Recently viewed films

[crash8_durham]

I have been sick for 3 days. I have been on the couch watching way too many movies. The best of those has been Ray. Jamie Fox was fantastic. He should win the Oscar.

[El Vez]

Saw "Million Dollar Baby" tonight with my wife. Riveting fight sequences, however brief, and I really liked the first half of the movie, as Eastman and Swank's characters are sizing each other up. I won't spoil the second half of the film for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but I think it's fair to say that it veers rather dramatically towards the end and becomes something else entirely.

Still not sure how I feel about where the movie went, and it has nothing to do with my feelings on an especially controversial issue that the film raises, but a couple of things bothered me about "Million Dollar Baby". First, did they really need to make her family so unsympathetic? It was an almost embarrassing cliche of Southern white trash. A little over the top in my opinion. Second, another Morgan Freeman voice-over narration? He is a wonderful actor and great narrator, but it reminded me a little too much of "The Shawshank Redemption". I like "Shawshank", but this was a bit of a rip-off of that style. I was also left scratching my head about how he knew about several of the things he mentioned.

Some very solid performances from Eastwood (what a tremendous head he has), Freeman (as usual), and Swank, who was totally convincing as a boxer.

Could have done without the retarded kid too. Totally superfluous to the story.

You make a lot of very good, intelligent points WSS (you always do) and I wanted to chime in with my 2 bits.

As far as Freeman's narrator knowing more than he would actually know in real life.....this is called "Why? Because the writer needed it to happen." Even Citizen Kane is guilty of this because there is no way that Everett Sloane and some of the other subjects interviewed about Charles Foster Kane would know some of the things we were shown on screen. It's a suspension of disbelief thing and sometimes it is easier to swallow than others. I had no problem with the way Million Dollar Baby handled it. As far as it being similar to his narrator duties for The Shawshank Redemption, I don't think that can be helped. Freeman's voice is so distintive and rich and, in both films, the writers feed him a lot of hard boiled lines simply because he delivers them so perfectly.

The white trash family being so extreme and repulsive was also a necessity because you don't want to muddy up the waters by having members of the audience disagreeing with how Swank's character finally handles that situation. They needed to be horrible people for the sake of the story staying on track. If they were at all sympathetic then you would have a different story on your hands. Even though we admire films that capture the true shades of gray in humanity, when you're dealing with stories that contain such heightened melodrama like Million Dollar Baby (which juxtaposes both the soap opera and the rah rah elements with harsh, ultra-realistic 1970's style cinematography) you need to keep the audience clear on the choices the characters make, why they make them and maintain that connection with the viewer. Recently, a lot of romantic comedies have made the mistake of having the main characters' initial love interest who eventually gets dumped be a more sympathetic and likeable figure because it seems more "honest" somehow. Problem is you wind up with protagonists who come off as unbearably picky and audiences have a very hard time staying with the characters once they jilt these perfectly nice, attractive and worthy people to go dance in the rain with a flighty ass Kate Beckinsale. It's basically a melodramatic convention having unredeemable antagonists like Swank's family in Million Dollar Baby and it's a bit like throwing the dog a bone because if you try to make them remotely likeable then you risk distracting your audience from the story you are trying to tell.

As for the retarded kid, part of the reason for him being there was comic relief as well as giving the other members of the gym something to react off of so that we could learn who they are. Right from the start, we see how patient and fundamentally decent Eastwood and Freeman's gruff characters are simply for allowing the kid to hang out there without paying a single dime in dues. We also discover who the complete shitbirds are at The Hit Pit by the way they mistreat the kid. Also, his existence gives the movie a truly great standup and cheer moment right before the story takes a 180 degree turn which was a smart dramatic device designed to keep our expectations as an audience off guard. So, I guess it was easy for me to go along with this just because I could admire the choices made with the writing and execution in order to better knock the shit out of everyone in the audience with that haymaker three-quarters of the way through.

[Who Shot Sam?]

Saw "Million Dollar Baby" tonight with my wife. Riveting fight sequences, however brief, and I really liked the first half of the movie, as Eastman and Swank's characters are sizing each other up. I won't spoil the second half of the film for anyone who hasn't seen it yet, but I think it's fair to say that it veers rather dramatically towards the end and becomes something else entirely.

Still not sure how I feel about where the movie went, and it has nothing to do with my feelings on an especially controversial issue that the film raises, but a couple of things bothered me about "Million Dollar Baby". First, did they really need to make her family so unsympathetic? It was an almost embarrassing cliche of Southern white trash. A little over the top in my opinion. Second, another Morgan Freeman voice-over narration? He is a wonderful actor and great narrator, but it reminded me a little too much of "The Shawshank Redemption". I like "Shawshank", but this was a bit of a rip-off of that style. I was also left scratching my head about how he knew about several of the things he mentioned.

Some very solid performances from Eastwood (what a tremendous head he has), Freeman (as usual), and Swank, who was totally convincing as a boxer.

Could have done without the retarded kid too. Totally superfluous to the story.

You make a lot of very good, intelligent points WSS (you always do) and I wanted to chime in with my 2 bits.

As far as Freeman's narrator knowing more than he would actually know in real life.....this is called "Why? Because the writer needed it to happen." Even Citizen Kane is guilty of this because there is no way that Everett Sloane and some of the other subjects interviewed about Charles Foster Kane would know some of the things we were shown on screen. It's a suspension of disbelief thing and sometimes it is easier to swallow than others. I had no problem with the way Million Dollar Baby handled it. As far as it being similar to his narrator duties for The Shawshank Redemption, I don't think that can be helped. Freeman's voice is so distintive and rich and, in both films, the writers feed him a lot of hard boiled lines simply because he delivers them so perfectly.

The white trash family being so extreme and repulsive was also a necessity because you don't want to muddy up the waters by having members of the audience disagreeing with how Swank's character finally handles that situation. They needed to be horrible people for the sake of the story staying on track. If they were at all sympathetic then you would have a different story on your hands. Even though we admire films that capture the true shades of gray in humanity, when you're dealing with stories that contain such heightened melodrama like Million Dollar Baby (which juxtaposes both the soap opera and the rah rah elements with harsh, ultra-realistic 1970's style cinematography) you need to keep the audience clear on the choices the characters make, why they make them and maintain that connection with the viewer. Recently, a lot of romantic comedies have made the mistake of having the main characters' initial love interest who eventually gets dumped be a more sympathetic and likeable figure because it seems more "honest" somehow. Problem is you wind up with protagonists who come off as unbearably neurotic, picky and audiences have a very hard time staying with the characters once they jilt these perfectly nice, attractive and worthy people to go dance in the rain with a flighty ass Kate Beckinsale. It's basically a melodramatic convention having unredeemable antagonists like Swank's family in Million Dollar Baby and it's a bit like throwing the dog a bone because if you try to make them remotely likeable then you risk distracting your audience from the story you are trying to tell.

As for the retarded kid, part of the reason for him being there was comic relief as well as giving the other members of the gym something to react off of so that we could learn who they are. Right from the start, we see how patient and fundamentally decent Eastwood and Freeman's gruff characters are simply for allowing the kid to hang out there without paying a single dime in dues. We also discover who the complete shitbirds are at The Hit Pit by the way they mistreat the kid. Also, his existence gives the movie a truly great standup and cheer moment right before the story takes a 180 degree turn which was a smart dramatic device designed to keep our expectations as an audience off guard. So, I guess it was easy for me to go along with this just because I could admire the choices made with the writing and execution in order to better knock the shit out of everyone in the audience with that haymaker three-quarters of the way through.

All good points. I liked the film a lot - probably even more than "Sideways", the only other Best Picture-nominated film I've seen this year. "MDB" is a gutsy piece of work with some great performances. It's good to see Eastwood making such complex, grown-up films when there's so much fluff out there. Who would have thought 25 years ago, when he was making chimp movies with Sondra Locke, that he would turn out to be such a great director?

[bobster]

Did you think that Clint was a little conflicted as to whether "Million Dollar Baby" was a period piece or set in modern time? I felt that parts of the film looked like he was going for a dated look, yet other parts (hospital, etc) were ultra modern. I have talked to people who felt is was set in the 60's or 70's, and others that immediately see the setting as modern and completely contemperary.

Don't know specifically, but I can tell you that a sort of deliberately "timeless" feel, with indicators from different eras and sometimes deliberately confusing time frames is a pretty common technique these days. In the case of MDB, however, Clint has to sort of admit to the audience that it's contemporary, since women in boxing is, I assume (no expert on this!), a relatively recent phenomonon. Still, he is harking back to an older style of filmmaking.

[BlueChair]

Not to mention Universal Studios and HBO-televised boxing

[Mr. Average]

The mechanical ventilator that is used to respirate the 'patient' (not to give anything away) is one of the units that I refused to ship due to severe quality issues (33% failure on install, and 70% failure within the first few weeks). I was overrulled by the Board of Directors, and when I put my position on the line, they chose to eliminate my position (after 23 years of service) and continued to ship defective vents against my directive to stop ship.

Because the defective units were, effectively, boat anchors (there was no rehab/rework plan to bring them to full service operations) the Marketing Manager decided to donate them to a number of Hollywood studio's. The vent has also been shown on Scrubs and ER, but it represents a total product failure for the company that I formerly worked for.

Tragedy...on more than one level.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Haven't made time for it yet. Sounds like a must, seeing it on the big screen.

Absolutely, it demands that and repays it.

I have been sick for 3 days. I have been on the couch watching way too many movies. The best of those has been Ray. Jamie Fox was fantastic. He should win the Oscar.

Ain't seen it (is it out on DVD there? seems too early), but will be backing Leo myself. Awards aren't everything, but I think Scorsese should finally get one.

[bobster]

"Ray" is out on DVD in the U.S. No clue about good ol' Region 2.

Jamie Fox is as close to a sure thing as you ever get because he plays a universally known person and makes you forget that you're not actually watching that person. This is the biggest lock since Martin Landau seemed to become Bela Lugosi in "Ed Wood."

As some writer, somewhere, recently pointed out, to predict the Oscars accurately, replace the word "best" with "most" and you'll get a pretty good clue. So, acting Oscars go to someone who's done something really dramatic. Disability is good, so is emoting a great deal. But there's nothing like a spot-on impersonation + a some really convincing emoting to nail the thing.

Conversely, Leonardo DiCaprio chances are slim because -- while he did the best job I think he could possibly have done -- he really doesn't resemble Howard Hughes at all (though most of us don't how he talked, his picture is pretty familiar to most older audiences). Personally, I enjoyed the Avaitor a lot and I think LDC is an underrated actor, but I thought it less than perfect casting.

[BlueChair]

Finally caught The Aviator, making this the first year that I've seen all five films up for Best Picture before the Oscars.

While there was a lot about the film, I was very conflicted about it. I hate being one of those people who complains about a film being too long, but it was! It's funny how a film about this guy who was overindulgent and a lavish spender is also an overindulgence. Was that crash and burn scene really necessary?

With that said, DiCaprio's performance reminded me of Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, particularly during his decline. I also loved Cate Blanchett as Katherine Hepburn. It was a beautifully made film, but I think it probably could have been a lot better. My vote still goes for Million Dollar Baby or Sideways.

[Mr. Average]

Made most of my comments about the Aviator in the Oscar 2005 thread, but wanted to post that I thought Alan Alda was brilliant, absolutely brilliant. Effortless. I would never have quessed it going in.

He wasn't my favorite for best supporting (Morgan Freeman who literally glides through his roles with effortless abandon!), but should he have taken it, I wouldn't have been a bit surprised. He was that good.

I post this for those who are still planning to see the film. Take a minute to really appreciate his performance, and the conviction with which it is played. If Morgan Freeman wasn't Morgan Freeman, and was not nominated, I submit that Alda would have won the statuette.

It is strange seeing Hawkeye Pierce looking as old as Clint Eastwood.

[King Hoarse]

I haven't seen the Aviator yet, but I really like the soundtrack. I mean, how could it not be great with Loudon Wainwright III, Django Reinhardt and Leadbelly on the same disc? I certainly hope Loudon's (supporting) acting career picks up now too, first that brilliant freaky guy in Big Fish and now this.

PS. I'm always on the lookout for the early MASH episodes where Loudon plays Captain Spaulding "the singing surgeon" but I must have seen every one except those two or three(?) If anyone remembers them, is it worth the effort? DS

[BlueChair]

I haven't seen the Aviator yet, but I really like the soundtrack. I mean, how could it not be great with Loudon Wainwright III, Django Reinhardt and Leadbelly on the same disc? I certainly hope Loudon's (supporting) acting career picks up now too, first that brilliant freaky guy in Big Fish and now this.

It's actually kinda cool.. Rufus Wainwright, Loudon Wainwright III, and Martha Wainwright all play singers individual at the Coconut Grove in three seperate scenes.

[King Hoarse]

Three consecutives decades, I heard. Great idea!

[VonOfterdingen]

I finally watched 'Sideways' and it was really good. The leads are great and the story got a nice rythm. What struck me most was how it reminded me of the brilliant 'Swingers". The twentysomethings, Trent and Mike, could be Jack and Miles, as fortysomethings. I mean, one is good with the ladies but kind of a loveable jerk and trying to get his buddy laid. Both Mike and Miles are stuck in their past relationships and can't get further. They both check for phonemessages and so on and are driving around with their best friend. Also the ending in both movies is open and leave the characters a glimpse of hope.
Two fine movies and very much alike.

[bobster]

Just a quick note on "Ray" -- I understand that the DVD contains an extended version of the movie with another 25 minutes or so of footage, and some critics are saying it's a lot better. Since I enjoyed "Ray" a great deal despite its flaws (which it's entirely possible might be related to excessive cutting because of studio pressure), I'll definitely be checking this one out.

[Otis Westinghouse]

Hooray - here's to long films!

It's actually kinda cool.. Rufus Wainwright, Loudon Wainwright III, and Martha Wainwright all play singers individual at the Coconut Grove in three seperate scenes.

I wasn't up on this, and only remember the older, insane-looking geezer. Was that Loudon?

[BlueChair]

Yep, that was Loudon. Rufus' dad.

Rufus was the performer at the very beginning of the film:



Martha (Rufus' sister) came relatively late in the film.

[selfmademug]

Damn, I knew he looked familiar and couldn't peg him. Wish I'd known that detail before seeing it.

I really liked the whole film. Didn't knock my socks off but there was more there than I thought there'd be (it's so much about expectations sometimes, no? Mine weren't high for this.). And serious eye candy-- especially those planes-- seriously gorgeous stuff.

One question I had was about the color. I dunno if we just had a crappy print--is that even possible anymore, surely it's all digital??-- but there was an early stretch in the film with a very blue-greeny tint that I found purposeless and distracting. I have to assume such stuff is all conscious in this day and age, but whatever he was trying to do there, it wasn't working for me! He did some stuff in black and white, to 'newsreel-ify' it, and that's enough of a schtick now to be recognizable and meaningful, if a bit cutesy, but what was with the other color stuff?? Or was I just having a flashback?

[BlueChair]

Nope, The Aviator was shot on film. Most things are still shot on film the old fashioned way. All that tends to be digital now is the audio. That is, until it makes it to DVD at which point the transfer is digital.

As for the blue-greeny tint, I didn't even notice.. though I did notice that the movie almost had an old-fashioned wash to it at times, even in the standard scene. Which is weird, cause anything authentically from that period would have been black and white, right?

[selfmademug]

Thanks. I'm utterly ignorant about film!! I figured maybe the copies were somehow made digitally identical, don't ask me how.

Anyway, I will have to watch it again. I did notice the sort of wash you mention, in a more consistent way.

On the plus side, the scenes on the golf courses, esp the one where they land on his estate in the wee hours, had some of the most beautiful light I've seen in a film.

[bambooneedle]

Just saw Ray and enjoyed it even more than Million Dollar Baby. Very different films to compare, but I love visually stunning period movies and all the acting in it was first rate.

[VonOfterdingen]

The scenes in 'The Aviator' are shot in a way that they look as movies did in the decade the film takes place in. Like Technicolor in the 40's and a different style in the 30's.

[strangerinthehouse]

I finally saw the aviator last night, seeing Scorcese lose at the oscars made me truly eager to see it. I'm a huge fan of Scorcese and but i can't help but feel that the oscar was right in going to somebody else this year. the only movie nominated for best director and best picture that i've seen so far has been Sideways, so far i think that should have won. (I still want to see MDB, according to everyone else is a must now.) The Aviator has classic Scorcese trademarks, the use of red in Hughes' own theater, the fast camera tracking shots, even scorcese's screen appearance through a voice in the phone. They are all there but the elements that hooked me in Taxi driver, Goodfellas, Raging Bull, and Gangs of New York were sorely missing. There were moments were i was truly enjoing the film and others where i was thinking about finishing other three hour long features (I started The Tin Drum earlier that morning, finished it today; it was much better)
I still love scorcese, i want to get that second collection of his films, but The Aviator was not my favorite, it was a good movie and i'll probably watch it again but i don't understand why cate blanchet won, the parts where she portrayed hepburn were my least favorites. The congressional hearings (Alda and DiCaprio were excellent) the Hell's Angels Sequences, the dementia in the theater, the flashy hollywood cameras. they were great moments but as a whole the Aviator was not amazing.

[bobster]

Nope, The Aviator was shot on film. Most things are still shot on film the old fashioned way. All that tends to be digital now is the audio. That is, until it makes it to DVD at which point the transfer is digital.

As for the blue-greeny tint, I didn't even notice.. though I did notice that the movie almost had an old-fashioned wash to it at times, even in the standard scene. Which is weird, cause anything authentically from that period would have been black and white, right?

Well, there is digital projection happening in a very few theaters. Personally, I'm opposed to digital projection for producitons shot on film (in which case SMM would be right) -- though it's good enough now that it MIGHT fool even me if I'm not attentive.

Digital projection, however, is by the best way to see something that was shot or produced digitally, particularly a Pixar production. In the case of these last two Star Wars movies, it's practically mandatory, since the movies are so boring, the eye-popping clarity of it is the only reason to bother seeing them! Other recent movies shot on digital include "Collateral", "The Last Samurai" and the Spy Kids II and III.

[selfmademug]

Will be interested to hear what y'all think of ROBOTS.

A.O. Scott panned it, and had similar grousing about ICE AGE, but the boy and I adore the latter, and quite liked the former on a first viewing.

It gets really mixed reviews, but personally I think ICE AGE is one of the best kids films ever-- great animation, great direction/storyboard, great script, and you can't beat a combo of Ray Romano, Denis Leary (I heart him) and John Leguizamo. Plus, Goran Visnjic makes a really fantastic villan.

Dunno if ROBOTS will stand as many viewings as ICE AGE has for us, but it was very good, if you can get past Robin WIlliams, which was easier than I thought it would be. Some great action sequences! And I can't really not laugh at Mel Brooks, personally. Ewan McGregor was terribly bland, however.

I don't get why these films are thought to be inferior to Pixar's, not to mention Dreamworks's. I think ICE AGE at least holds its own to NEMO, and I thought SHARK TALE was utter crap.