2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

Preamble

A huge gap since my last post - I've simply been very busy - swanning off to South Africa and so on. Still, back to it. I'm watching this out of order because it happened to be the next one I got from LoveFilm.

What I already knew

Quite a lot really. I've seen the film a couple of times, and read the book (and the sequels) quite a few more times than that. So I really know the story quite well, and while there are some differences between the book and the film, these are really quite minor. So there were no real surprises for me here, but I tried to watch it with fresh eyes.

Review

This film starts quite slowly, and in fact moves quite slowly all the way through. What really stands out is that there is no dialogue for almost the fist 30 minutes of the film. The initial sequence covers a group of apes in pre-history, and and their interaction with a strange monolith that appears one day.

The apes are less realistic than I remember, but possibly quite good for the time the film was made. I think the film suffers in comparison to the book in this sequence, as it's not exactly clear what is happening There are a couple of jarring moments when there seem to be very hard cuts with sudden changes in noise or music, but generally it's not badly done. What was quite disappointing for me was the transition to the second section of the film, which is held up as quite an iconic piece of film-making. The concept is very striking - a spinning bone transitioning to a spaceship - but the execution is actually pretty amateurish to my eye, the bone spins in two different directions, and the cut is to a static spaceship. I'm just not sure why it is so highly praised. Still.

The second section of the film is really the exposition for the third sequence, and follows Dr Heywood Floyd (William Sylvester) as he travels to the moon to report on the progress of an investigation into another monolith that has appeared on the moon. The physical presentation of space travel looks a bit dated now, but visually it is very stylish and consistent, and there is some nice use of music - I particularly liked the use of dance music to cover the spaceship docking. Then, in really the only surprise for me, Leonard Rossiter appears - I had completely forgotten that he was in it. Floyd goes to the moon, there are some dodgy attempts at low-gravity effects, and some quite jarring exposition explaining what happened 'at the beginning' to Floyd (which I'm sure he would have known anyway). Then the monolith is visited, and we transition to the third section.

This section follows Dave Bowman (Keir Dullea) and Frank Poole (Gary Lockwood) as they go about life on a spaceship travelling to Jupiter, controlled by the on-board computer - HAL9000. HAL is really the central character of this part of the film, and was given a great presence, even though he is simply a block panel with a red light, and a disembodied voice (which is very well delivered). The depiction of space travel in this section is much better, in my opinion, to the previous section, although there are a couple of sequences which look a bit off. The plot really comes alive when things go wrong, Frank is killed and Dave is forced to de-activate HAL. This is all done with very little dialogue. Frank dies in silence, and HAL fades out singing 'Daisy, daisy...' which is another iconic scene. It's a very atmospheric section of the film, and does begin to show why the film is highly regarded.

Then, frankly, it all goes nuts and Dave spends what feels like ages going through some weird 60s acid trip journey with lots of flashing lights and general oddness, until he ends up in a room where he lives, ages, and dies all in one long very cleverly blended sequence, only to be confronted with the monolith again, and becomes a 'Star Child'

This is where I have the advantage, having read the books, I understand a fair bit of what is going on here, but I can imagine for people who have only seen the film, this whole sequence must be pretty confusing.

Overall, I enjoyed this, although perhaps not as much as I expected. It certainly caught my attention, and created a space of its own, a mood and an atmosphere, and when the end credits came on, it was a little jerk back to reality as I had almost forgotten I was watching a film - which is probably a sign of a good movie I guess. Kubrick presents the story beautifully, and does so without it being obvious what he is doing. I'm not sure I would have enjoyed it as much without the knowledge form the books, but that's probably my fault. It's a great presentation, I'm just not sure that the plot is made clear. But then maybe that's the idea - Kubrick was never one to do things normally :)

Rating: rent it (then buy it if you like it)

Mrs Worm's opinion

She didn't watch it

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more

The Wizard of Oz (1939)

Preamble

Another one to look forward to. I haven't watched The Wizard of Oz for years, certainly since I was a kid, so I was looking forward to viewing it through adult eyes. If that doesn't sounds a bit creepy.. ;)

What I already knew

The Wizard of Oz is one of those films that has become so ubiquitious that it has become something of a joke - like The Great Escape. When I was young it felt like it was on at Christmas every year (although I'm sure it wasn't), and I must have seen it half a dozen times. I certainly knew the plot, the characters, the black and white/colour change, the songs, and many of the lines. So it's not exactly new territory.

Review

The titles reminded me that the film was based on a book - like many of the films in this list, and I really must get round to reading it - another trivia fact that I knew is that the book was written by Frank Baum; always a handy thing to know in a pub quiz.

In case you've been in a coma and never seen The Wizard of Oz, the plot is very simple - Dorothy is traumatized by a nasty neighbour threatening her dog, Toto, and decides to run away. She meets a travelling conjuror who changes her mind, but as she returns home a twister springs up and she is injured, slipping into a dream which echoes her fears about her life at home.

The opening scenes, shown in a sepia-toned version of black and white, are far longer than I remembered and set up the background for what follows quite well. I'm not sure why they went for sepia rather than true black and white, but it does work quite well, having a softer tone than the harsher black and white might have. The onset of the storm is rather sudden for my taste, I think more could have been achieved by building it more slowly, but that's just me.

The transition to Oz and colour is very well handled, and brings up the point that (in my opinion) the effects on this film were actually quite advanced for their time. I may be quite wrong about that, but this is the first time in watching films on the list that I have felt that the effects were good, so I thought it worth mentioning.

I would never have thought so in the past, but through the film I felt a growing affection for the Cowardly Lion. I'm not really sure why - he's not a particularly loveable character, but I guess we all love an underdog and he does have some nice lines, and I just like doing the "put 'em up. put 'em up" impression I supppose :)

The character of Glinda, the good witch, bothered me for a while although I couldn't work out why, and then I realised that she reminded me of the 'Ghost of Christmas Present' character from Scrooged. Carol Kane plays that part like a sort of caricature of Glinda, which I had never realised before. One thing that I was hoping I would pick up through watching these films is the influence that films have on those that follow, and in some small way maybe this is one of those instances.

The main action of the film centers around the four main characters - Dorothy, Scarecrow, Tin Man and Cowardly Lion. It quite an impressive ensemble, and they work together very well. One thing that I had never realised before was that Judy Garland was only 16 when she made this film - she has a vey mature voice for her age, and she really dominates much of the action on screen, which is impressive for such a young performer.

Eventually of course, all things must come to an end, and with another of those iconic lines that everyone knows, Dorothy declares that 'there's no place like home' and so returns to Kansas. It's a nice resolution to the film, if slightly predictable, and leaves a good feeling. A bit 'Hollywood' perhaps, but it suits the film perfectly. Overall, I did enjoy this, proabably more that I thought I would. I thought of it as something of a 'kids' film, but it has some quite adult themes in places, and there is plenty to enjoy. It's hardly taxing, but it does exactly what it says on the tin, and the musical numbers keep the momentum going without being over the top.

Rating : Buy it

Mrs Worm's Opinion

Watch this space.

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more

The Third Man (1949)

Preamble

This is probably the first of these films since Casablanca that I was really looking forward to seeing, simply because I have not seen it for a long time

What I already knew

I have seen The Third Man before, although not for quite a few years. Therefore I knew that this was based on a novel by Graham Greene, I basically knew the plot, the fact that it features Orson Welles and the signature zither tune. I also know its reputation as a great film (unlike some of the others that I have never heard of).

Review

The first thing that struck me from the titles was that Graham Greene also wrote the screenplay - something I didn't realise before. Then there was the voiceover exposition at the start of the film - which I'm not sure was entirely necessary. Sometimes these things work, and sometimes they seem a bit forced. In this case, I think it struck me as a bit forced.

The story moves along quite quickly, and you do have to pay attention to keep up. There is an off-balance feel about the action, as if nothing is quite what it seems. This is emphasised by the camera work, which makes much use of tilted camera shots, which keeps everythgin feeling a little out-of-place and odd. The music is simple but varied, and does tie the whole film together quite well.

The film centres around Holly Martins (Jospeh Cotten) who arrives in Vienna to start working with/for an old friend Harry Lime (Orson Welles) only to find that Harry died a few days before. His suspicions are raised, and he starts to do some investigating to see if he can find out 'what really happens'. There are plenty of ins-and-outs, not the least of which is Holly meeting, and falling for, Harry's girldfriend - Anna Schmidt (Alida Valli).

This is probably the one part of the film that doesn't quite ring true for me. Perhaps it's just me, but as with Vertigo, I didn't really feel that there was much of a relationship there - I didn't quite understand why Holly would fall for Anna so quickly or so deeply. Despite this, it was a good solid performance from them both.

There are also solid performances from Trevor Howard as Major Calloway and Bernard Lee as Serjeant Paine, but frankly the whole film is stolen by Orson Welles when he finally turns up. This is not simply becuase it is a great performance (although it is); it is also because there has been a steady but building myhtology built up about Harry Lime. There is almost a great big hole in the film until he actually enters the action, and it is a beautiful entrance. While there are some good action sequences (such as the chase through the sewers), it is the dialogue that really drives this film, and it is nicely done, without being overbearing.

This is quite a dark film - much of it takes place at night or in dark settings, which is used to build tension and atmosphere, either in obvious ways or in more subtle ways, but it all works quite well.

Overall, I enjoyed this very much, and would definately watch it again, if only for Orson Welles' entrance

Rating : Buy it

Mrs Worm's Opinion

The music is very annoying

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more

The Night of the Hunter (1955)

Preamble

A slight gap since my last post I'm afraid, but hopefully it was worth waiting for, I know it was for me :)

What I already knew

Very little. I had vaguely heard of the film, but only knew that it was one of those films that didn't do very well when it was released and has built up a following since.

Review

This film starts in a slightly jarring style. The titles are relatively innocuous, but the music is a lullaby-style song which seems out-of-place given the subject of the film. However this is perfect for the style of what follows, and actually sets it up quite well.

The whole impact of the film is based upon the stylistic approach, which is slightly odd but very compelling. Light and shadow are used to great effect, sound is used to foreshadow events, and the sets and scenery are in places realistic, and in others quite highly stylised and unrealistic. The establishing of Robert Mitchum as Harry Powell is done well. He is a complex guy, and you come to understand this quite quickly.

The plot is pretty simple really, Preacher Harry Powell is in prison with Ben Harper and finds out that Harper hid $10,000 somewhere around his house. Harper is hanged, and when Powell is released he tracks down the family of his cellmate to try and find the money. He does this in a fairly standard way, by courting and marrying the widow, and trying to prise the location of the money out of the children.

Harry is not a straightforward preacher though, and his relationship with his new wife, and her children, is oddly formed and menacing. The whole mood of this is helped by the style of the film, and in particular some of the sets, which are created in a stylised and almost theatrical way (to my eye). There are also some almost surrealistic scenes, and moments that are jarring in impact - perhaps this is the intention - I never know.

In passing, one thing that stood out for me is that Robert Mitchum really reminds me of Brad Garret's character in Everybody Loves Raymond. I'm not sure if Brad Garret was aware of this, but the portrayals are very similar in their mannarisms and speech patterns.

Overall, there is plenty in this film that I didn't quite understand and I'd like to see it again to try and work some things out. I didn't quite buy the portrayal of Harry Powell; I think he was too obviously 'dodgy', but that is perhaps my modern viewpoint. The overall impact of the film is very good indeed, and there are some great moments to enjoy.

Rating: buy it

Mrs Worm's opinion

She didn't watch it

...Read more

Les Vancances de Monsieur Hulot (Mr Hulot's Holiday) (1953)

Preamble

A bit of a light break here. Although A Hard Day's Night is a light, comedic film; Mr Hulot is a very light pice of frippery.

What I already knew

I have heard of this film here and there for quite a long time. I can't remember where I first heard of it, but it has always been referred to in very complimentary terms. In my mind, Jacques Tati was always some kind of genius of silent comedy - although I have never seen one of his films until now.

Review

This film is really very simple to summarise. Mr Hulot (played by Jacques Tati) goes to the seaside on holiday - and gets into various comedic situations. It really is that simple. There is no plot as such.

I'm not quite sure why, but I had always imagined that Jacques Tati would be distinguished gentlemen in his fifties or sixties. I was utterly wrong - he is quite a simple-looking chap in his thirties. His performance, however, is very mature. He develops a character very quickly, and there are some lovely touches in the physical comedy.

On the other hand, there are some very clunky and forced moments - such as the tennis scene - which really spoil the flow of the film. I'm not even sure that I really saw anything that stands out in a cinematic sense, and I'm not sure that I was meant to. This is a simple film that carries you along without demanding anything of the viewer.

Overall, I came away from this film slightly confused about what it was trying to say. Not very much it would appear. It was enjoyable, but it felt like nothing really happened. Apart from a couple of moments, there are no really memorable scenes, and because of the lack of dialogue there aren't any sparkling lines to resonate in your mind.

Rating: Rent it

Mrs Worm's Opinion

She didn't watch it.

...Read more

A Hard Day's Night (1964)

Preamble

This is going to be a hard review to write. Not only is this the first film on the list that I have seen before (a few times if I'm honest), I am also a big fan of The Beatles so I am going to have to work hard to seperate my impressions of the band and their music from those of the film. My apologies in advance if I don't succeed. The problem is slightly eased by the fact that the music and film were really developed together, and need to be treated as a single item in many ways.

What I already knew

Quite a lot really. I've seen A Hard Day's Night previously, and as a Beatles fan I know a fair bit of the history, so this is far from unknown territory for me. Most notable for me is probably the fact that I really didn't expect to see this film on the list; I had never considered it in terms of a film before, concentrating more on the music.

Review

How else could this film open other than with that iconic first chord from A Hard Day's Night (the song)? The amount of debate about exactly what the chord is frankly boggles the mind, and either demonstrates the brilliance of The Beatles, or shows obsession gone mad. You decide.

The opening scene of John, George and Ringo running down the road really sets the mood for the film, especially when George falls over (probably due to running while keeping one hand in his pocket...fool!) which actually looks quite painful. A Hard Day's Night is not scared of making The Beatles looking a bit foolish, which is quite refreshing. It also doesn't look scripted, and possibly exposes a 'real' glimpse of the boys, which is something that continues throughout the film.

To digress slightly, one thing I have been struggling with a bit so far in watching the films on my list is that it's hard to view them in the context of the time they were made. In the case of A Hard Day's Night I find this slightly easier because of what I know about the band, and it is worth bearing in mind that the film was made relatively early in The Beatles career. This was 1964 - about a year after they really made it big, and only a couple of years before they basically stopped playing live and became a studio band.

Once the opening 'chase' scene is over, you soon realise that as actors, The Beatles make very good musicians. That said, the timing is very good in places - particularly from John Lennon, and there are some great one-liners. The film is basically a vehicle for the the songs, but actually stands on its own in many ways. It's really a mixture of styles - some which were quite progressive for the time, and some which were more traditional. There are some great comedic moments - such as John Lennon in the bath, and some great performances; the sequence of And I Love Her really stood out for me.

The style and mood of the film moves around quite a lot ad and feels quite experimental at times, and while this could easily be confusing and result in a real mess; the whole thing hangs together very well. Probably what stand out the most are the scenes of screaming girls, pulling their hair and wailing at their favourite Beatle. While these images have become something of a cliche, from speaking to my mother who saw them live, and retains fond memories of the time - that is exactly what it was like.

Clearly, this film doesn't make any great statments about life, and it was never intended to. My impression is that it was simply another marketing tool, but one that managed to utilise a talented director and four great 'ordinary' lads to create something unique. I don't think I can truly separate my admiration for The Beatles from the film, but perhaps that is not the point. The energy genuinely carries you along, and it's a very quick 90 minutes.

Overall, it's a film I could watch several times without getting bored. The dialogue is sparse in places, but cutting and intelligent as well, which makes for some great moments.

Rating: Buy it

Mrs Worm's Opinion

"They're not very good actors" (she's not wrong)

...Read more

Ikiru (1952)

Preamble

I watched this slightly out of order becuase my first copy was a bit dodgy.

What I already knew

Absolutely nothing. I hasn't even heard of this film until I saw it on the list - although I had heard of the director - Akira Kurosawa, if for no other reason than he is mentioned in a Barenaked Ladies song. I had also heard of the lead actor - Takashi Shimura, although I'm not really sure where from.

Review

First of all, in case you hadn't realised, this is a Japanese film and I was therefore watching it with subtitles. This necessarily takes away some of the impact of the film, because not only do you not pick up on many of the nuances in a language that you don't understand, but you are concentrating on two different things at the same time, the words and the pictures. This is one of the reason that I find foreign films to be intimidating.

The other reason is that there are often cultural differences that you simply don't understand or even notice if you are not familiar with the culture. I am certain that there are aspects of Ikiru that went completely over my head because I know little of Japanese culture, which is entirely to my detriment.

I don't want to make these reviews simply a plot summary as that's the whole point of watching the film really :) But in brief, a bureaucrat called Watanabe has worked for 30 years in the same department, but has become something of an automaton. He finds out that he has stomach cancer, which causes him to re-evaluate his life. The drudgery of his life is emphasied by the dour and opressing style of the film, at least in the early stages, which almost seems to bear down on Watanabe as he goes about his days.

In general, the visual of this film is simple, but there are some stunning moments - at the construction site, at the sunset, and on the swings in the park. The fact that there are so few perhaps makes them stand out more. In fact, visually this film felt a lot older than it was. I don't know if that was deliberate or if the technology in Japan was slightly lacking at the time. But when you compare the look of this film to Casablanca (made 10 years earlier) it seems like it should be the other way round.

The wild night out with the writer has some lovely moments in it, even then simple act of buying a new hat seems to change him significantly. The second adventure(s) with the girl from his office are perhaps less stirring; not helped by the enthusiasm, energy and childishness of the girl, although that is perhaps the point - to make a contrast and to rejuvenate him. Indeed, he says as much on their last night out, that he wants to live one day like she does. This scene is really the breakthrough, and it's simple but stirring, with Watanabe rushing out to the strains of 'Happy Birthday' from a party across the landing, the song almost seeming to be sung at him, announcing his new-found joy in life. Indeed the music is echoed through the next scene in his office.

The final section is both a retrospective of Watanabe's final project and the real message of the film. It takes place at his funeral. The message (as I understand it) is both simple and complex. In fact, different characters take different things away at the conclusion, and the same is probably true of the audience. As a civil servant, I can apprectiate many of the straightforward messages about government and bureaucracy, but I can also appreciate the human messages, none more so than the fact that we can all make a difference - something I feel very deeply myself.

There is much to admire in this film. Although I found the dialogue (or lack of it) frustrating at times, I think this helped to show Watanabe's struggle with himself - he couldn't articulate his feelings because he didn't truly understand them.

Would I watch it again? I'm not really sure. I think I would, if only to try and concentrate more on the action on screen that the words - and in places the other way round, but I'm not sure it would bear regular repeat viewings. Overall, it was less disconnected from mainstream cinema than I thought it would be, and while it is long (over 2 hours) and has a slow middle section, it is well worth the effort.

Rating: Rent it

Mrs Worm's opinion

She didn't watch it.

Useful links

IMDB | Roger Ebert | MRQE

...Read more