A movie weak on plot but high on artistic expression leaves me bored.
American Film Institute Ranking: #68/100 Academy Awards: Nominated for eight winning four including Best Picture. My Rating:
I find Gene Kelly super talented, but it wasn’t enough to carry this movie.
Winner of Best Picture in 1951, “An American in Paris” is more about the celebration of the arts than a cohesive movie. The plot and characters in this movie start out having much to do with one another, like you would expect. By the end, however, the characters are merely props to be inserted into the next dance number.
Best war biography I’ve seen, it captures the complicated picture of Patton.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #89/100 Awards: Nominated for ten , winning seven for Best Picture, Director, Actor, Original Screenplay and others. My Rating:
This particular DVD opened with the Francis Ford Coppola (who won an oscar for Best Original Screenplay). He was quick to talk about the trouble of depicting Patton — he had to balance pressure from the Far Right and Far Left political spectrums wanting to turn him into a caricature for their own purposes when he was much more than that.
Coppola found the right balance, bringing to light all the positive, negative, and crazy attributes that makes Patton worthy of his own eponymous film.
Why didn’t the movie end shortly after the chariot race!!!
American Film Institutes Ranking: #72/100 Awards: Nominated for 12 winning 11: Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, and on and on and on… My Rating:
As television started to take away potential movie goers, Hollywood decided that they had to do stuff that television couldn’t: epics. The 1950s and early 60s produced a slew of these films (Spartacus, Lawrence of Arabia, El Cid, The Ten Commandments) and the style was defined by length, scale, scope, and production.
Ben-Hur encapsulates all of this. The sets, scenes, and clothing all beautifully intricate and worthy of the epic genre. Unfortunately, the movie runs way too long. The apex of this film is the chariot race, a scene that even upon recalling gives me goose bumps, but then there is still another hour and half left afterward. As I watched the clock tick away, my rating began to slip — all the way from a perfect five to a solid three.
There, I said it. Godfather’s second incarnation is better than the first, having a cleaner plot and an interesting juxtaposition of past and present.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #32/100 Awards: Nominated for nine Academy Awards, winning Best Picture, Director, Supporting Actor (De Niro), Adapted Screenplay, & Score. My Rating:
Initial reaction to this movie was divided with many people not liking the two story arcs happening at once. Canby writing for the New York Times described the film as “stitched together from leftover parts.” The film later became a focus of reevaluation with some considering it a better film than the first. Roger Ebert even went as far as to re-rate the movie with his highest ranking retrospectively.
Something about this film caught my eye more than the first, and I think it centers around me viewing the two-story arcs positively; it gives us time to breath from present day events while providing a solid, stand-alone story.
This movie has it all: interesting story, good setting, great acting, amazing musical score, but the character of Terry Malloy is in another stratosphere.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #8/100 Awards: Nominated for twelve winning eight, including Best Picture, Director, Actor, and Supporting Actress. My Rating:
At its heart, this is a classic good vs. evil. Where it gets complicated is every character has a lean they are facing, and we wait to see how they are going to act under pressure. The character that has the most pressure is Terry Malloy; he a complicated and fascinating lead and is the reason this movie is worthy of such high praise.
Popeye Doyle is unethical and unscrupulous, but at least his fixation is in the right place.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #70/100 Awards: Nominated for eight, winning Best Picture, Actor, Director and Adapted Screenplay. My Rating:
The movie is a sprint interspersed with a few jogs to slightly catch our breath.
This rapid pace doesn’t allow us to get to know anyone or anything — the driving force behind all the characters is a complete enigma to us. This had the potential to detract more from the movie than it did if it weren’t so gripping due to acting and action.
The moment you’ve been waiting for finally comes 4/5ths through the movie, but it all seems too late and anti-climatic.
American Film Institutes Ranking: #98/100 Academy Awards: Nominated for several: best picture, actor, screenplay, director, supporting actor. Won for supporting actor (Gene Hackman), Director (Clint Eastwood) and Picture. My Rating:
I’m okay with Westerns. My favorite book of all time happens to be a Western (Lonesome Dove). Older generations who display the red,white and blue at every door and buy cars made only in Detroit view Westerns as a quintessential American representation. The West represents the idyllic egalitarian society with no centralized government and each small community creating their own standards for law and acceptable behavior — no need for big government here!
It all works out for you as long as you are the swashbuckling cowboy and not one of the the characters regelated to the edges such as women, children, seniors, and those not willing to be violent. Unforgiven continues with this deconstruction of the Western narrative, focusing on a protagonist that isn’t glistening with moral righteousness while showing the real toll of vigilante justice. So while Unforgiven is certainly a Western, it tries to butt up against the glorification of the genre.
My problem is that in the process of flipping the script, you lose connection with the characters leaving a resolution that is ultimately unsatisfying.