Movie Management

It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) - The all-time favorite Christmas movie

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Mon, 07 Mar 2016 13:19:00 +0000

Review No. : 0022

Title : It’s A Wonderful Life (Colorized version)

Year : 1946

Director : Frank Capra

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 94% out of 100%; IMDB – 8.6 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Technical Achievement Award.

My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.

It’s A Wonderful Life (1946) is about George Bailey (played by James Stewart), a young man full of ambition who finds himself trap in his small town. He plans to travel the world and go to college but events in his life make him forgo his plans. He stays in town to continue his father’s loan business, a trade that helps a lot of the people in town even though it provides very low margin. He then marries Mary (Donna Reed), a beautiful woman in town who has been in love with him since they were young, and starts a family with her. A mean and rich businessman named Henry Potter (Lionel Barrymore) has been trying to compete with George’s loan trade so he can monopolize the town’s businesses. One day Mr. Potter sees an opportunity to destroy his loan business and reputation. George sees no way out to escape this problem. He decides to end his life by jumping off a bridge into a freezing river when an angel saves him. The angel shows George what the town would look like if he wasn’t born and he realizes that his life makes the community better.

The Good

Wonderful story and theme – A life lived for others is never a waste. What I like about the story is that it shows a man full of dreams but because of life’s circumstances, priorities and love he failed to achieve his goals. In retrospect, though he failed to live his dreams he was able to build the dreams of others.
A realistic protagonist – What I like about the character is that he is no pure good guy. George Bailey has an optimistic and charming personality but he does get frustrated and gets mad when the going gets tough. Unlike other good guy in cinemas this one has dreams, frustrations and a little bad side.
Postcard cinematography – I watched the colorized version of the film and all frames look like straight from a Coca-Cola vintage commercial. To some who says that the film was desecrated because of colorization, sorry, the film is much better in colorized format.

You probably have seen this film too many times, I suggest you keep the tradition watching it every Christmas!

In Old Arizona (1929) - Almost unbearable to watch

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Thu, 25 Feb 2016 09:56:00 +0000

Review No. : 0021

Title : In Old Arizona

Year : 1929

Director : Irving Cumming

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 56% out of 100%; IMDB – 5.8 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Best Actor.

My Verdict : 2.0 out of 5.0.

This review is going to be short. I watched the film because it is part of my Oscar Challenge because it is a best picture nominee during the second Academy Award.

The film is about Cisco Kid (Warner Baxter), a hold-upper in Arizona who targets to rob local stages commuting in the dessert. Sgt. Mickey Dunn (Edmund Lowe) is tasked to capture the Cisco Kid but finds him very elusive. Sgt. Dunn falls in love with a flirtatious Mexican girl named Tonia Maria (Dorothy Burgess), who also happens to be Cisco Kid’s lover. Sgt. Dunn and Tonia Maria then creates a plot to capture Cisco Kid.

The Bad

I felt like I wasted my time after watching this film. Below is my punch list why I think this movie is bad:

It’s not funny at all. It’s a combination of cheese and corn, cheezy-corny.
The acting performances are actually not bad, the actors sometimes surprises me. Among the three major actors, Baxter has the worst performance. Baxter getting an Oscar for that performance is actually unbelievable. I don’t know who were his contenders for Best Actor during that time, but I just can’t believe he won an Oscar for a performance that makes me cringe.
The story is a nice fairy tale but should not been made to a movie. It’s dragging and it’s boring.

I highly recommend for you NOT TO WATCH this film.

Sleeping Beauty (1959) - The most beautiful traditional animation is more awake than ever

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 10:27:00 +0000

Review No. : 0020

Title : Sleeping Beauty

Year : 1959

Director : Clyde Geronimi, Les Clark, Eric Larson, Wolfgang Reitherman

Country : United States;

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 92% out of 100%; IMDB – 7.3 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.2 out of 5.0.

I was still young when I first saw Sleeping Beauty (1959) and there are scenes and characters that stay on my mind even if I only watched it once. I remember the Once Upon A Dream scene between Aurora and Prince Phillip, the three fairies, the evil Maleficent and more. After watching again the classic Disney film on Diamond Edition Blu-Ray I noticed, for the first time, how beautifully made is the movie. I have no doubt that this is probably the most beautiful animation ever made.

Sleeping Beauty (1959) is based on the classic fairy tale of Charles Perrault, The Sleeping Beauty. A princess is born in a kingdom that all the nobility and peasants are invited to join the celebration. An evil witch, Maleficent, is the only one that did not get an invite. Displeased upon not getting an invitation, Maleficent curses the princess, proclaiming that before the sun sets on her sixteenth birthday she will prick her finger on a spinning wheel and die. One fairy alters the curse so that instead of dying, the princess will only fall asleep until a she is awakened by true love’s kiss.

The Good

Every frame an art – it’s easy to ignore the background when you’re focus is on the characters, especially when the characters are enchanting. When you watch this film take a closer look of the background, appreciate the details and design and you will see how beautiful and artistic the backdrops are.
Every movement is natural – the movements of the characters in this movie are very natural and still at par in today’s standard.
Other good stuff – Wonderful and memorable characters, the beautiful music and songs, and the good light humor.

The Bad

Useless plan of the fairies – There are three good fairies in the story, one of them alters the death curse of Maleficent. To ensure the safety of Princess Aurora they plan to take the baby away from the castle and raise her in the middle of the woods, the royal parents agree with this plan, with the knowledge that the princess will return on her sixteenth birthday. The Princess’ sixteenth birthday comes and the fairies clandestinely return her to the castle where Maleficent is waiting. That is what I don’t understand. Why would the fairies keep the princess for sixteen years and return her on the most dreaded day? Why can’t they wait for another day? They did not even wait for the sun to set!

If I had to recommend a classic Disney Princess, no doubt it’s going to Sleeping Beauty (1959) despite its plot flaw.

Kagemusha (1980) - Has one of the best opening scenes

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 15:08:00 +0000

Review No. : 0019

Title : Kagemusha

Year : 1980

Director : Akira Kurosawa

Country : Japan

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 86% out of 100%; IMDB – 6.9 out of 10.0; Cannes Film Festival – Palm d’Or Award.

My Verdict : 3.0 out of 5.0.

The first scene of Kagemusha (1980) is brilliant in countless ways and I consider it a prime example of art and function. It shows three similar-looking men wearing identical clothes sitting in a dark room. The man at the center is Shingen (Tatsuya Nakadai), a powerful daimyo who is currently at war with other Japanese clans. The man on Shingen’s right is Nobukado (Tsutomo Yamazaki), his brother and his right hand man. The man on Shingen’s left is a thief (also played by Tatsuya Nakadai), who was about to be crucified but was saved by Nobukado because of his uncanny resemblance with the daimyo. The status and rank is shown on where they are seated, the thief on the floor, Nobukado on an elevated floor and Shingen sitting on a dais. The scene lasts more than six minutes and it effectively establishes the story of the film. The conversation starts with Nobukado and Shingen, they examine the thief, talk about his background, how he looks very much like the daimyo. Nobukado proposes to Shingen that the thief could be an effective double for him. The scene also establishes the personalities of the three major characters: The daimyo, who will do anything to protect his clan; Nobukado, who will do anything to protect his brother; and the thief, who is stubborn but willing to submit just to survive.

Three and four are the magic numbers used in this scene to balance it and make it a little symmetrical. Three. Three men, three heights of seats and three vertical objects: a candlestick with a lighted candle, a sword stand with katana on it and the shadow of the katana and its stand. The candlestick is the foreground, the sword and its stand is the middleground and its shadow is the background. Light, sword and shadow. Each object represents a man beside it. The sword symbolizes power and represents the mighty Shingen sitting near it. In this scene the candle is near the thief because he is the subject of scrutiny but he will eventually be a representation of the light, the idea and the solution after the mighty sword falls. At the back of Nobukado is the shadow of the sword, because that is his role, he is a shadow of his brother and will continue to be a shadow even after the death of the daimyo. The other magic number in this scene is four. Four petals of the lotus flower that is the symbol of the Shingen’s clan and four for the four men in the room. There are three men but there is only one visible shadow, the shadow of Shingen, this is the fourth man. The effectiveness of this scene is that it foreshadows what will happen to the thief and Nobukada. The shadow of Shingen will forever haunt the lives of the thief and the brother. They will live for him, imitate him and make sure that his physical shadow will live even when he is already gone and this is through making the thief a kagemusha.

Kagemusha literary means “shadow warrior”, a body double, a political decoy. The film is set in the Sengoku period of Japan and tells the story of a thief who is a body double for a daimyo and the officers willing to deceive the public and enemies to preserve their clan. Soon the daimyo dies and the thief is hired to continue to impersonate the leader because the strength of their military is perceived through the living daimyo.

The Good

The cinematography – Akira Kurosawa is known for his well-thought-of beautiful scenes and this movie is another visual art. Too much beauty, techniques and thoughts are embedded in small and big scenes. The opening sequence is a good example of a simple but artistic shot. The battle scenes are examples of full blown cinematic experience because of its sheer scale that involves hundreds of warriors and horses running on a vast field. The value of this movie relies very much on cinematography.

The Bad

The sometimes over-the-top acting – Tatsuya Nakadai effectively delivers the role of the thief or the kagemusha. Though, there are moments that I feel he exaggerates his acting a little bit. An example is when he plans to steal one night, he acts like a comic cartoon, exaggerating the movement of his arms, legs and eyes. Another taste of over-the-top performance from Nakadai is the last scene wherein he runs to the battlefield defenseless (which makes no sense to me at all), he opens his mouth very wide and makes his eyes big that it looks like it will pop out. It’s a little bit of theatrical acting.
Ghostly make-up – I remember in Ran (1985), Tatsuya Nakadai wears a make-up so white that it makes him look like a ghost, but it actually contributed to cinematography. There is a similar scene in Kamegusha (1980) wherein Nakadai is again so white that he is beyond pale, he looks more like a ghost and the natural effect is abolished. I just don’t get why Kurosawa loves to do this, I get it in Ran (1985) but not in this movie, it’s just a little bit off.
The dream sequence – There is a scene wherein the thief is gets visited by the dead daimyo in a nightmare. What I like about this scene is that the colors are very vibrant and it contains the most memorable scene in the entire movie. What I don’t like about it is that it looks very much like a scene shoot in a 1950s studio. It looks very much fake even for a dream.
The lack of action – The film, even though it contains grand scale battle scenes is not much of action and stunts. So if you are looking for battle action this is not the movie.
Unsustainable interest – 20 minutes before the film ends I already lost my interest and I feel like the last battle scene is too long and too grand but useless. The movie started very well but the ending could have been better or shorter.

This movie has one of the best opening scenes, it captivated me but near the ending of the film I lost a little bit of interest. I do recommend this movie to be watched by film enthusiasts a lot of techniques can be learned from it.

Inside Out (2015) - Mind-blowing concept of what's going on in our minds

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:37:00 +0000

Review No. : 0018

Title : Inside Out

Year : 2015

Director : Pete Docter, Ronnie Del Carmen

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 98%; Metacritic – 94 out of 100; IMDB – 8.3 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.9 out of 5.0.

The last time I was overly amazed by an animated movie screenplay was through the movie Monsters, Inc. (2001). Monsters, Inc. (2001) is a movie about our fears of bogeymen hiding in our closets when we were kids. It shows us a side of the story behind the closet, that there is an existing industry that profits through the screams of the children. The concept is just so smart and mind blowing that you will wonder how the writers came up with the concept. Inside Out (2015) has the same effect to me because it is a movie with a unique premise and idea. It’s simply very smart.

Inside Out (2015) tells the story of a girl named Riley Anderson (Kaitlyn Dias) and what goes inside her mind. Her reactions are triggered by five basic entities of emotions: Joy (Amy Poehler), Sadness (Phyllis Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Disgust (Mindy Kaling) and Anger (Lewis Black). These emotions live in Riley’s brain and each one has a purpose to ensure Riley correctly reacts to protect herself or get what she needs. Apart from making sure that Riley reacts correctly, the emotions also have other jobs. It is also their job to protect the long-term core memories of the child and to monitor her dreams. One day, Joy and Sadness are sucked out accidentally from their headquarters and lands on a place where the things Riley values are located. Without Joy in the office, the three emotions (Fear, Disgust and Anger) struggles to operate Riley’s reactions. Joy and Sadness meanwhile meets different characters in Riley’s head and hopes that someone could help them find their way back to the headquarters of emotions.

The Good

The story and theme – Without giving any spoiler I want to say that the story is unbelievably smart, there is also meaning in the story that even adults will find it eye opening and unlike other animated movies, or any other movies for that matter, the story is unpredictable (except of course for the happy ending).

The Bad

Don’t expect too much humor – Whenever I watch a Disney-Pixar movie I expect to laugh a lot and to laugh out loud. Not in this case, there are funny moments (like the scenes with Bing Bong, the imaginary friend of Riley, played by Richard Kind) but it never made me laugh so hard. Amy Poehler is not so funny in this movie, too, but she did a very good job. I guess what I’m trying to say is that this movie is more of a heartwarming movie rather than a hilarious one. I just wish they made sure humor works when there’s an opportunity to make it work.

This is a movie that is a must-see. Not a favorite of mine but the concept of the plot is bewildering.

Princess Mononoke (1997) - One of the best products of Studio Ghibli

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 14 Feb 2016 07:20:00 +0000

Review No. : 0017

Title : Princess Mononoke (English dub)

Year : 1997

Director : Hayao Miyazaki

Country : Japan

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 92%; Metacritic – 76 out of 100; IMDB – 8.8 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.6 out of 5.0.

The works of Hayao Miyazaki usually starts with a storyboard and do not have an initial plot. Unlike other animations, the production of Miyazaki’s works start even without a full storyline. Miyazaki completes the story piece by piece whenever he thinks of a new idea. It is no wonder that the plots of the works of Miyazaki are unpredictable, odd, out of this world but mesmerizing.

Princess Mononoke (1997) is a story of Ashitaka, a young man who saves his village from a demon-possessed boar. Part of the demon goes to the arm and torso of Ashitaka, which makes him incredibly stronger and agile but it will eventually spread and kill him. The village elder tells him to go to a land where he can possibly find a cure. On his way to find the cure, he meets Lady Eboshi, a woman who runs a town of social outcast and is in conflict with the gods in the forest. One of the gods that Lady Eboshi is fighting against is a wolf named Moro. Moro has an adopted human daughter named San also known as Princess Mononoke. Ashitaka’s adventures evolve in resolving the conflict between humans and the forest gods.

The Good

Visually stunning – The movie is beautiful and is probably one of the most beautiful traditional animated films ever made.
English Dub - The vocal actors in the English version of the movie are mostly impressive. Emotions and feelings can be heard on the voices of the characters. The voice actors that stand out are Claire Danes, Billy Crudup and Gillian Anderson.
Underlying theme and the complex characters – The most obvious theme of the movie is the protection environment. Some says disability and gender are the minor themes of the movie. I will not argue with those ideas but there is an underlying theme that is apparent but somehow neglected. Princess Mononoke (1997) is about obsession and collaboration. Lady Eboshi will do anything to protect her town, Jiko-bo (a wandering monk), a government spy, is willing to do anything for the government. Moro and Princess Mononoke are willing to kill all the people to protect the forest. Ashitaka is the only person who tries to weigh the motivation of all the parties and is willing to mediate for all of them. The characters are not one-faced individuals, they have their good side and their stubborn side.

The Bad

Unbelievably quick – At the end of the movie the Forest Spirit spreads his nasty slime that anything that touches it withers. The slime moves very fast but somehow all the people can outrun it. There are even scenes when Ashitaka is just a meter away from the slime but he barely escapes it and he is not even troubled by it. It’s just one of the things that a good movie can put you off.

Everyone should like Studio Ghibli’s movies and Princess Mononoke (1997) is one of their best productions. This is a must watch.

Movie Management Award for Oscar Challenge 1927-1928

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 16:18:00 +0000

Special Entry : 002

Last year, I started to take on a challenge: The Oscar Challenge. I will review all films that are nominated for the Best Picture category for each year and I will give each movie my rating. Based on the rating I will decide which film should have won the Oscar for that year. I now have the results but before anything else let me have a little disclaimer…

In May 1929 the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences honored the best movies of 1927 and 1928. That time the award for the best movie is not yet called Best Picture instead there were two major awards, Outstanding Picture and Unique and Artistic Production. The following year the Academy decided to drop the latter category and announced that the Outstanding Picture was the highest honor that could be awarded.

The following were the nominees for the Outstanding Picture:

1. Wings (1927) - Winner

2. The Racket (1928)

3. 7thHeaven (1927)

And the following were the nominees for Unique and Artistic Production:
1. Sunrise:A Song Of Two Humans (1927) - Winner
2. Chang: A Drama of the Wilderness (1927)
3. The Crowd (1928)

Technically, the Outstanding Picture is the equivalent of today’s Best Picture, but in 1929 that was not clear so I decided to include in my Oscar Challenge for this period the winner of Unique and Artistic Production, which is Sunrise (1927). This is based on my assumption that the movie could have been a nominee for Outstanding Picture if the Academy was not foolish enough to create a second category that they eliminated after a year.

The Story

It is no wonder that there is a small difference between the The Racket (1928) and Sunrise (1927) in terms of story. Both movies have a clear storyline and premise which makes the movie easy to follow and understand. The Racket (1928) has several sub-conflicts that makes it more compelling to watch than Sunrise (1927).

On the other hand, Wings (1927) and 7th Heaven (1927) have scattered stories and the genres of both films are hard to categorize. Both films can be considered an all-in-one romantic comedy, action and drama movie. The shifts from one genre to another makes the film less cohesive in terms of plot and give a confusing viewing experience.

The Direction

Direction includes acting, cinematography, editing, costume, etc. There are a lot of factors that could make the score in direction vary from high to low but the top considerations are acting, cinematography and editing. I would say that acting levels are almost the same for the four films but Sunrise (1927) excelled in cinematography, editing and production and these help boost the film’s rating on direction.

The Entertainment Value

All films are boring in today’s standards and I do not have any plans in watching these films again. But if I were to get stuck in an island and asked to choose from these four films that I can watch forever, it would be between The Racket (1928) and Sunrise (1927). Most likely I will choose Sunrise (1927) because of the cinematography and it’s a shorter film.

The Winner

Movie Management picks Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans (1927) as 1927-1928 Oscar Best Picture.

I'm not a big fan of Sunrise (1927) but it’s much better than Wings (1927).

Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans (1928) - Unique and Artistic Production awardee

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Mon, 08 Feb 2016 12:11:00 +0000

Review No. : 0016

Title : Sunrise: A Song Of Two Humans

Year : 1927

Director : F. W. Murnau

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 98%; IMDB – 8.4 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Unique and Artistic Production, Best Actress, Best Cinematography.

My Verdict : 2.8 out of 5.0.

Sunrise is a silent film that won an award for Unique and Artistic Production at the 1st Academy Awards in 1929. This was the year that particular award was ever given out. The following year, the Academy dropped the award and decided that the award known as Outstanding Picture won by Wings (1927) was the highest honor that could be awarded. Sunrise is also one of the pioneers to use a synchronized musical score and sound effects.

A vacationing woman (Margaret Livingston) from the city starts an affair with a farmer (George O’Brien) who has a meek wife (Janet Gaynor) and a son. One night the mistress asks the farmer to go with her to the city and sell his farm. The mistress also suggests for the farmer to kill his wife by drowning her in the river and make it seem like an accident. The morning after, the farmer asks his neglected wife to join him on a leisurely boat trip. He attempts to push her out of the boat but loses his urge to kill her and rows furiously back to a nearby shore. Once they hit the shore, the scared and emotional wife runs to safety and the man chases her. They got into a tram that takes them to a neighboring city. The couple spends the day walking around the city as they rekindle their love to each other.

The Good

Impressive cinematography – There is no question that the cinematography in this movie is top-notch and well-thought of. This is the undoubtedly the film’s strength, the techniques include superimposition effects, impressive tracking shots and the application of forced perspectives.
High production value – The production does not look cheap at all. An example is the city fair that the couple visited, it shows roller coasters, tents, and a ballroom, all looks grand on screen.

The Bad

Occasional over-the-top acting – The acting of O’Brien and Gaynor polarizes between believable and overacting. I like how Gaynor acts when she subtly cries on the tram after her husband tries to kill him but it is borderline annoying to see her being happy like an eight-year old girl (and she looks like an eight-year old girl). O’Brien has subtle moments, too, but sometimes he acts too dramatically, like when he is searching for his wife in the river, he looks so scared that his eyes are wide open and about to pop out. It is so over the top, I just don’t buy it.

Some hail Sunrise as a masterpiece, I don’t think so. It has good cinematography but that doesn’t make it a masterpiece, it does have a good theme but the acting is not that good and the story is not compelling. I’m happy to have seen it once, but I don’t have any plans to watch it again.

The Racket (1928) - Once was lost, now I have seen

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 07 Feb 2016 03:38:00 +0000

Review No. : 0015

Title : The Racket

Year : 1928

Director : Lewis Milestone

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : IMDB – 6.9 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 2.5 out of 5.0.

I am proud to say that I have watched all the nominated films for Outstanding Picture of the first Academy Awards. I have wrapped it with The Racket (1928), a gangster film that probably set the tone for the next mob movies that followed it. This film was considered a lost film until one copy was found in Howard Hughe’s collection after his death and I consider it a privilege that I had the chance to see it.

The Racket (1928) is about a police captain named McQuigg (Thomas Meighan) who clashes with a politically connected bootlegger, Nick Scarsi (Louis Wolheim). Scarsi tries to get McQuigg out of his way by getting him transfer to another police precinct. An opportunity to trap Scarsi comes up and McQuigg puts a complex plan to bring down the mobster. He strategically uses the press, colleagues, friends and politicians to knock down Scarsi.

The Good

A clear cut storyline – The movie was adapted from a 1927 Broadway play with the same title. McQuigg and Scarsi have very clear goals, which is to knock out one another, and that makes the movie easy to follow. Unlike other films in the early Hollywood era this film doesn’t hop from one storyline to another or from one genre to another, it sticks with one simple plot.
Thomas Meighan’s natural acting – I didn’t give Meighan a high score in acting because I usually consider the difficulty of the role when I score someone’s performance. But there is depth in Meighan’s and there is also believability in his performance that is sometimes clouded by the character’s over zealousness. He acts in a natural way that you think of him as a modern actor but in the last act, when he orchestrates his plan, he rushes from room to room with excitement and that just abolishes some of his believability.

The Bad

The set – The scenes are mostly shot in the lobby of the precinct where one police officer mans it and a couple of press waits there for a juicy news. No criminals walking by, police officers waiting, people visiting and I believe the furniture there are two chairs and a table. It is a set for a small theatrical play. It doesn’t look authentic and you feel claustrophobic for the actors.
Stupid actions – For a powerful and successful bootlegger, Scarsi doesn’t think much. He kills a cop and comes back to the crime scene immediately. He rages at and blackmails his political partners when he knows he is on the losing end. Those actions are just not well thought of. Louis Wolheim makes a good rough mobster, though.

I’m happy to see a film that was once lost. Would I watch it again? For this instance a one-time privilege is enough.

To Sir, With Love (1967) - Sidney carried this unforgettable high school movie

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Wed, 03 Feb 2016 15:13:00 +0000

Review No. : 0014

Title : To Sir, With Love

Year : 1967

Director : James Clavell

Country : United Kingdom

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 92%; IMDB – 7.7 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.2 out of 5.0.

I remember hearing the song when I was growing up, the melancholic melody and the lyrics that I did not much understand back then. Lulu’s “To Sir, With Love” is one of the best movie soundtracks ever produced. It summarizes the film by capturing the feelings of a student towards her teacher. Aside from the wonderful song, there are other reasons that made me watch To Sir, With Love (1967) and one of them is that this is my first Sidney Poitier film. The writer and director, James Clavell, also wrote to of my favorite novels (Shogun and King Rat).

To Sir, With Love (1967) was based on an semi-autobiographic novel of the same title written by E. R. Braithewaite, a Guyanese teacher and writer. Set in the 1960s, Mark Thackeray (Sidney Poitier), a black man from British Guyana, gets a teaching job in a secondary school in London. He learns that his students are rejects from other schools and their trick and pranks drove their last teacher to quit. The class is led by a tough guy, Bert Denham (Christian Roberts), and a beautiful student, Pamela Dare (Judy Geeson). The class antics progress to disrespectful behavior that Thackeray loses his temper one day and decides to change his lesson plan. He throws all the books and informs the kids that from now on they will treat each other as adults and that they will talk anything about life instead of reading their classroom books and one by one he gains the trust, respect and love of his students.

The Good

Sidney Poitier’s top class acting – He wowed me. As mentioned, this is my first Sidney Poitier movie and he simply amazed me. What I like about him is that he plays the part so naturally that he didn’t go overboard. He effectively shows different layers of the character, a poor gentleman trying to start his life, a human who has limitations and a not-so-good dancer.

The Bad

The montage in the museum – Thackeray and the student go to a museum for their first field trip. What I didn’t like about this scene is that it features a montage of photos of the students in the museum while the famous song of Lulu is being played. The pictures look authentic and most of them are funny but somehow I feel like I was taken out of the movie and a TV commercial or an MTV video is being played.
The awkward dance – There is a scene that Thackeray is asked by a student to dance in a school party. The dance of Poitier looks awful at first that it makes me cringe, soon he dances good enough that he begin to look like more of a student than a teacher. If the intention of the director is to make the audience cringe and then smile then he succeeded. Come to think of it, it shows another personality of Thackeray which makes this scene actually okay. But Iet me leave it under "The Bad" section right now. "The Bad" section is where I put memorable scenes that I didn’t like so much but others might think it’s good, sort of like a limbo section.

And The Ugly

The camera – there is an obvious scene wherein a camera makes a sudden movement like someone accidentally trip on it. Then there is a close-up scene that the actress is just out of focus.
The instant change of heart of Denham – Denham, the king of the classroom, has been fighting against the principles of Thackeray then a week before graduation he realizes that he is wrong. This would have been more believable if it happened months before graduation, seriously it did not add additional suspense to the movie, if anything it only added predictability.
The overused of the main theme song – Lulu’s “To Sir, With Love” song plays during the start of the scene – What a wonderful way to start the movie. Then it plays again while running the montage of pictures during the trip to the museum. Then Lulu sings it during the graduation party a few minutes before the ending. Then after a few minutes, in the closing credits the song plays again. Talk about oversused and abused soundtrack. I like the song but it’s just too much to be played four times in a movie.

Two reasons to watch this film: 1) Sidney Poitier's compelling acting and 2) Sidney Poitier's compelling character.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 (2004) - A satisfying conclusion but lacks the action of Vol. 1

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Tue, 19 Jan 2016 14:27:00 +0000

Review No. : 0013

Title : Kill Bill Vol. 2

Year : 2004

Director : Quentin Tarantino

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 84%; Metacritic – 83 out of 100; IMDB – 8.0 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.8 out of 5.0.

It’s not fair for me to compare Kill Bill Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 since the two were originally intended to be one big movie and one good story. In any case I decided to review it separately and Kill Bill Vol. 2 is a few notches down for me but please remember that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

Kill Bill Vol. 2 is the continuation of the story of “The Bride” (Uma Thurman). In Vol. 1 she decides to murder those who tried to kill her during her wedding. She successfully kills two of the women on her hit list, Vernita Green (Vivica A. Fox) and O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu). In Vol. 2 she continues to hunt down the rest of the members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad and this includes Budd (Michael Madsen), Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah) and the leader Bill (David Carradine).

Why is Vol. 1 better than Vol. 2?

The action scenes – “The Bride’s” samurai combat against the Crazy 88 group, her duel with hot Gogo, the knife fight between her and Vernita Green and her subtle match with O-Ren Ishii. These scenes are full of action and thrill, well directed and beautiful. In Vol. 2 there are also good action scenes like the fight between “The Bride” and her Kung Fu mentor Pai Mei (Gordon Liu) and also the short fight with Elle Driver. What I’m trying to say is that Vol. 1 fight scenes are way much better in terms of choreography and artistic quality.
The iconic and beautiful costumes – in Vol. 1 we can never forget the black and yellow suit of the Bride, the black assassination catsuit of Oren-Ishii, the simple blue jogging outfit of Vernita Green, the slutty nurse disguise of Elle Driver, the slutty school girl uniform of Gogo and much more. In Vol. 2, the only costume that we will remember is Pai Mei’s garb.
The songs are better – the songs in Vol. 1 are also memorable because you can easily tie them with scenes like Elles Drivers’ whistling the theme from Twisted Nerve, when Oren-Ishii and the Crazy 88 walks down the aisle with “Battle Without Honor or Humanity” playing, and Nancy Sinatra’s haunting song, “Bang Bang”, plays after “The Bride” gets shot in the head. In Vol. 2 the only scene with a good song I can remember is in the closing credits when “Goodnight Moon” by Shivaree is being played.

Why is Vol. 2 still a good movie?

Because just like Vol. 1 the non-linear storytelling still keeps us engage.
Because it closes the loop and answers most of our questions.
Because there’s kung fu.
Because the death of Bill is non-conventional and nicely done.

I need to reiterate that Vol. 2 is actually not an inferior movie to Vol. 1, it perfectly closes the story of “The Bride” but just like any Broadway play the first act is usually the lively one.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 (2003) - An example of telling a good story

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Mon, 18 Jan 2016 14:45:00 +0000

Review No. : 0012

Title : Kill Bill Vol. 1

Year : 2003

Director : Quentin Tarantino

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 85%; Metacritic – 69 out of 100; IMDB – 8.1 out of 10.0.
My Verdict : 4.4 out of 5.0.

I remember the first time I watched Kill Bill Vol. 1 and I was totally shocked. That was more than a decade ago and by that time no mainstream film came near as gory and artistic as Kill Bill Vol. 1. At that time I thought that it was a very shocking film but was very well crafted and I loved it. Now, after watching it earlier today I didn’t find the violence horrifying as it was when I first saw it but I love it more than ever. This is probably the fifth time that I have seen this movie, I thought it’s one of my guilty pleasures, a movie that that is not really good but is highly entertaining. I can now officially say that it is not a guilty pleasure because it is a legit good movie.

Kill Bill Vol. 1 is the first part of the story of a former female assassin known as “The Bride” (Uma Thurman). She was about to get married when her former boss/mentor/lover/Bill visits her wedding (actually wedding rehearsal which you will learn in the next volume) with an assassin squad. Bill and his team kill everyone in the church and totally beat “The Bride” to death and please take note that she is pregnant while they beat her to death. Before Bill fires his gun to the head of “The Bride”, she told Bill that he is the father of the child she is carrying.

"The Bride" survives the killing but she is left in coma. After four years in coma she wakes up in the hospital and realizes that she lost her baby. She then plans for her killing spree revenge. One by one she plans to kill each member of the squad that killed her groom and everyone in the church where she was supposed to get married.

The Good
Almost everything in this movie is good and memorable, here are few of those I really like:

The simple plot with a good structure - this movie is a simple revenge flick but what I like about it is the pacing and structure of the story. The story is not narrated in a linear fashion instead the story jumps back and forth in a non-chronological way. It sounds complicated but it’s not and the good thing that comes out of it is that it gives a little mystery and suspense to the story and also helps in slowly building each character’s personality. The structure of the movie is very well-thought of and this is one of the strengths of the film.

The combination of reality and fantasy - This film moves you. You will sympathize with The Bride and you will root for her. You will fear and be mad at the villains. In the back of your mind there is a possibility that this story could be true or could happen in real life. But there is an element of fantasy, not the Lord Of The Rings type of fantasy, but more like an anime type of fantasy. I’m talking about hot women who are good in martial arts and katanas. An example is the one-eyed character, Elle (Daryl Hannah), whose mission to kill “The Bride” in the hospital, she disguises herself as a nurse but her uniform looks like a slutty nurse costume, so cartoonish. Then there’s Gogo a 17-year old girl who is the bodyguard of one of the antagonists, this evil girl wears a school girl uniform, very anime.

The music and songs - it has music from different types of genres. You could say that the songs and music are typical Tarantino choices. The songs and the music add story and thrill to the film. One of the best music adapted in the film is “Battle Without Honor or Humanity” this is actually a music used in a 2000 yakuza Japanese film (New Battles Without Honor and Humanity) but is now known to be Kill Bill’s music.

The anime sequence - the story of O-Ren Ishii (Lucy Liu), a member of the assassin squad, is told using anime art. This medium works very well in telling the story of O-Ren and establishes Kill Bill Vol. 1 as an extraordinary movie.

The costumes - some of the costumes in Kill Bill Vol. 1 are iconic or at least memorable. One of them is Gogo’s outfit that I mentioned earlier, another is O-Ren Ishii’s white kimono. But it’s the yellow and black suit that “The Bride” from Kill Bill will always be remembered for. Yellow and black suit is modern, is edgy, is sexy and it becomes bloody.

The Bad

I saw an interview of Quentin Tarantino in YouTube once. In this interview he encourages the children to watch the film and the interviewer doesn’t think that kids should watch it because of the violence. The interview becomes ugly and Tarantino is obviously pissed, because the interviewer is a little bit arrogant. I did find the interviewer arrogant but at the end of the day I still think that this movie should not be watched by children.

I really, really like this film. It is not the violence that makes this film good but how the story is told through good narrative structure, music, cinematography and acting.

Eastern Promises (2007) - A well-directed and entertaining film despite a few flaws

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 03 Jan 2016 02:33:00 +0000

Review No. : 0011

Title : Eastern Promises

Year : 2007

Director : David Cronenberg

Country : United Kingdom, Canada, United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 89%; Metacritic – 82 out of 100; IMDB – 7.7 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.

Last week I discovered a YouTube channel that educates the world on culture and arts. This channel is the The Nerdwriter and the video blogger has amazing analysis on films. The Nerdwriter is very good in creating professional film analyses that are also magnetically entertaining. One of his short analyses is “EasternPromises: A Study of Bodies”, this study talks about the 2007 film of David Cronenberg which is Eastern Promises. I am ashamed to say that I never heard of that film before until I saw the analytical review of The Nerdwriter. The analysis was so good that I got so intrigued to see the movie so I decided to make it the first film to see this year.

Eastern Promises (2007) is a film by Cronenberg, he directed several horror and sci-fi flicks back in the 70s to the 80s. One of Cronenberg’s most popular movies is The Fly (1986) that starred Jeff Goldblum and Geena Davis. Cronenberg also directed several drama and action films like M. Butterfly (1993) and A History of Violence (2007). Now he is back with another drama through Eastern Promises which is a story about a Russian Mafia in London, it stars Viggo Mortensen, Naomi Watts, Vincent Cassel and Armin Mueller –Stahl.

The main story of Eastern Promises starts in a hospital wherein Anna (Watts), a midwife at a London hospital, finds a diary of a 14-year old Russian girl who dies in childbirth. Anna is hoping she can get a clue from the diary to the location of the home of the dead girl. This way she can find the girl’s family and give them the teenager’s baby. In the diary she finds a calling card of a restaurant which is owned by on old man, Semyon (Mueller-Stahl), who happens to be one of the patriarchs of a Russian Mafia operating in London. Anna goes to the restaurant and meets Semyon, whom she finds warm and friendly.

Semyon knows that the diary could possibly link him to his illegal operations so he decides to ask his son’s chauffeur, Nikolai (Mortensen), to get the diary from Anna. Nikolai is under the unofficial Russian Mafia mentorship of the son of Semyon, Kirill (Cassel), but he is eager to be part of the organization so he takes every opportunity to obey and please Semyon. Nikolai successfully delivers the diary to Semyon and he is given another assignment that will prove his loyalty and reliability. Semyon is impressed on how Nikolai delivers results so he decides to officially ordain him as a member of the Russian Mafia. Soon both Nikolai and Anna realize that people are not the way they seem to be. I’ll stop here for I do not wish to reveal the plot twists.

The Good

Viggo Mortensen – The character of Nikolai does not require much depth but the actor should at least look like he is patient and hungry for promotion and that he has his own secrets, too. Mortensen delivers all the requirements but as I’ve said the role does not require much inner digging so this could have been an easy job for any other actors. There are two things that other actors might find difficult to deliver though. One is the accent, I’m not sure if Mortensen's Russian accent is believable to a Russian ear but he sounds Russian to me, alright. Second is the nudity the role requires, and I am not talking about nudity during or after sex, this is total nakedness while aggressively fighting two men. Mortensen needs to throw punches and kicks while totally naked and he just nails it. The believable accent and how he handles a naked action scene is enough to say he is perfect for the role.
Vincent Cassel – The character of Kirill is an immature son, a drunk and a closet homosexual. He refuses to come out of the closet because he is the son of a mob’s patriarch and he knows it will be unacceptable to the organization. Now this character requires depth and subtleness of acting. I judge acting on two basic dimensions: The difficulty of the role and how convincing is the actor. If the role is mentally, emotionally or physically challenging and that it requires abandoning one’s self then that role is considered to be difficult. The other dimension, that weighs more, is the believability of the actor in portraying the role whether it is difficult or not. Kirill’s character is difficult because the actor has to project subtle acting that will give hint of the personality’s secret. Cassel amazingly conveys the character of Kirill, he acts like a wild Mafia man but shows hints of effeminacy and wild desire to be with a man.
Armin Mueller –Stahl – Semyon’s character requires several facets. He is a grandfather figure, a decent friendly old man, a disappointed father and a sly mob trickster. Mueller-Stahl does all the jobs perfectly without acting over the top.
Howard Shore’s score – The score is like a crying violin (you will know what I mean when you see the movie). It is haunting, it is sad, it is lonely.

The Bad

Drama or Thriller – The film is more of a drama than a thriller and I like it the way it is but I always wonder what if Cronenberg makes it more thrilling, especially on the story of Semyon and Anna. The interaction of the two lacks a little bit of suspense.
Stupid killers – The first scene shows a man whose neck is being slashed with a razor. This man is a member of the mob that Kirill orders to be killed. Soon the brothers of the man seek for revenge but the problem is they do not know the how Kirill looks. Seriously? If you kill my brother and I want vengeance the first thing I want to know is who you are and what you look like. Seriously? They considered themselves professional gangsters?

And The Ugly

Naomi Watts' character – I like Naomi Watts and she is a good actor even in this film but there is a flaw in her character that I don’t quite understand which is over courageous. Let’s just say that If I were on her position and I found out that I’m dealing with a mob I would immediately give them the diary. Okay, probably I would also consider giving the diary to the police (which she did not do). She eventually handed the diary to Nikolai but what I don’t understand is that she has the guts to return to the restaurant to provoke the gangsters by telling them that the baby of the dead girl is part of their family. And I always thought she wanted to protect the baby! I guess it’s my bad, she just wants to return them to her family.
Lousy ending – I can forgive Naomi’s sometimes-thoughtless character. What I can’t grasp is the ending that which for me is the bane of the movie. Without giving the important twists here is the ending: Semyon orders Kirill to kidnap and kill the baby. Anna and Nikolai ride a motorbike (Anna’s Ural motorcycle) to look for Kirill and find him a few seconds before he kills the infant. It looks like Kirill is drunk at this point because he listened to Nikolai’s persuasion not to murder the child. When the baby is already safe, Nikolai tells Kirill that he will take him home but Kirill refuses because he still wants to party. I guess it’s understandable because it is New Year and he is drunk. What I really can’t understand is Nikolai saying goodbye to Anna with a kiss on the lips. That is totally cheesy and not essential to the film AT ALL. And why would Nikolai leave Anna with a baby? Is he expecting Anna to bring back (single-handedly) the baby to the hospital in a motorcycle? One of cinema’s biggest question.

I did not like the ending of the movie but it is still a good film and I encourage you to watch it. Story is good despite the flaws, it is well directed and I know you will not get bored watching it. Who knows you might its ending. For those who have watched it already, did I miss something in the ending?

Wings (1927) - There were moments of greatness and there were moments of mediocrity

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Wed, 30 Dec 2015 16:15:00 +0000

Review No. : 0010

Title : Wings

Year : 1927

Director : William A. Wellman

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 95%; IMDB – 7.8 out of 10.0; Academy Award - Outstanding Picture, Best Engineering Effects.

My Verdict : 2.5 out of 5.0.

I got to admit that part of my movie bucket list is to watch Wings, the first recipient of the Academy Award for Best Picture (Outstanding Picture at that time). I’m glad that I am doing the Oscar Challenge it forces me to watch these old movies that are in the backburner.

Wings is a story of two young men who enlisted in the American Army during the First World War. They started as rivals fighting for the heart of one woman but soon became best of friends in the army camp. They both shared glorious moments as fighter pilots during the war and realized that no woman can destroy their friendship.

What Went Right

Shock value – When you watch this classic you will see a half-a-second breast exposure of Clara Bow. You will see a General kissing the neck of the soldiers as a sign of appreciation. You will see men embracing and almost kissing each other on the lips. You will see adult men kissing their mothers on their lips and I’m not talking about a simple smack, I’m talking about passionate kiss (gladly without tongue). The last one was the one that shocked me the most because I never saw any other film that shows that kind of affection. You will wonder if that was the kind of world a century ago.

Richard Arlen – He was the best performer in this film. He gave the right amount of performance. Charles “Buddy” Rogers did good, too, but his goofy character almost crossed the line of annoyance.

Action scenes – The scenes in the skies with the flying and falling airplanes were very impressive. The shots of the airplanes crashing down were also amazing and very believable.

What Went Wrong

Mixed genre – This film is a romantic comedy, an action and a drama rolled into one long movie. Bow and Rogers scenes were comical that sometimes I felt that it does not fit in the overall theme. Or probably Wings was really a comedy film that the serious action and dramatic scenes were the ones that didn’t fit. I just did not see the cohesiveness of the film. It’s like I watched three films because the three genres did not gel together.

Long boring parts – There were scenes that were too long that I wished I could fast forward the film. Most of these were the action scenes. Major cause was that it is a silent film and there was a need to narrate the action sequences.

Inconsistency - Wings is a film that projects polarizing experience. There are moments that you will laugh because it’s funny but there are times that you will find scenes to be too corny. There are moments that you will be so much impressed with the action stunts and there are times that you will wish it to stop because it is just too long and boring. There are times that you will find the cinematography beautiful but there are times that you will find it to be mediocre. There are times that you will cringe with the melodrama but there will be a time that you will experience goosebumps and teary eyes.

Editing is bad – I’m not talking about how the scenes were tailored to form a story. I’m referring to obvious amateur cuts like when you see a man talking with his arms raised up and the next close-up shot you will notice that his arms are now on his side. I caught a couple of this type of mistakes in this film.

Would I ever watch this film again? I don’t have any plans to watch it again but I am recommending this film for all the cinephiles out there.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015) - A tributary remake of the first Star Wars film. Disappointed.

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:01:00 +0000

Review No. : 0009

Title : Star Wars: The Force Awakens

Year : 2015

Director : J.J. Abrams

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 94%; Metacritic – 81 out of 100; IMDB – 8.6 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.

Warning: This review contains spoilers.

There were positive feedbacks after the first screening day of the new Star Wars that’s why I bought tickets for the next day and added a blue lightsaber in my Facebook profile picture.

I felt the excitement inside the movie house before the start of the film. First fifteen minutes was still exciting but it died down (at least for me) when I noticed the abundant parallelism of the movie to the original Star Wars film. It was not an inventive film and that caused my disappointment, I was expecting for a new storyline.

What Went Wrong

The same old story – I guess I was anticipating too much for a new narrative and a new set of characters. This was an opportunity for the franchise to create a new plot that is not much related to the old movie and probably a more meaningful story. A sequel doesn’t have to be a continuity of the past stories but should feature the relationships of the present and the precedence. Consider Creed (2015), this movie is technically a sequel of the Rocky franchise but it was reinvented but it was still set in the Rocky universe. J.J. Abrams could have written a better script that is not much related to the prior movies. Hello, it was set in a Galaxy far far away, I’m pretty sure there are more interesting stories out there that are better than the Skywalkers and friends battling another evil empire.

The Force Awakens started years after the rebellion in Return Of The Jedi. A new evil empire has risen and on a hunt to terminate the missing Luke Skywalker. The parallelism was overwhelming that it began to lose its originality. Another dark empire emerged and is called the First Order and as usual another resistance was formed. There is a new Darth Vader thru Kylo Ren. There is a new Emperor Palpatine thru Supreme Leader Snoke. There is a new Han Solo thru the pilot Poe Dameron. There is a new R2-D2 thru the new better looking robot, BB-8. There is a new Princess-Leia-slash-Luke-Skywalker character thru Rey. At the end of the day the story is still the same: The dark force versus the good force and these forces run in the lives and bloods of the Skywalkers. This time I will give credit to the prequel trilogy because the story, though a bad story, is more original than The Force Awakens.

Of course, the old characters (literally and figuratively) that we loved were still in the film. Han Solo, Chewbacca, Princess Leia, C-3PO, R2-D2 and Luke Skywalker were all there. Did I like that they were there? Yes, but I was hoping for them to appear as cameos probably be the new Yodas.

Humor was not funny – I almost believe that there was something wrong with me when I was watching the film because I was the only one who was not laughing. I got the jokes but I just didn’t find it funny. Then I noticed that the audience were pretentiously laughing. It was more like laughter out of respect for Star Wars, J.J. Abrams or Harrison Ford or you know when a person laughs just so the neighbors would know that he understood the joke. Sorry, I’m not that type, if it isn’t funny then it isn’t funny.

Battle scenes were bland – Do I need to say more? J.J. Abrams should watch Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) and learn from George Miller.

The Characters

Poe Dameon (Oscar Isaac) – the new Han Solo. He tried to be funny for a couple of times but just didn’t work.

Finn (John Boyega) - a new character (probably the son of Lando Calrissian). At first he doesn’t have a name because he was raised and trained to be a Stormtrooper, just like an unsullied from A Song Of Ice And Fire. During his first mission he must have seen the cruelty of the First Order or he just did not have the courage to kill other people. I just don’t buy his life’s story. Imagine being brainwashed since you were young, trained to obey commands and to kill but in an instant you realized this is not for me and that I wasn’t brainwashed after all. Yeah, talk about shallow psychology. I don’t know why people are praising and liking Finn’s character. He is not funny AT ALL.

Rey (Daisy Ridley) – a possible daughter of Leia or Luke. A desert scavenger who is searching for her family. She is the new Luke Skywalker with the looks of Leia and I’m guessing she will be trained to be a super warrior. She discovered she has Jedi powers without being trained. Talk about a new breed of super powers.

Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) – a Darth Vader wannabe. The prodigal son of Han Solo and Princess Leia. Just like his grandfather Hayden Christensen (not the original Darth Vader) this guy is full of bottled-up emotions. Typical. He is probably worse than Darth Vader but less annoying than Christensen.

Hans Solo (Harrison Ford) – He is back and this is his movie. It was nice to see him again in a Star Wars film and this movie is a fitting tribute to him.

Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher) – She is back with a less pronounced hairdo. I’m guessing she will die in the next episode.

BB-8 – a Pixar-looking robot who is the new R2-D2. This one is more adorable than R2-D2. If there’s one thing that The Force Awakens made right, it’s BB-8.

If you want to judge this film please remove the bias in your mind. It may be better than the Star Wars films where Christensen starred but it is still not that good a film.

Mad Max: Fury Road (2015) - Everything an action movie should be

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 15:35:00 +0000

Review : 0008

Title : Mad Max: Fury Road

Year : 2015

Director : George Miller

Country : Australia, United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 97%; Metacritic – 89 out of 100; IMDB – 8.2 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 4.5 out of 5.0.

Wow. This film is excellent in every way. The story, the stunts, the actors, the production and cinematography are just incredible.

I just wanted to take a break from my Oscar Challenge, so after watching the silent film 7th Heaven (1927) I chose a 2015 film that I haven’t seen. Oh, boy! I was so glad I chose Mad Max: Fury Road! The movie industry has come a long long long way since the silent films.

The movie was set in a post-apocalyptic era where water, greenery and gasoline were scarce. Max (Tom Hardy) was captured by a tyrannical army and was used as a human blood bag. Imperator Furiosa (Charlize Theron) was sent to collect gasoline by Immortan Joe (Hugh Keays-Byrne), the tyrant of a secluded city where Max was being held. Instead of getting gasoline, Furiosa diverted to escape the city with the five beautiful wives of Immortan Joe. A chase to capture Furiosa began and somehow Max was dragged into it.

What Went Right

The Story – for an action packed film this one has a storyline that is easy to follow and not stupid.
The Actors – Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron and Hugh Keays-Byrne gave outstanding performances. You can feel how physically demanding the roles and they just nailed it.
The Stunts – When you thought all stunts in the books were already made you will be amazed how this film created unforgettable scenes. Max tied and standing in a speeding vehicle, villains in a bending pole that were attached to a moving car and a guitar player in red suit playing hard metal in a zooming truck (and his guitar throws flames!). Unforgettable scenes!
The Production – the modified cars are just ruggedly handsome. George Miller created ugly, freakish and threatening automobiles but somehow the effect is just beautiful. Brilliant!
The Cinematography – there are action films that are probably more thrilling than Mad Max: Fury Road, I’m talking about Die Hard, Indiana Jones and Speed but the incredible cinematography of this movie sets it apart from other action films. Artistic shots are hard to capture in an action picture because of fast movement but this movie was visually stunning. Every scene was well thought of, every frame was beautiful and every shot was a work of art.

What Went Wrong

NONE.

This movie is highly recommended. One of the best films I have seen so far. It is one of the movies that I’m excited to watch again after I just finished watching it.

7th Heaven (1927) - First act is romantic, second act is melodramatic

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 13 Dec 2015 07:02:00 +0000

Review : 0007

Title : 7th Heaven

Year : 1927

Director : Frank Borzage

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 100%; IMDB – 7.8 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Best Directing, Best Actress, Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay).

My Verdict : 2.3 out of 5.0.

I am officially starting my Oscar Challenge with the films that were nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards for the year 1927/1928 (the first Oscars).

7th Heaven is a silent film. If my memory is correct this is my first silent film (excluding The Artist, 2011) so I was really not sure what to expect. I’m just blessed to see that this film is available on YouTube, though the condition of the film was a little dark and blurry I still got to see and understand the film. The version has a background piano music but I don’t think it is an original part of the film, but definitely better than nothing.

The film is the story of a prostitute named Diane who was saved by a poor Parisian sewer cleaner, Chico, from her abusive sister. To prevent Diane (Janet Gaynor) from being thrown into prison Chico (Charles Farrell) told that police that she was his wife and not a prostitute. They decided to live together to cover their lie to the police. Soon they fell in love but the honeymoon was cut short because Chico joined the army and that was when the corniness started.

What Went Right

Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor (at least during the first act) – Farrell was actually funny and natural, he made the film very lively. Gaynor was good in acting as an abused, weak and scared person.

What Went Wrong

Charles Farrell and Janet Gaynor (during the second act) – Farrell was good in romantic comedy but terrible in drama. In the end of the film, where he became blind, he was exaggerated it so much that it annoyed me a little and was too hard to watch. Gaynor had moments where her acting shows a little over the top. I just wished there were more consistencies in the way they acted in the movie.
Second part was too melodramatic. I wish they prolonged the story of the couple living together pretending as husband and wife, that would have given more laughter and smiles to the audience. The war scenes, though nicely done, should have not taken more of the movie. It’s probably a marketing tool back then.

The fact that 7th Heaven was nominated during the first Academy Award says a lot of good things about it. It was also selected for preservation in the US National Film Registry because it is culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant. I agree that this movie deserves all the respect and importance because it is part of cinema’s history. But this is a film that will never be my favorite and may not watch again.

Should I recommend it for you to watch? Definitely, if you are a film buff.

A good movie test is: If you will watch it again OR watch it again and again. 7th Heaven neither passed the test.

The Oscar Challenge

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sat, 12 Dec 2015 16:20:00 +0000

Special Entry : 001

Part of my bucket list is to watch all the films that were nominated for Best Picture in the Academy Awards. Right now there are about 520 nominated films and I want to watch all of these. Though, I believe there was one lost film (The Patriot, 1928) that we may no longer see.

My Challenge

Watch and review all the Oscars Best Picture nominated films. Then I will decide which among the nominated movies should have gotten the Best Picture for a particular year. It’s like saying, “Oscars give me your laundry list of nominees for this year and I will decide which one is the best.” Because somehow we really don’t find Oscars decisions satisfactory.

The Challenges I Foresee

There are 520 films. That means if I can watch at least one of these films a week it would take me 10 years to finish all and that does not include the nominations in the future. I better start immediately then.
Lost and hard to find films. According to Wikipedia one film was already lost so I can do nothing about that, who knows after 10 years they might unearth The Patriot in a basement of a dead producer. The main challenge here is where to get the materials, I do hope some are in Netflix or at least in YouTube. If you do have a copy of something I can’t find please lend it to me.

What’s Not Part of the Challenge

I will only watch and review those that were nominated for Best Picture category, so this does not include nominees for best documentary, best short film, best foreign language film, best animated film. Unless, of course, a movie was also nominated for Best Picture like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Toy Story 3.

Hereafter (2010) - It's simple, it's real and it's also unreal

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Thu, 10 Dec 2015 09:03:00 +0000

Review : 0006
Title : Hereafter

Year : 2010

Director : Clint Eastwood

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 46%; Metacritic – 56 out of 100; IMDB – 6.5 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.6 out of 5.0.

A couple of years back when I saw Hereafter I was captivated by the theme and by the story, I believe I even shed a little tear. A few days ago I watched the film again and somehow it lost a little luster but I still think it is a good film.

Hereafter is a story of the lives of three people and how death affects them. A French woman (Cecile de France) experienced a near-death experience and it changed how she views life. An American man (Matt Damon) has the ability to interact with dead people from the dimension of the dead and somehow he doesn't like using the "I see dead people" super power. A British boy (Frankie McLaren) looks for answers after his twin brother died.

What Went Right

Cecile de France and Frankie McLaren - they were perfect for this movie. De France acting was natural and believable and McLaren was good in projecting loneliness and pain.
The feel of the movie was leaning on reality rather than fantasy. You will forget that Hereafter is a supernatural story. It is like how most of us view death, we know its real but in the back of our mind the hereafter is probably just a fantasy. A possible fantasy worth studying by the way.
Special effect - The tsunami effect at the start of the movie looked very real and very horrifying and that just hooked me. After seeing that scene I know it's gonna be a good film.

What Went Wrong

Matt Damon - Don't get me wrong, Matt was fairly good in this movie, but there were times that I found him too big a star to be in this movie. Sometimes the real-feel effect becomes a fantasy because of the celebrity being in the film.

This movie has gotten mixed reviews but I like this movie. It may not be on my favorite list but I really like it. It's simple, it's real and it's unreal. I would like you to watch it and if you did not like it tell me what part you didn't like. I'm really curious.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) - The essential Chinese martial arts film

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:40:00 +0000

Review No. : 0005
Title : Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon

Year : 2000

Director : Ang Lee

Country : Taiwan, Hong Kong, United States, China

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 97%; Metacritic – 93 out of 100; IMDB – 7.9 out of 10.0; Academy Award - Best Foreign Language Film, Best Art Direction, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography.

My Verdict : 3.8 out of 5.0.

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is the essential Chinese martial arts film for various reasons: It has a nice story, good actors, incredible fight scenes, beautiful musical score and amazing cinematography. This film introduced a sophisticated way in creating a traditional Chinese period action movie. This is one of the films that I have watched more than three times now and I know five years from now I’m going to watch it again. You better see it if you haven’t yet.

The story is about three people wanting closure in their lives. One is a warrior, Mu Bai (Chow Yun-Fat), who wants to live a normal life and prossibly marry his true love. The other character is Mu Bai’s love, Shu Lien (Michelle Yeoh), who is an old maid for she chose to keep her feelings to Mu Bai all these years. Then there’s Jen (Zhang Ziyi) a princess by day and an adventuring wannabe Wudang warrior during her free time.

The warrior, being done with martial arts, decides to give away his sword (Green Destiny it is called). The old maid delivers the sword to Mu Bai’s friend and shows it to Jen. Jen’s imagination triggered her kleptomaniac and adventurous spirit and stole Green Destiny one night. That’s how the showdown of power started.

What Went Right

The cast of characters: Chow Yun-Fat, Michelle Yeoh, Zhang Ziyi were made for this movie. Good-looking Asians, good acting, good action skills. They are just pretty to watch.

Cinematography – for a martial arts movie, this one has good taste. The scene wherein Yun-Fat and Ziyi are fighting on the bamboo grasses are beautiful scenes that are hard to forget.

Fight scenes – they spun, they flew, they defied gravity. Amazing fight scenes. One of the best choreographed martial arts fights is Ziyi and Yeoh's sword fight turned into whatever-you-grab fight.

Score – the music was just brilliant and very in synch with the action scenes.

What Went Wrong

Chang Chen – He portrayed a bandit and became Jen’s lover. Compared to Yun-Fat, Yeoh and Ziyi's performances he just wasn’t at par.

I highly recommend this film, try to watch it in Chinese language and with no subtitles and I bet you would still love it.

Life Of Brian (1979) - An extended classic gag show

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Mon, 30 Nov 2015 10:43:00 +0000

Review : 0004
Title : Monty Python’s Life Of Brian

Year : 1979

Director : Terry Jones

Country : United Kingdom

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 96%; Metacritic – 75 out of 100; IMDB – 8.1 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.

I was looking for the funniest movie, one that would make me laugh out loud, and my research told me that Monty Python’s Life Of Brian is one of the funniest movies ever made. Sadly, it wasn’t hilarious as I thought it would be. It’s funny but it failed to make me laugh hard.

Life Of Brian starred and written by the Monty Python (a British comedy group). It tells the tale of Brian Cohen, a man who was born on the same day as Jesus. His adventure started when he joined a rebel group that fights the Roman who conquered Judea. His life turned into a series of misadventures, falling in love, being captured by Romans, escaping Pontius Pilate’s guards, becoming an accidental prophet, flying with UFOs in space and being crucified. Brian’s life was almost futile but in the end he chose to look at the bright side of life.

This movie is a comedy gag show. It’s a historical and religious satire and the jokes are still true to this day.

This is a type of film that will make you smile a lot and will make you think of the satirical references. I enjoyed watching it but it doesn’t have a lot of LOL moments.

Almost forgot, this movie has one of the best uplifting songs in cinema history.

Did I like the movie? A little. I was a little disappointed because I thought I would be as funny as the reviews said it was . Am I going to watch it again? Yes and will also watch other Monty Python movies. Would I recommend it to you? Yes but do not watch it with kids.

Into The Woods (2014) - The original tales in a single complex but not chaotic story

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:27:00 +0000

Review : 0003
Title : Into The Woods

Year : 2014

Director : Rob Marshall

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 71%; Metacritic – 69 out of 100; IMDB – 6.0 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.

It was after watching the film and checking Into The Woods in Wikipedia that I learned that this film was based on a musical by Stephen Sondheim. At first I thought that Disney was pretty smart to stitch a story from different fairy tales, sort of like what was done in Shrek. I was really surprised when I learned it was based on a musical from the 80s. Imagine that.

I admire the creativity embedded in the plot. Fairy tale characters meeting in the woods, each one having a different agenda. Jack (in the beanstalk) wanted to sell his cow, the witch from Rapunzel wanted to be young again, a couple wanted to have a child, Cinderella wanted to go to the ball, Little Red Riding Hood wanted to visit her granny. All of them crossed paths in the woods. When I thought the story was about to end with a happy ending a new conflict began, the last thirty minutes of the movie seemed like a sequel. I do applaud the writers of the original play.

In this review I will focus more on the performance of the actors. Here are what I can say for each of them:

Meryl Streep as The Witch – No question that it was a good performance but does she deserve an Oscar nominee for Best Actress in a Supporting Role? Nah, I don’t think so. 1) Her role was not even supporting, she was one of the lead actors in the movie. In my blog I decide if a role is a lead or a supporting one. 2) Her portrayal reminds me of a cross between her Mamma Mia! and Death Becomes Her characters. She was okay in Mamma Mia! but terrible in Death Becomes Her.

Emily Blunt as The Baker’s Wife – Blunt was good in this film. I adored her when she wanted to be a mother in the film, got worried for her when she started to fall into temptation and got sad on what happened to her at the end.

James Corden as The Baker – His acting was a little gayish in the first part of the film then became more masculine in the latter part. He reminded me of Jack Black in this movie and I think Jack Black would have been better for this role.

Anna Kendrick as Cinderella – She did not fit the role. She sounded a little pitchy, too. She did not even feel the role. It almost was a lazy acting. She was like a singing Kristen Stewart, you just don’t get too much expression on her face.

Daniel Huttlestone as Jack – This boy’s good. I believe he is my favorite character in the film.

Lilla Crawford as Little Red Riding Hood – She was annoying at first but she sang very well so you will eventually forgiver her.

Chris Pine as Cinderella’s Prince – He was actually good in this film and he had a good singing voice, too.

Johnny Depp as The Wolf – The problem with this role for Depp was that I saw him as Johnny Depp and not The Wolf. If I see more of the actor than the character that means it’s either bad makeup or bad acting.

Tracey Ullman as Jack’s Mother – Good.

Billy Magnussen as Rapunzel's Prince – He was okay, too.

Christine Baranski as Cinderella's Stepmother – She was perfect for this role.

MacKenzie Mauzy as Rapunzel – Why didn’t she sing in the movie? Her character was essential to the story but seemed useless because she was the only one who did not sing. Her character wasn't well thought of. She cried a lot, ran away during an earthquake because she was scared (who wants to be alone during an earthquake?). She did not even meet her brother (The Baker), there was no closure on that one. I just didn’t grow to love her character in the film.

Fairy tales are actually gruesome stories that became child-friendly over time. The original Rapunzel fornicated with the Prince, and her prince was blinded by the witch. One of the original versions of Cinderella tells how the step-sister cut parts of their feet to fit the glass slipper and how the birds of Cinderella pecked their eyes for revenge. I liked how these details were incorporated in Into The Woods it shows that the writers relied on the original fables rather than sugar-coated Disney fairy tales. Into The Woods, just like original fairy tales, is a story for adults but became friendly when it became a Disney film.

Did I like the movie? Yes, but not so much. Am I going to watch it again? Not in the near future. Would I recommend it to you? Yes, but don’t expect too much from this movie.

Anchorman (2004) - All smiles and just a couple of LOLs

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sun, 22 Nov 2015 07:30:00 +0000

Review : 0002
Title : Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy

Year : 2004

Director : Adam McKay

Country : United States

World’s Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 66%; IMDB – 7.2 out of 10.0.

My Verdict : 2.9 out of 5.0.

We all know that Will Ferrell is very funny. Just thinking about Blades of Glory (2007) makes me smile, it’s one of the funniest movies I have ever watched. Anyway, it’s time for me to judge a Ferrell film, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy (2004). This is my first time to watch this film, according to reviews this is a good film but somehow I beg to differ.

Characters:

Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell) - an Emmy Award-winning journalist and the main anchorman for a fictional Channel 4 News.
Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) – an ambitious staff member who wants to become an anchor.
Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd) – a field reporter who thinks too much sex.
Brick Tamland (Steve Carell) - the stupid weatherman.
Champion Kind (David Koechner) – the annoying sportscaster.

Unspoiled Plot:

Ron Burgundy and his alpha-male newscasters holds the top spot in TV news rating.
The producer hires an ambitious female journalist, Veronica. She becomes the target of sexist jokes by the rest of the alpha male newscasters.
Ron and Veronica start to go on romantic dates.
Ron fails to report for the 6 o’clock news one time. Veronica does the job in being an anchor for that evening.
Veronica’s successful anchor stint triggers Ron’s jealousy and sparks a silly rivalry between them.
You better watch the movie to know if:

Veronica will become a permanent anchor
Veronica and Ron will continue their romantic relationship
Ron will retain his status as the most famous news anchor

Top Reasons Why You Should Watch Anchorman:

Most of the scenes will make you smile. It’s is not the type of comedy that would make you roll on the floor laughing.
Cameos. The appearances of other comedian and dramatic actors are a surprise treat.

Top Reasons Why Anchorman Is A Waste of Time:

It is pure silliness. Stupid plot, moronic people, impossible settings. Don’t get me wrong, I like this type of films, as I have mentioned I liked Blades of Glory. But if you want to create this type of movie you should be able to make it very very funny and not just “half funny”.
Sex Jokes. This is almost a sex comedy with no nudity. It’s just not my cup of tea.
Steve Carrell is a flop in this film. I love Steve Carrell in the TV series The Office but not in this movie. I think it’s his underwhelming character that made him so corny in Anchorman. So corny that when I was watching it I dread to see his next scene and hear his next line.

Conclusion and Recommendation:

Did I like the film? Not really.
When will I watch it again? Never, but I might watch Anchorman 2 (2013).
Would I recommend it for you to watch it? No.

Let me know if you agree with me by writing on the comments section below.

East of Eden (1955) - A modern version of Cain and Abel

noreply@blogger.com (Movie Management) — Sat, 21 Nov 2015 15:39:00 +0000

Review : 0001
Title : East Of Eden

Year : 1955

Director : Elia Kazan

Country : United States

World's Verdict : Rotten Tomatoes – 88%; IMDB – 8.0 out of 10.0; Academy Award – Best Supporting Actress; Cannes Film Festival – Best Dramatic Film.
My Verdict : 3.7 out of 5.0.

Lately, I love to watch films that I have already seen. So today I did my best to expand my horizon by watching a movie that I haven’t seen yet. I decided to watch a James Dean movie. I like Dean, I like his acting in Rebel Without A Cause (1955) and Giant (1956) and that’s enough for me to pick East Of Eden as my movie today. This 1955 film was directed by Elia Kazan, a director who loves to use “method actors” like Marlon Brando and James Dean. His films include A Streetcar Named Desire (1951), On The Waterfront (1954) and Splendor In The Grass (1961).

Characters:

Cal Trask (James Dean) – A wayward young man who strives for the attention and respect of his father. This guy has a lot of insecurities and issues.
Aron Trask (Richard Davalos) – Older brother of Cal. A refined young man and that’s why he is favored by his father.
Adam Trask (Raymond Massey) – A religious father of Aron and Cal. He raised his two sons because their mother abandoned them when his children were young.
Abra (Julie Harris) – Girlfriend of Aron but flirts with Cal.
Kate (Jo Van Fleet) – Mother of Aron and Cal. She abandoned her young children to pursue her dreams. Ends up owning a profitable brothel.

Unspoiled Plot:

Cal discovers that his mother isn’t dead at all, but a rich lady who owns a brothel in another town. He keeps this secret from his father and his brother because he knows that knowing the truth will hurt them.
Cal strives to impress his father by helping in the family’s business ventures. His father is not so impressed.
Cal’s father lost a lot of money in his business venture.
Abra flirts with Cal.
Cal wants to impress his father so he goes to his mother to borrow money. He uses the money to invest in a new business.
Abra continues to flirt with Cal.
You better watch the movie to know if:

Cal will be successful in his business
Cal’s father will be proud of him
Cal’s family will know his secret about his mother
Abra will continue to flirt with Cal

Trivia:

East of Eden is loosely based on the second half of John Steinbeck’s 1952 novel of the same name.

Top Reasons Why You Should Watch East Of Eden:

The best of James Dean. Of the three great films of James Dean [other two are Rebel Without A Cause (1955) and Giant (1956)] this for me is his best when it comes to his acting. I find the role emotionally draining but Dean is just right in portraying different moods of Cal, whether its paranoia, anger, sweetness, jealousy and despair.
Good cinematography. Shots of the scenes are very artistic. I love how Kazan tilted the cameras and how he played with shadows. The shots where James Dean is on top of a moving train are classically beautiful.

Top Reason Why East Of Eden is Not a Perfect Film:

Julie Harris and Richard Davalos do not really shine in this movie. They both have traces of classic Hollywood acting that I’m really not a big fan of. I’m not sure why Kazan hired them, they don’t look like method actors to me.

Conclusion and Recommendation:

Did I like the film? Yes.
When will I watch it again? Five years from now, I guess.
Would I recommend it for you to watch it? Absolutely.

Let me know if you agree with me by writing on the comments section below.