Movie List for February, 2010

Hey Folks,

In continuing with our little temporary fiction that our blogging and are viewing are all happening at the same time, here are the movies will be “watching” in the month of February, 2010.  We encourage those of you who want to, to “watch along with us".  The movies are:

117. The Jazz Singer (1927)

116. Swing Time (1936)

115. Patton (1970)

114. Frankenstein (1931)

113. 12 Angry Men (1957)

112. Mutiny on the Bounty (1935)

111. A Night at the Opera (1935)

John

118. Sophie's Choice (1982)

Stars:  Meryl Streep (Sophie Zawistowski), Kevin Kline (Nathan Landau), Peter MacNicol (Stingo)

Director:  Alan J. Pakula

Awards / Honors

• 1 Oscar Win - Best Actress (Meryl Streep)
• 4 Additional Oscar Nominations -  Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Music (Original Score), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
• # 91 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Movies list (2007)

Genre:  Drama

Running Time:  2 hours, 30 minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  3 1/2 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

John's Take

I find that Sophie’s Choice is a difficult movie to write about because it falls into a category that I like to call “twist-movies”.  Twist-movies are those films where the whole story of the film centers around one vital piece of information that the viewer doesn’t know about at the start of the movie, but get reveled for dramatic effect usually near the end of the movie.  M. Night Shyamalan is the current king of such movies, but there are a wide variety of movies that fall into this category.  M. Night’s The Sixth Sense for instance, Citizen Kane, The Usual Suspects, and The Shawshank Redemption, which uses the axiom of “Chekhov's gun” for a nice little surprise ending, are just a few examples of twist-movies.  Being a twist-movie isn’t a bad thing especially when the “twist” is pulled off well, as it is in Sophie’s Choice.

The weakness, if you want to call it that, of twist-movies is that such a large amount of the oomph – impact, charm, whatever term that is best applied to a particular genre – is invested in the twist, that the reveal of said twist is usually is the single most important aspect of the film.  If the viewer already knows what the twist is, well, that takes some of the fun out of the movie doesn’t it?  Thus, how does one go about writing or discussing a twist-film without touching on the single most important thing about that film?

Now, it isn’t like Beth or I have been particularly concerned with such things as “spoiler alerts” in this blog, mainly because I think it is a little silly when you are talking about movies that have been around for decades. The oldest movie on our list is nearly a hundred years old; Sophie’s Choice itself is nearly 30 years old and the subject of any number of books, interviews, websites, blogs, etc, so I think it is safe to say the movie has already been “spoiled”.  That being said, I don’t feel the need to give the twist away needlessly.  I hadn’t seen Sophie’s Choice before the start of the Odyssey, but I was very familiar with the story, and thus knew the twist ahead of time.  While that certainly didn’t ruin the movie for me, I am sure I would have been a bit more moved if I didn’t know what was going to happen.  So, for the sake of those few of you who don’t know what the twist is, we will instead focus on another question that certainly applies to this movie.

What does it feel like to create, do, perform, or otherwise be part of something that is so widely regarded as excellent, that everything else that one will ever do will always be compared to that piece of work?

Imagine that you are Meryl Streep.  You had already done award-worthy work on films before this one (The Deer Hunter, Manhattan, and Kramer vs. Kramer).  You will go on to do award-worthy work for the next 30 years.  However, every time some hack writer like me comes along that wants to talk about you, they keep coming back to this film because it is “perhaps your finest performance”. Does that start to get on your nerves?  I mean, sure it is a great performance and your Polish accent is spot on, but do you ever get tired of having this one role held up as the sum of your entire career?  I might.  Then again, I might just be happy that I have millions of dollars, the adoration of the public and the ability to do whatever I feel like doing.  I suspect my answer would depend on how fussy I was feeling at the moment.

What if you were Kevin Kline?  You have just finished working on your very first major motion picture – and everyone is telling you that you hit it out of the park.  You receive some well-earned “new comer” buzz in terms of Golden Globe and BAFTA award nominations.  Your future is looking great, and while your career is ultimately very successful (The Big Chill, Silverado) and occasionally recognized as award-worthy (A Fish Called Wanda, Soapdish, Dave), nothing you do ever seems to quite reach the same critical heights as your very first staring role in your very first major film.  Does this bother you at all?  Is there a sports-world equivalent to a career like this?  Isn’t it as if a rookie had gotten to play a vital role in a championship game, went on to have a long and productive career – even occasionally making the play-offs a few times – but they never managed to get back to the “Big Game”?  If there is an actual athletic equivalent to Kevin Kline I would like to hear it.  Ultimately, however, I think if I were Kevin Kline I wouldn’t have a problem with the Sophie’s Choice Legacy.  I am famous, I am rich, and I get invited to the Oscars – nothing to complain about really.

Now, how about if you are Peter MacNicol?  You have one staring role under your belt (the mediocre Dragonslayer) and now you have gotten tapped to star in a historic drama along side Meryl Streep that was written and directed by the man the helmed Klute and All the President’s Men.  Don’t you think you have stumbled on your “big break?

Even once the movie comes out, and despite the fact that people aren’t exactly heaping praise on you like they are Streep and Kline, the movie is still a critical and commercial hit that you played a major part in.  Don’t you still feel like the sky’s the limit for your career at this point?  I certainly would.  Now, are you still feeling that way seven years later when you are portraying Janosz, the guy with the funky accent, in Ghostbusters II?  Maybe not so much.  I mean sure, he has managed to stay employed over the years, something that thousands of actors dream of, but I think if I were him I would have a hard time dealing with the fact that I starred in a critically acclaimed three-man show yet I am the only one of the three that no one remembers.  Call me petty, but that would just eat me up inside.  Does Streep or Kline even return his phone calls?  I bet they don’t.

I feel bad for Peter.  I think we all should.  Perhaps, the lack of appreciation he gets may in fact be the cruelest twist of the film.  And I think I give Sophie’s Choice – 4 Stars.

John

119. My Fair Lady (1964)

Stars:  Audrey Hepburn (Eliza Doolittle), Rex Harrison (Henry Higgins), Wilfrid Hyde-White (Colonel Hugh Pickering), Stanley Holloway (Alfred P. Doolittle), Gladys Cooper (Mrs. Higgins)

Director:  George Cukor 

 

Awards / Honors

• 8 Oscar wins - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor (Rex Harrison), Best Cinematography, Best Sound, Best Music (Orginal Score), Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design
• 4 Additional Nominations - Best Supporting Actor (Stanley Holloway), Best Supporting Actress (Gladys Cooper), Best Writing (Adpated Screenplay), Best Film Editing
• #91 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Movies list (1997)
• #12 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Pasions list (2002)
• #17 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Songs list -"I Could Have Danced All Night" (2004)
• #  8 on AFI's 100 Years of Musicals list (2006)

Genre:  Musical

Running Time:  2 Hours, 51 minutes

Format:  DVD (Not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  4 1/2 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 5 Stars)

 

John's Take

I am staging a little protest this post. As Official Friends of Beth and John’s Odyssey might be able to tell, I have been doing most of the blogging so far.  In fact, Beth has hardly been doing any blogging at all.  What you all may not realize, however, is that this blog is in fact Beth’s idea – and so far I have been doing all the heavy lifting.

So, since Beth LOVES this movie, I am going to forego my usual 1,000+ words post in a sign of protest.  If you want to read something meaningful and witty or at least something that the blogger in question thinks is meaningful and witty, about My Fair Lady you will all just have to wait for Beth to write it. I am simply saying the following:

1. It is a good movie.

2. It is way, way, way too long

3. I give it 4 Stars

I will be back for the next post.

John

 

120. A Place in the Sun (1951)

Stars:  Montgomery Clift (George Eastman), Elizabeth Taylor (Angela Vickers), Shelley Winters (Alice Tripp), Anne Revere (Hannah Eastman), Herbert Heyes (Charles Eastman), Raymond Burr (District Attorney R. Frank Marlow)

Director: George Stevens

 Awards / Honors

• 6 Oscar Wins -- Best Director, Best Cinematography (Black and White), Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay), Best Costume Design (Black and White), Best Film Editing, Best Music (Score)
• 3 Additional Nominations -- Best Picture, Best Actor (Montgomery Clift), Best Actress (Shelly Winters)
• # 92 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (1997)
• # 53 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Passions list (2002)
• In 1991, A Place in the Sun was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Genre:  Romance / Drama

Running Time:  2 hours, 2 minutes

Format:  DVD (Not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  1 1/2 Stars (John - 2 Stars, Beth - 1 Star)

John's Take

I am sure that many of you reading this blog have never seen A Place in the Sun.  Assuming that is the case let me see if I can properly explain what the experience of watching this movie was like.

Have you ever seen the “overly-dramatized” 1-800-Contact commercial?  You, know the one where there is a man sitting on a couch and a woman enters the room with a box from 1-800-Contacts in her hands and the man says in an over-the top manner, “They won’t have my prescription – I have special eyes…”, and the woman responds in an equally over-the-top fashion, “Come, come look with your special eyes…”. I am sure you all have seen it, that commercial is everywhere lately. Well, imagine that the man in the commercial is being played by Montgomery Clift, and the woman is being played by Elizabeth Taylor.  Do you have that image in your mind?  OK, now that you have that image firmly cemented in your thoughts, picture having to watch that mess of a commercial approximately 122 times in a row, and you should start to get a fairly good idea what it is like to experience this movie. Yeah, it isn’t pretty.

As Official Friends of Beth and John’s Movie Odyssey are aware of – at least those that care to pay attention :) – Beth and I have fluctuated on our score concerning this motion picture. Please don’t be confused, neither Beth nor I like this film.  About a third of the way into this movie, Beth turned to me and asked if we really had to finish watching this movie.  I told her we had to push through for the sake of the odyssey.  At about the two-thirds complete mark, she turned to me and said, “I can’t believe you are making me watch this movie.” Again, I reminded her of our responsibility. She grunted and turned back to the screen.  Now, keep in mind, this is the same woman that cheers out loud every time the Sex and the City 2 comerical comes on TV; DVRs Torri and Dean and Kendra; and worships twice a week at the altar of Dancing with the Stars. In other words, an over-the-top romantic drama, on paper at least, should have been right up her alley. Yet she couldn’t wait for the thing to end.  I was so proud of her.  However, neither Beth nor I could decide on whether or not to give this movie a 1 Star (Hated it) rating, or a 2 Star (Didn’t like it) rating.  Both of us were on record (vial emails, conversations, etc.) giving it both ratings, but now that we are both officially “publishing” our opinions out here in Inter-verse, I guess it is time for me to finally decide on an official ranking.

Let’s be clear, it isn’t like the movie doesn’t have any redeeming qualities whatsoever. Two things come to mind.  First, if you are an aspiring cinematographer and want to see some very good examples of how setting up a shot a certain way can make a small area look larger, or a room that doesn’t have a large number of people in it appear as if it does, then this is a good movie for you to study.  It is a very “pretty” movie to look at.

Second, a twenty year old Elizabeth Taylor running around in a bathing suit is fairly easy on the eyes.

And, well, um… Those would be the only two good things about this movie that I can think of.

From the very beginning of the film where we see Montgomery Cliff turn toward and look above and beyond the camera in a ridiculously dramatic fashion to the very end where he is being lead down the hall to the electric chair (looking above and beyond the camera), we are subjected to nothing but two full hours of cheesy dialog and close-ups of Elizabeth Taylor and Shelly Winters. And not just normal close-ups, but those kind of close ups that make the edges of the starlet’s face look all soft and ethereal–like (If anybody knows the actual term for those are, please let us know). It is all just so contrived and stomach-churning.  And just when you have survived the worst of it; you have stared into the abyss that is Melodrama Hell but have managed to step away from the edge, Raymond Burr – that’s right freakin’ Ironside in a performance that can be best described as Perry Mason strung out on crystal meth – comes sneaking up on you, gives you a good solid shove and your soul is now lost forever.

I cannot think of anyway a person can hold this movie up as a great movie without using the ”for-its-time“ caveat.  If a large portion of a movie or elements of a movie need to be explained or excused because of when it was made, then odds are it wasn’t actually a great movie to start with.  A truly great movie will always be a truly great movie.  How often do you hear people saying that movies like The Wizard of Oz or The Godfather are “starting to show their age”?  Not often.  Why?  Because they are actually great movies, and A Place in the Sun was, at best, only just great for its time.  It is a shame too because the movie does actually deal with a lot of issues that are still just as prickly and important today – class prejudice, abortion, the definition of love and what will one do to get it – as they were 60 years ago. This movie should still resonate and have something to say to a modern audience, but unfortunately it can’t seem to get out of its own way to actually say them.

So, what shall it be then? Should it be a ranking of 1 Star or a ranking of 2 Stars? As much as I dislike this film, it isn’t wholly without merit (albeit not much).  However, I can’t seem to bring myself to lay the dreaded “1-Star smackdown” on this movie. So, with some reluctance, I give this movie a very weak rating of 2 Stars.

John

121. The Last Picture Show (1971)

Stars:  Timothy Bottoms (Sonny Crawford), Jeff Bridges (Duane Jackson), Cybill Shepherd (Jacy Farrow), Ben Johnson (Sam the Lion), Ellen Burstyn (Lois Farrow), Cloris Leachman (Ruth Popper), Randy Quaid (Lester Marlow)

Director:  Peter Bogdanovich

Awards / Honors 

• 2 Oscar wins - Best Supporting Actor (Ben Johnson), Best Supporting Actress (Cloris Leachman)
• 6 Additional Nominations - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Wrting (Adapted Screenplay), Best Cinematography, Best Supporting Actor (Jeff Bridges), Best Supporting Actress (Ellen Burstyn)
• # 95 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Movies list (2007)
• In 1998, The Last Picture Show was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for preservation in the National Film Registry. 

Genre:  Drama

Running Time: 2 hours, 6 minutes (Director's Cut)

Format: DVD (Not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating: 3 Stars (John - 3 Stars, Beth - 3 Stars)

John's Take

The Last Picture Show was the first movie on the list that I hadn’t seen previously. I knew some general information about the film – like it stars Jeff Bridges and Cybil Shepherd, it was set in a small town in Texas, and it was set in the early 1950’s – but I knew nothing of the details of the story of the movie, etc. So, I was really looking forward into being able to “review” a movie that I hadn’t seen before and admittedly probably wouldn’t have choose to watch on my own if the movie hadn’t been on the list.

I was feeling all film-connoisseur-like. :)

Now having seen it, there are many elements of the movie that I could discuss; such as how Sonny, Duane, and Jacy all desperately want to escape the small town they had lived in their whole lives. I could discuss their fear of turning into their parents and /or other adults that make up the tiny town of Anarene. I could talk about the cinematography and how the purposeful choice of black and white film over color affects the movie. However, there was one thing that kept popping into my mind as I watched the film…

All of you out there who live with your “significant others” already realize that there are some things you do just to keep the peace in the house. Sometimes it is better to just lean in and take one for the team than to fight about it. In my case, one of those things is watching ‘Dancing with the Stars’ with Beth.  She loves that show and I must admit that I have grown to like the show as well. Now, I wouldn’t watch if Beth didn’t want to watch it – I still have that much testosterone left in my system – but at least I don’t feel dirty afterwards like when watching ‘Kendra’.

Side note: Thank God, Kate Gosselin has finally been eliminated this season! I hate that woman with the intensity of a thousand suns. I probably saw maybe an entire episode worth of ‘Jon and Kate plus 8’ during its run on TV, but that was enough to convince me she is a total bitch-on-wheels. This season’s ‘Dancing with the Stars’ has only cemented that image in my mind. While I certainly don’t condone cheating on one’s spouse, and it is probably true that Jon is no man-of-the-year himself, getting a little something-something on the side may have been the only thing keeping Jon from smothering that woman with a pillow while she slept. I’m just saying.

Back during season seven of Dancing with the Stars, Cloris Leachman was one of the participants and her pro was Corky Ballas (and I agree it is probably not a good thing that I remember so much about DwtS). She was terrible, but she was like 81 or something and playing it up for laughs. For a while, she was fairly entertaining. Unfortunately, her shtick started getting old for me about Week 4, but she didn’t get eliminated until about Week 6. In other words, I had more than my fill of Cloris by the time she left.

Fast forward – Beth and I are watching The Last Picture Show and some of those Leachman-DwtS scars hadn’t quite healed over yet. They apparently hadn’t healed over in Beth’s case either as she and I keep making little ‘Dancing with the Stars’ jokes every time Cloris Leachman appeared on the screen. “Hey, it looks like she is going to teach Sonny how to Tango – nudge, nudge, wink, wink.” – that sort of thing (trust me, they seemed funny at the time). We couldn’t help ourselves. The Last Picture Show isn’t exactly the feel-good comedy of the year. We found ourselves doing it to lighten the mood. It then started carrying over to the other stars in the movie. For example, we started making ‘National Lampoon’s Vacation’ jokes every time Randy Quaid came on screen. A young Higgins from Magnum P.I. is in the movie for God’s sake, and you can’t let something like that go by without some sort of comment. Unfortunately I ended up taking it a step too far and ended our little comedy cavalcade when I started making Tron jokes about Jeff Bridges. Just slightly too esoteric a movie reference for Beth, and when I stopped to explain what Tron was about, the melancholy of film kind of seeped back in and put a kibosh on our little routine.

And I think that illustrates, at least for me, both the strength and the weakness of this film. The quiet desperation of the characters to escape their hometown but their inability to do so, hits you in the chest like a punch. That is due, in large part, to what a fabulous job the entire cast does in portraying their characters. In many cases this was the first major movie the members of the cast had ever been in, which makes it even more impressive. The flip side of that coin, however, is that they all become far more famous in other roles, and that it is easy for one’s mind to start to fixate on those other roles as self-defense mechanism from the despair that drips from the film. “Don’t worry Jacy, you won’t feel like such slut once you become a famous model and start your detective agency with Bruce Willis.” It is this second side of the coin that I just had a hard time getting over.

That, and the fact that I kept picturing 81-year-old, Dancing with the Stars Cloris Leachman instead of a 40-year-old Cloris Leachman during her sex scenes, and that I am doomed to carry those images around in my head is ultimately Beth’s fault for me making watch Dancing with the Stars in the first place. Shudder.

It probably deserves better, but I give The Last Picture Show -- 3 Stars.

John

Movies for January, 2010

Again, yes it is April, 2010, but we including these little posts in case anyone wants to "catch up" and watch the movies with us.  :)   So, the movies for January, 2010 are (were):

121. The Last Picture Show (1971)
120. A Place in the Sun (1951)
119. My Fair Lady (1964)
118. Sophie's Choice (1982)

John

122. Do The Right Thing (1989)

Stars:  Spike Lee (Mookie), Danny Aiello (Sal), Ossie Davis (Da Mayor), Giancarlo Esposito (Buggin' Out), John Turturro (Pino), Samuel L. Jackson (Señor Love Daddy), Rosie Perez (Tina), Martin Lawerence (Cee)

Director:  Spike Lee

Awards / Honors

• 2 Oscar Nominations -- Best Supporting Actor (Danny Aiello), Best Wrting (Orginal Screenplay -- Spike Lee)
• #96 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Movies list (2007)
• In 1999, Do The Right Thing was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant". 

Genre: Drama
Running Time: 2 hours
Format:  DVD, Blu-ray
Odyssey Rating:  4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

This movie is really good. Over the years I have seen the whole movie in bits and pieces on cable – first 40 minutes in one sitting, the last 40 minutes in another sitting, etc., so while I had seen the whole movie, I had, up to this point, not watch the entire movie all at once. That was a mistake on my part. Seeing it piecemeal, I had always thought it was fairly good movie – but I was doing it an injustice. This movie is really a great movie.

I have read lots of interpretations of this movie over the years. Do the Right Thing is generally lumped into the category of “message movie”, and while Spike Lee certainly took an opportunity to say some things in the movie (‘Tawana told the truth’ sprayed prominently on a wall in one scene, chants of “Howard Beach” from the rioters, etc.). I am not so sure that that isn’t more of a “question movie” than it is a “message movie”.

As I was getting to ready to write this, I was trying to go back through all of the characters and whether I thought they in fact did the right thing or not – I thought it would make for an interesting ‘angle’ to write. However, upon reflection, I realized that every character in the film thinks they are doing the ‘right thing’. Buggin', Smiley, and Raheem, all think they are doing the right thing when they storm Sal’s.  Pino thinks he is doing the right thing by trying to keep his brother from having interracial friendships. The policemen think they are doing the right thing by forcibly restraining Raheem. Every single character in the movie doesn’t do anything they don’t think is right or justified. The question, however, is anything that anyone is doing ‘the right thing’?

The fact that they all think they are doing the right thing, doesn’t necessarily justify what they are doing or make all of the characters correct in their thinking. Pino and the policemen are racists – but they don’t see themselves as such. Buggin’ spends his time tilting at windmills and making mountains out of molehills – but he thinks he is speaking out on great social injustice. Da Mayor has wisdom to provide – but undermines his own creditability by being the neighborhood drunk. Vito just want everyone to get along – but is too naïve to understand why they don’t. Every character’s preconceptions effect what they believe the ‘right thing’ to do is.

In the final confrontation, I don’t think either Sal or Mookie have a choice. They must do what they believe is the right thing, because their very natures won’t let them do otherwise. Sal tries to defend his pizzeria. Mookie elects to purposely to start the riot. Does Sal deserve what happens to him? No, but then Raheem doesn’t deserve to die either.

It has been said that the ending of the movie is ambiguous. Personally I don’t find it so. It ends with two quotations. The first, from Dr. King, stating that violence is never justified under any circumstances. The second quote is from Malcolm X, and states that violence is justified when it is used in self-defense. Like I said earlier, for me, that ending simply sums up the question that I believe the movie is asking. What actually is the ‘right thing’?

So I end this post as I started it… this is a really good movie. It isn’t perfect, but it is really very good. If Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was the fairy-tale of what race relations could be like, then Do the Right Thing is a more realistic look on how things actually are – the good and the bad. I give this movie a strong 4 Stars 

John

123. Blade Runner (1982)

Stars:  Harrison Ford (Rick Deckard), Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty), Sean Young (Rachael), Edward James Olmos (Gaff), Daryl Hannah (Pris)

Director:  Ridley Scott

Awards / Honors

• 2 Oscar Nominations -- Best Art Direction (Set Decoration), Best Visual Effects
• #97 on AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies list (2007)
• #  6 on AFI's 10 Top 10 Lists -- Science Fiction movies (2008)
• In 1993, Blade Runner was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".

Genre:  Science Fiction

Running Time:  1 hour, 57 minutes (Final Cut version)

Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating:  4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

There is a particular element of film making that comes to mind when I think of this movie and it was the first thing I thought of after re-watching it again. Editing. Why editing? Well, we can answer that question by taking a little side-trip and exploring the mind of the die-hard science fiction fan (just stay with me for a moment).

There are a number of criteria one must meet before one can be declared a true Grade-A, certified Sci-Fi geek. Is there a Star Fleet Uniform hanging in your closest? Do you insist that everyone calls the toys that cover the wall of your “home office” action-figures? Do you treat your old VHS copy of Star Wars like the Zapruder film? ("Look carefully, Greedo's head goes back and to the left; back and to the left...") There are other criteria as well, but there is one particular piece of criteria that is not quite as well known to those outside geek / nerd circles:  Do you have a position on the question of whether Rick Deckard is a replicant and will you defend that position to the death?

So, what does this question have to do with film editing and why is editing so important to the film Blade Runner? Well, you see, the more likely you are to believe that Deckard is, or is not, a replicant, is highly dependant on which particular edit / version of the film that you prefer. Let me explain.

There is a sickness that has been going around Hollywood for quite sometime, and recently the observed cases have been particularly virulent. What is this sickness? It is the inability for movie makers to keep themselves from re-editing and “improving” their previously released movies. Spielberg and Lucas are the most famous recent examples; however, Blade Runner may be the “Patient X” of this epidemic. This isn’t so much the fault of Ridley Scott (although he does seem to like to fan the flames of the “one, true version” controversy), as it is the small, but exceptionally rabid fan-base that seems intent to try to force their personal favorite version of the film to the forefront.

You see, there are between five and seven different version of this film – depending on how you want to count them. Each of these versions has a running-time difference of between one to four minutes depending which versions of the movie you are comparing. While one to four minutes worth of new scenes doesn’t seem like a great deal of difference, once you start taking into account the content of those few scenes, plus the additional editing required to include or remove those scenes – including things like voice-overs added or removed to make the those scenes flow together smoothly, etc. – those few minutes of film can, and in the case of this movie do, have an impact.

The existence of multiple version of a film is not unusual. Take any given film, and if you look hard enough, you can probably find a one version of the film that was used for a public test screening; a second, re-edited version based on the feedback from that test screening; a third re-edited version that takes into account feedback from the studios; a fourth version that was edited with a particular market, such as the European market, in mind; a fifth version that was edited for television, etc. However, where Blade Runner differs from many other films is that this film has an over-abundance of complex themes that it tries to touch on (technicism, genetic engineering / cloning, corporatism, environmentalism, and globalization, to name just the big ones) and each edit of the film, for one reason or another, seems to put a different amount of emphasis on these themes. So, as each version of the film has been “re-discovered” and becomes available, the fans that appreciate the emphasis on whichever theme or themes that this version has, rally around that version and hold it up as the “one, true version” with a passion that at times exceeds religious fervor. Take into account a little geek / nerd one-upmanship being added to the mix – “You call yourself a fan? I drove for three days to get to Los Angeles to see the ORIGINAL screening of the workprint version back in 1990…” – and you can start to see where the questions like is Deckard a replicant or not start to take on lives of their own.

Thus, if wasn’t for the importance and impact that editing can have on a film, thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of fanatics would have to finds something else to obsess over. :)

If you have time, the inclination, and a blu-ray player, I strongly recommend getting a copy of the Final Cut (also referred to as the “25th Anniversary Edition”) Blu-ray disc and watching the original U.S. theatrical release version and then watching the updated Final Cut version (both versions are included in the package). You will get two fairly different takes on the same story – even though they is only a one minute difference in running time between the two films – and hopefully a new appreciation for how editing, even subtle editing changes, can affect a film.

And what is my personal take on the big question? Deckard isn’t a replicant – and if he is – he is a poorly designed one. The one constant present through all of the versions of the film is that replicants have superior strength and / or agility compared to normal humans. Even Daryl Hannah’s character, a replicant that was simply designed to be a “pleasure model”, is physically superior to Deckard. Does it make sense to design and build anything for the purpose of hunting that is inferior to its prey? I don’t think so.

Beth and I watched the Final Cut version for the purpose of our little odyssey. I must say they did an excellent job restoring the film and the conversion to blu-ray was well done. For the sake of full disclosure, I must say that I am a member of the minority of fans of this film that prefer the slightly happier ending of the original theatrical version than the slightly darker / ambiguous endings of some of the other versions of the film and wish that the Final Cut version and used that ending instead.

So, to wrap this post all up I give Blade Runner: The Final Cut a rating of 4 Stars.

124. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (1967)

Stars: Spencer Tracy (Matt Drayton), Sidney Poitier (Dr. John Prentice), Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton), Katharine Houghton (Joanna "Joey" Drayton), Cecil Kellaway (Monsignor Ryan), Beah Richards (Mrs. Prentice), Roy Glenn (Mr. Prentice)

Director: Stanley Kramer

Awards / Honors

• 2 Oscar Wins – Best Actress (Katharine Hepburn),  Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
• 8 Additional Oscar Nominations – Best Picture, Best Director (Stanley Kramer), Best Actor (Spencer Tracy), Best Supporting Actor (Cecil Kellaway), Best Supporting Actress (Beah Richards), Best Art Direction, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score
• #99 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies list (1997)
• #58 on AFI's 100 Years...  100 Passions list (2002)
• #35 on AFI’s 100 Years...  100 Cheers lists (2006)

Genre:  Drama

Running Time:  1 Hour, 48 minutes

Format:  DVD (not yet available on Blu-ray)

Odyssey Rating:  4 Stars (John - 4 Stars, Beth - 4 Stars)

John's Take

One of the things people may not appreciate is that it is surprisingly hard to write movie reviews. It seems easy because it is easy to talk about movies. Conversations with friends can jump around from point to point because, well, it is just conversation with friends. Trying to organize all those little talking points into coherent paragraphs that people would be interested in reading is much harder than it sounds. Rodger Ebert, I tip my hat to you sir.

The reason I mention this is that I am having a real hard time organizing my thoughts concerning this movie. It is certainly a good movie. It is also a movie I had seen a few times before – although it had been about 15 years or so since I had last seen it. I like this movie very much. However, as I write this all down I keep finding myself picking this movie apart. Then, I find myself deleting much of that criticism and focusing solely on the positive aspects instead. I then delete all of that and I end up just staring at a blank page. Did I mention that reviewing / blogging about movies is harder than it sounds?

I believe that the reason I am having so much trouble organizing my thoughts is that despite the fact that I like the movie very much, I am one of those people that believe that a truly good movie will still be a good movie 50 or more years from now. While statements like “Well, you have to remember the when the movie was made…” or “the movie is starting to show its age…” are kind of cop-outs. It is fine to use those statements when discussing the costumes or special effects in the movie, but if the plot, themes, or acting in a movie are not holding up, I think that it is important to point such things out. If you do not think the movie A Night at the Opera is funny, then traveling back through time to the 1930's when the movie was released wouldn't make it any funnier to you...

This movie was groundbreaking and important in 1967 (it was in 1967 that it finally became legal for interracial couple to marry in all 50 states), but is still important today? Let’s break down the elements of the movie...

Acting – The Good

Spencer Tracey (Matt Drayton, The Dad):  I am sorry but the Academy just got it wrong that year. Yes, Rod Steiger was great in the other Sidney Poitier classic that came out that year, In the Heat of the Night (#100 on the list by the way), but I just don’t see how you don’t give the Best Actor award to Tracey. Tracey was reportedly in so much pain during his final monologue where he gives his blessing to the wedding that he could barely stand. Yet none of that is evident on screen. He channels all of that into the performance so that all you see is a man who not only has to come to grips with the how difficult to live up to one’s convictions, but is also having a hard time letting go of his daughter. Was it Spencer Tracey’s best performance ever? No, it wasn’t. But come on folks, the man was literally dying on-screen! What exactly does a guy got to do to win one of those little trophies?!?!

Katharine Hepburn (Christina Drayton, The Mother): Again, the Academy got it wrong. Oh, don’t misunderstand. I think Hepburn’s performance is wonderful, just not necessarily Oscar worthy. As good as she is in this film, she had much better performances in which she didn’t win – The Philadelphia Story and The African Queen (#47 and #39 on the list, respectfully) to name just two. In the case of this performance, the award was one of those “sorry-we-ignored-all-those past-performances” gifts that the Academy is famous for – along with some “sorry-Spencer-is-dead” sentiment thrown in for good measure (for those of you younger than 40 who might be reading this, Tracey and Hepburn had a very long and very private love affair).

All of that being said, Katharine does an excellent job of channeling just the right amount of her real life feelings for Tracey so that the interaction between the two of them feels authentic an genuine – exactly how you expect a long-time married couple to interact.

Beah Richards (Mrs. Prentice, John Prentice’s mother): Nominated for Best Supporting Actress and deservedly so. She plays the voice of reason that transforms into the voice of hope with a reserved dignity that deserves to be recognized. I would like to say that the Academy got it wrong here as well when it didn’t award her the Oscar, but 1967 was a really strong year for that category.

Isabel Sanford (Tillie, the Drayton’s cook): Yes, Weezie Jefferson is in this movie. :) While, her part isn’t large – she is great at it. Her interaction with Poitier as her character takes John to task for his perceived “presumption” is done deftly.

Acting – The Bad

Katharine Houghton (Joey Drayton, The Daughter and soon-to-be bride): Agh, the pain, make it stop – it hurrrtss usss, it hurrtsss us…

No seriously, she makes me want to dig my eyes out of their sockets with a rusty spoon. She is horrible! It is nepotism run amuck (she is the niece of Katharine Hepburn) on a level that won’t be seen again until Sophia Coppola in The Godfather, Part III. I mean, she was easy on the eyes and everything, but, I mean … oh geez, she is terrible.

I would like to believe that this isn’t entirely her fault. One of the problems with the execution of the plot / theme is that both Joey Drayton and John Prentice (Sidney Poitier) have to be perfect people for this story to work out the way it does (we will get to more on that in a moment). So the character itself is written as to be so “open-hearted” and “good natured” as to be dangerously naïve. So much so it is probably a bad idea for her to leave the house by herself. So much so that I would not have any problem believing this character – in some bizarre alternative movie universe – could easily have brought home the entire Manson Family immediately after they had left the Tate household and still be shocked by the her family’s reaction. “But, Mother, Charlie says we are to love each other – just like you and Daddy always taught me….” In the real world, the forces of Natural Selection would have eliminated such a person from the gene pool long before she could start thinking about reproducing. While a terribly written character isn’t an actress’ fault, the fact that I need an insulin shot every time she opens her mouth is. Houghton stinks in this movie; there is just no two ways about this.

Acting – The In-between

Sidney Poitier (Dr. John Prentice, the soon-to-be-groom): Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Poitier. I just kept waiting for him to do “something” with this character. He is trying, you can tell he is trying his best to put some life into this character, but God love him, how do you play someone who is just that perfect? I mean, Mother Theresa wasn’t as good a person as John Prentice is. How exactly is he supposed to make this person interesting?

Like with Houghton, Poitier is forced to play a certain kind of character to make the movie work. So, he is kind of trapped within this framework that is hard for him to move around in. The difference between Houghton and Poitier, however, is that Poitier makes me believe that such a person could exist. It just turns out that such a person isn’t all that interesting to watch, unfortunately.

The Theme / Plot / Overall Presentation – The Bad

OK, here are some problems with this movie when seen through “modern” lenses.

First, every minor character that appears in this film is ridiculously stereotypical. From the Christina Drayton’s assistant at the art gallery (i.e., the shocked, conservative socialite) to the various “young people” that the main characters interact with (all of whom seem to have escaped from various Frankie and Annette beach party movies), not one of them acts in anything resembling a realistic manner. That would be fine, except the movie is constantly trying to use these characters to reinforce its theme of how racial attitudes are changing (especially among young people) and these characters are so ridiculous that you can’t help but laugh as the film beats you over the head with a “things are changing, whether you like it or not” sentiment over, and over again. The scene where the Drayton’s young maid goes bobbing off with a delivery guy as they listen to their transistor radios is just ridiculously bad.

Yes, that is just how the “younger generation” was portrayed in films back in the day, but what comes across as humorously nostalgic in a film where Elvis could break out into song at any moment, is quite distracting in a “message movie”.

Second, does anybody believe for a second that Dr. John Prentice could in any way actually be in love with Joey Drayton? Really? Knock boots with Joey? Yes, I can see that. Want her as a trophy wife? Yes, I can see that. Actually have fallen in love with her? Not a chance. John Prentice is a highly educated man and a dedicated physician and humanitarian. Joey Drayton is a vapid bag filled with stupid. These two people should not be getting married. As the their relationship is portrayed in the movie, it doesn’t require a very long trip down the “close-minded road” to start to interoperate the reason why John Prentice is interested in Joey is BECAUSE she is white. Such a racist outlook is certainly not what the filmmakers intended, but they don’t exactly make the relationship believable either.

Thirdly, and in conjunction with some earlier points in this post, I realize that making the John Prentice character so perfect so as to remove any reason other than the age difference, and the length of time they had know each other (i.e., the same concerns they would have if he was white) to object to the marriage was done purposefully, but I also think that it makes the movie overly simplistic (and makes Sidney Poitier’s character kind of boring). Was that necessary back in 1967? Most assuredly. However, it is 2010 now, and the idea of an interracial couple being the sole issue of a story isn’t much to hang a movie on anymore.

The Theme / Plot / Overall Presentation – The Good

There are some elements of this film that I believe have actually improved with the passage of time. First and foremost, is the reaction of both sets of parents. While it is unfortunate that even some 40 years after this film was made that the idea of interracial couples is still not without its controversy, I suspect that modern audiences find the scenes with Tracey, Hepburn, Richards, and Glenn to still feel believable (although the men going off to Tracey’s study for “men talk” feels a bit quaint). In fact, their reactions, and how quickly they work through their own personal issues with the wedding, may come across as more believe now than it did back in 1967.

Second, the fact that movie addresses, albeit in a small way, the idea of black-on-black prejudice and the preconceptions that African-Americans have of Caucasians helps to prevent the movie from being simply a moralistic fairy-tale. Tillie has no problems telling John that he has no business messing around with a white girl. John’s father thinks that he is making a horrible mistake and isn’t afraid to let him know about it. It is a shame that the film didn’t take the time to examine these things further.

Final Thoughts

There is no question that this is a good movie. There is no question that this is an important movie (historically, if for no other reason). However, I don’t find it surprising that this movie was removed from the 2007 version of the 100 greatest movie list. I think that as time passes, however, this film is starting to lose its ability to convey its message in a meaningful manner. That is unfortunate since it is a message that still needs to be sent.

I give this movie 4 Stars – but it is a weak 4 Stars.

John 

125. Toy Story (1995)

Stars:  Tom Hanks (Woody), Tim Allen (Buzz Lightyear), John Morris (Andy), Erik von Detten (Sid), Don Rickles (Mr. Potato Head), John Ratzenberger (Hamm), Wallace Shawn (Rex)

Director:  John Lasseter

Awards / Honors

•  1 Oscar Win – Special Achievement 
• 3 Additional Oscar Nominations – Best Original Score (Musical or Comedy), Best Original Song ("You've Got a Friend in Me"), Best Writing (Original Screenplay) 
• #99 on AFI’s 100 Years… 100 Movies list (2007)
• #6 on AFI’s 10 Top 10 lists – Animated Movies (2008)
• Toy Story is approximately the 108th highest grossing movie of all time, accounting for inflation (see Box Office Mojo)
• In 2005, Toy Story was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant".  

Genre:  Kids / Animated
Running Time:  1 Hour, 21 minutes
Format:  DVD, Blu-ray

Odyssey Rating: 5 Stars (John – 5 Stars, Beth – 5 Stars)

John’s Take

I believe that any person that saw this movie and didn’t give it at least 4 Stars must just be dead inside. Also, if you don’t get at least a little misty-eyed when Buzz starts to believe he can’t fly – well, I just feel bad for you, I really do.

That being said, this movie was also a marketing execs wet dream. Released during the Christmas season of 1995, I am not sure there is a parent alive during that period in history that does not have a few Toy Story related scars – “I want a Buzz / Woody / Mr. Potato Head / etc. doll, and I want it now!”. My parents are just lucky I was 28, or so, when this movie came out. Believe me, I would have been horrific.

Speaking of me as a child, an event that always comes to mind when I watch this movie, is some vague memory I have of my mother desperately trying to convince me that my toys could not move on their own. The memory is a bit fuzzy – I was pre- kindergarten in age and it wasn’t that I was afraid of my toys (no clowns dragging under my bed ala Poltergeist or anything), I was just absolutely convinced they could move on their own. I suspect this belief was due to me having seen some toys move in a cartoon on TV. At this period of time in my life, if I saw it on TV, it was absolutely true.

For example, at about the same time, I was absolutely convinced I could fly if I just flapped my arms fast enough. Unlike the situation concerning toy-locomotion, I know for a fact that Wile E. Coyote and host of other cartoon characters are to blame. As I understand it, it used to drive my parents to distraction that my faith in the Warner Bros.-school-of-physics was so strong that I was convinced that it wasn’t my personal lack of aerodynamics, but the lack of height my take-off platforms had that contributed to my failure to achieve flight. I can vaguely remember my parents freaking out about me jumping off a fairly tall (at least to a 3 or 4 year old) deck in the back yard. I don’t remember much after slamming into the concrete slab under the porch, other than being undeterred and my parents being fairly exasperated at that.

I seem to remember my mother also being fairly exasperated with me concerning the question of whether toys could move on their own as well. Apparently, I was difficult child.

This movie, however, vindicates my childhood stubbornness. :)

With vast amounts of computer animation dominating the cinema these days (Avatar, anyone?), it is easy to forget that basically this is the movie that started it all. The same mix of animation, kid’s humor and kid-friendly adult jokes has been used many times since its release (The Incredibles, Ice Age, Cars, etc.) so, it is easy to forget just how much of a “wow” factor surrounded this movie. Having just watched it again, especially when compared to those later movies, you can start to see that the visual affects are starting to become a little dated and those more recent movies are just a little bit hipper and cooler. It is still very funny, however, and deserves praise for being the first of a successful formula and for changing the very way animation itself is done.

So, without thinking twice before I jump to the end of my first review, I give this movie – 5 Stars!

John

Beth's Take

This movie was sooo cute! Although it was released in 1995, I am ashamed to say I didn't watch it until many years later. I know...shame on me! But when I finally watched it, I loved it. Silly as it may seem, John is right...it made you think back to your childhood and all the toys you just had sitting around. I actually felt quilty, because there were so many that I never played with. After watching the movie, I felt sorry for them. Like my Cabbage Patch Doll, Stacey...I begged my parents for this doll..you know, like every other child back in the day when parents were literally fighting over them at Christmas LOL. But when I actually got her, I didn't want to play with her..she was too pretty and too clean to drag everywhere. I just wanted to put her on my cleanly made bed and have her just sit there and look pretty. After watching Toy Story, I wondered if she ever got lonely and it made me sad :( I still have her, I will have to remember to take her out of the storage closet and tell her "I'm Sorry!"...I know that is sad huh!

Let me tell you how hard it was to find this movie to watch...
First of all, I can't believe we don't own this movie...we only have a gazillion movies..but no, not "Toy Story"...WHAT???
We looked everywhere for this movie..Blockbust, Amazon, Netflix, Ebay, FYE...come to find out, the clerk at FYE said that Disney had put the movies back into vault because they were making Toy Story 3. Well, that hardly seems fair. Nobody we knew had a copy.  But my sweetie John was persistant, and after a long while of looking, he finally found a copy on Amazon..whew! That was a close one there..this was the first movie on our list to watch and we came close to not being able to watch it.

I rate this movie of course 5 Stars...can't see how anyone couldn't!!
Beth

Movie List for December, 2009

Now, I understand that it is actually April, 2010, but since we have started our little AFI movie odyssey back in December, we are going to post the information as if we just watched them. That way it will give Beth and I a chance to refine our “blogging style”, plus on the off-chance that any of you out there in the Inter-verse want to watch these movies along with us, this will give you a chance to catch up. :)

So, without further ado, here are the movie will be watching in “December”

125. Toy Story (1995)

124. Guess Who is Coming to Dinner? (1967)

123. Blade Runner (1982)

122. Do the Right Thing (1989)

John

Our Rating System!

To rate the top 125 movies we are watching, we have borrowed the Netflix "5 Star" Rating system.....

Here is the rating system

1 Star - Hated It
2 Stars - Didn't Like It
3 Stars - Liked It
4 Stars - Really Liked It
5 Stars - Loved It

Since John and I both score each movie individually, there will be times where the numbers of Stars are averaged....For example, if I rate a movie a 2 and John rates the same movie a 4...we will average it out to be a 3!

This movie watching project has been so exciting. I have watched movies I've never heard of before and they range from silent movies from the 20's to the great movies such as "The Godfather" (that's further up the list LOL). It will take us some time to watch the whole list (We are thinking maybe 2 years or a little longer)...but it's been great!

I hope everyone enjoys this adventure of ours as much as we do.

What the Heck is this all about?

As the brief description at the top of the page suggests, the purpose of this blog is to document the adventure of a guy and a gal watching the 125 (actually 123, but more on that later) movies that make up the two AFI "100 Years… 100 movies" lists.  Why are we doing this?  For the same reason why people climb mountians -- becuase the lists were there. That, and the fact that it sounded like a good idea when we out drinking with our friends one night.  :) 

For those of you that do not know about these lists, a brief description is in order.

In 1997 and again in 2007, The American Film Institute created lists of the 100 greatest American movies (One could argue that movies such as Lawrence of Arabia and The Third Man are more accurately described as British movies – they simply had Americans producing and / or acting in them – but that is a discussion for another post).  As one would probably guess, these two lists were obviously not the same.  Not only were the rankings different but each list contained 23 movies that were not on the other one.  So, to make things easier on ourselves, Beth and I decided to create one list.  We combined these two lists in the follow manner:

First, the twenty-three movies that did not appear on the 1997 list, but did appeared on the 2007 list, were given ranks of 101 - 123 based on their position in the 2007 list.  For example, The General (ranked 18th in 2007), did not appear on the 1997 list, but since it was the highest ranking "new" film on the 2007 list, we placed it on the 1997 list as if it held the 101st position; Intolerance (ranked 49th in 2007) was placed at 102nd; Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (ranked 50th in 2007) was placed at 103rd on the 1997 list, and so on.

Second, the 23 movies from the 1997 list that did not make the 2007 list were assigned ranking of 101-123, based upon were they ranked on the original 1997 list. So, Doctor Zhivago (ranked 39th in 1997) was assigned the 101st position on the 2007 list; The Birth of a Nation (ranked 44th in 1997) was assigned the 102nd position on the 2007 list; From Here to Eternity (ranked 52nd in 1997) was assigned the 103rd position in the 2007 list; and so on.

Third, the numerical rankings given the combined list of 123 movies was then averaged, to come up with a single value. I then re-ordered the list based on that new “combined” ranking.

Then we added the other two Lord of the Rings movies to the list (giving them the same value as The Fellowship of the Ring). In our opinion, more so than any other sequels we can think of, those three movies are much more one really long single movie than three separate ones – plus it made the list the 125 movies long, which feels more “complete” than 123. :)

Finally, I adjusted the list slightly for "continuity". For example, if you were watching the movies in ascending order (starting with # 125, obviously) -- which is what Beth and I are doing – watching Godfather II before The Godfather would be chronologically incorrect. So, despite the fact The Godfather ranked higher on the list than Godfather II, I moved The Godfather, Part II up about 20 spots to be ranked "ahead" of The Godfather, so that we would end up watching The Godfather first.

This little odyssey of ours started back in December, 2009, and as of today, Beth and I have watched movies #125 - #101 already, but fear not, we will be posting our views on those movies as well the movies #100 - #1 as we watch them from now on. We invite you to watch these movies along with us and comment on them as well.

There will likely be some additional “preliminary” posts to follow before we get into the actual movie discussions – but we will get to the movies soon enough. :)

John