me that there aren't more movies based on it.
Then I did a search on IMDB for movies about the War of 1812(ranker.com had nothing listed for the war of 1812). That came up with only 3 movies, and one of them is a remake of the first one. Really only 2 stories to tell from the War of 1812? The war where the British burned down half of Washington DC, where Andrew Jackson fought the Battle of New Orleans, and the war that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled Banner. And the only 2 stories we can tell from that war are 2 versions about the pirate who helped Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans and the other movie takes place during the war but has nothing to do with the war. No wonder when the History Channel did a special on the War of 1812 they called it the forgotten war.
Maybe I just watch too much History Channel, but it just surprises me how much certain history gets overlooked. I recently saw a special on the History Channel about Andrew Jackson, and wow, there is a president that we should make a movie about. Really fascinating guy. And instead we had Oliver Stone make a movie about George W. Bush. I know Steven Spielberg is making a movie about Lincoln with Liam Neeson which will hopefully be good since there aren't that many Civil War movies either. Guess all I am saying is it would be nice to see movies from different parts of history instead of just focusing on the same time period over and over.
According to Ranker.com here are the number of movies made about each war. Some of the movies on the lists are made for TV and some I never heard of. And of course they aren't necessarily good movies that list would be much shorter. But they give a general idea about how many movies were made based on these wars.
WWII-207
Vietnam War-76
WWI-54
The Civil War-28(this number surprised me I actually thought there would be more)
Iraq War-19
Revolutionary War-13
Gulf War Movies-8
War of 1812-0 (3 according to IMDB)
Korean War-0 (38 according to IMDB but the only one I could think of was M.A.S.H.)
Take for instance The Revolutionary War. Lots of good stories from that war and the only movies I can think of that are about it are 1776, The Patriot and a movie on the History Channel about Washington's crossing of the Delaware. The website ranker.com lists only 13 movies about the revolutionary war. I guess after living in Boston and being around all that history it surprises me that there aren't more movies based on it.
Then I did a search on IMDB for movies about the War of 1812(ranker.com had nothing listed for the war of 1812). That came up with only 3 movies, and one of them is a remake of the first one. Really only 2 stories to tell from the War of 1812? The war where the British burned down half of Washington DC, where Andrew Jackson fought the Battle of New Orleans, and the war that inspired Francis Scott Key to write the Star Spangled Banner. And the only 2 stories we can tell from that war are 2 versions about the pirate who helped Andrew Jackson in the Battle of New Orleans and the other movie takes place during the war but has nothing to do with the war. No wonder when the History Channel did a special on the War of 1812 they called it the forgotten war.
Maybe I just watch too much History Channel, but it just surprises me how much certain history gets overlooked. I recently saw a special on the History Channel about Andrew Jackson, and wow, there is a president that we should make a movie about. Really fascinating guy. And instead we had Oliver Stone make a movie about George W. Bush. I know Steven Spielberg is making a movie about Lincoln with Liam Neeson which will hopefully be good since there aren't that many Civil War movies either. Guess all I am saying is it would be nice to see movies from different parts of history instead of just focusing on the same time period over and over.
According to Ranker.com here are the number of movies made about each war. Some of the movies on the lists are made for TV and some I never heard of. And of course they aren't necessarily good movies that list would be much shorter. But they give a general idea about how many movies were made based on these wars.
WWII-207
Vietnam War-76
WWI-54
The Civil War-28(this number surprised me I actually thought there would be more)
Iraq War-19
Revolutionary War-13
Gulf War Movies-8
War of 1812-0 (3 according to IMDB)
Korean War-0 (38 according to IMDB but the only one I could think of was M.A.S.H.)
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
All Quiet on the Western Front
All Quiet on the Western Front won best picture in 1931 at the 3rd Academy Awards. Not a lot of best picture winners go down in history as a classic but this one does. It is one of the best war movies of all time. It has a very anti-war message and shows the horrors of trench warfare during WWI. It follows the life of a soldier from when he firsts enlists to his death. In the beginning he is very gung-ho. Excited to go and fight for his father land. But once he gets there he soon realizes that war is hell. He watches as most of his friends die and has to deal with the mental anguish of having to kill a man with his knife.
The movie is pretty graphic for its time. It was made before the production code was strictly enforced and the director and the studio wanted it to be an accurate portrayal of war. While not bloody you do see some guy get blown up and see his hands still holding on to some barbed wire.
The sound was pretty amazing also. While there was no background score the sounds of the bombs and machine guns felt realistic. Even scared my dog a little and I have watched other war movies with her before without a problem.
Its the movies place in history that I find interesting. First of all its one of the few movies about WWI. Most war movies take place during WWII or after. This is one of those rare war movies made between the two world wars. The social response to the movie was interesting too. In Germany it was banned by the Nazi's because of its anti-war message and in the United States it was protested because it portrayed the German enemy as sympathetic. The best thing about the movie is it still feels relevant. Even after 70 years it still gets it message through. It truly is a classic.
For those of would rather read the book.
The movie is pretty graphic for its time. It was made before the production code was strictly enforced and the director and the studio wanted it to be an accurate portrayal of war. While not bloody you do see some guy get blown up and see his hands still holding on to some barbed wire.
The sound was pretty amazing also. While there was no background score the sounds of the bombs and machine guns felt realistic. Even scared my dog a little and I have watched other war movies with her before without a problem.
Its the movies place in history that I find interesting. First of all its one of the few movies about WWI. Most war movies take place during WWII or after. This is one of those rare war movies made between the two world wars. The social response to the movie was interesting too. In Germany it was banned by the Nazi's because of its anti-war message and in the United States it was protested because it portrayed the German enemy as sympathetic. The best thing about the movie is it still feels relevant. Even after 70 years it still gets it message through. It truly is a classic.
For those of would rather read the book.
Friday, April 2, 2010
The Broadway Melody of 1929
The Broadway Melody won Best Picture in 1930. Saw it advertised as the first musical to win best picture. Which is true but is also only the second movie ever to win best picture and the first movie with sound to win best picture. If you have seen Singing in the Rain(which is a fictionalized behind the scenes of The Broadway Melody) then you have seen some of the difficulties of integrating sound into movies. Directors weren't sure how to film a movie with sound. There are still a lot of parts with no sound and they still used title cards to start certain scenes. Other interesting fact about the movie was that it was the first movie to win Best Picture without winning any other awards.
The movie itself isn't too bad. Its about two sisters who move to NY from the country and try to make it big on Broadway. Hannah is the smart business savvy sister who is dating some guy from the city and Queenie is the pretty blond who gets by on her looks. When Hannah's boyfriend gets them an audition with Mr. Zanfield(an obviously take on Broadway legend Ziegfeld) he puts Queenie at the star and Hannah gets cut from the show. Of course this causes some friction between the two sisters and things get more complicated when Hannah's boyfriend falls in love with Queenie. Fairly standard plot I guess even for that time as I read that critics at the time found it kind of cliche. The real draw of the movie and one of the reasons it probably one best picture was because as the tag line said it was "all talking, all singing, all dancing". I found the musical sequences a little lackluster probably because I am use to watching more modern movies but guess it was good for its time. Overall not the worst movie I have ever seen and while I haven't seen any of the other movies nominated for best picture in 1930 I read that this really was the best one.
The movie itself isn't too bad. Its about two sisters who move to NY from the country and try to make it big on Broadway. Hannah is the smart business savvy sister who is dating some guy from the city and Queenie is the pretty blond who gets by on her looks. When Hannah's boyfriend gets them an audition with Mr. Zanfield(an obviously take on Broadway legend Ziegfeld) he puts Queenie at the star and Hannah gets cut from the show. Of course this causes some friction between the two sisters and things get more complicated when Hannah's boyfriend falls in love with Queenie. Fairly standard plot I guess even for that time as I read that critics at the time found it kind of cliche. The real draw of the movie and one of the reasons it probably one best picture was because as the tag line said it was "all talking, all singing, all dancing". I found the musical sequences a little lackluster probably because I am use to watching more modern movies but guess it was good for its time. Overall not the worst movie I have ever seen and while I haven't seen any of the other movies nominated for best picture in 1930 I read that this really was the best one.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)