Wednesday, June 27, 2007
1408
1408 is the latest victim of the tete-a-tete that is Cinematic Arena for your reading pleasure.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Evan Almighty
Remember that movie a while back starring that no talent hack, Jim Carrey who gets the power of god and then realizes how tough it is to be god and learns a sappy religious lesson? It had a small role for Steve Carrell as a jack ass who gets his just desserts from Jim. Well now the jackass is a likable guy who has just been elected to congress, so God asks him to build an ark and now we are subjected to an even sappier religious lesson. This was a nauseating unfunny film. It barely even makes sense. Run from Evan Almighty as if it were one of the fabled ten plagues from the bible (I suspect it actually is).
Friday, June 15, 2007
Fantastically terrible
I want to write as few words as possible to express how much I disliked the new Fantastic Four movie. It has a poorly plotted story with terrible pacing, uninteresting villains, lackluster action sequences, an unsubtle lesson to learn and horrible acting. I had the most fun watching Johnny Storm (Chris Evans) and he was a wooden one dimensional cocky guy who learns the importance of teamwork and family. Which should tell you he wasn't that interesting. Here's hoping this was the first and last sequel.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Teil Zwei
Did anyone see the trailer for Hostel 2. The voice over was all in German. It was bizarre and inexplicable and made me think "what in the name of all is wrong with Eli Roth?" Well, if you are curious as to what Hostel 2 the movie is like, it's bizarre, inexplicable and made me think "what in the name of all is wrong with Eli Roth?" I can probably safely assume the only one who might see this movie is Brad so I won't feel bad about spoilers.
Does anyone even remember Hostel? It followed backpacking male friends who travel to eastern Europe and stay at a hostel where they are essentially provided with free hot prostitutes. Unfortunately for them, it is also a hostel that kidnaps its visitors and allows rich people to torture and kill them. There was gruesome scenes of torture and death and one of the three backpackers manages to escape and kill several of his nemeses. It was exploitive and gruesome and I told myself I would not watch the sequel when they announced it was in production.
So, of course, here I am having seen the sequel. The film picks up with the previous film's hero who now is haunted by his experience and paranoid for his life. In good fashion, he is quickly iced and we move back to Europe to a new cadre of young people. This time we get three women who are convinced to go to a spa in Slovakia. The film attempts to delve deeper into things by showing more of the business end. We see the process of selection and bidding which people from all over the world participate in with the hope of getting to kill and torture. Two American men win two of the girls and head out to participate. They are first timers. One is gung-ho and the other reluctant. Stay with me now, I'm sure this will be important. We also learn that one of the girls (clearly the lead role) is uber rich. (hmm, I wonder if that will be significant?) The girls are taken and the torture begins.
If I had to compliment Eli Roth, I would say he has a lot of style. He also knows how to make an exploitation film. Oh and he is one sick individual. He seems to make these films to discover the creepiest way to kill someone. Is it cathartic? I hope he exercises demons by doing this because otherwise he's just one step from being a weird serial killer. This film gives us a woman who likes to bathe in a shower of blood, a man who eats raw flesh like a steak and plenty of other disgusting scenes.
The gung-ho guy of course chickens out before the actually killing and the reluctant guy becomes psychotic in his lust to suddenly kill. He's also an idiot. When the inevitable turn comes and our heroine one ups the guy, a viewer who wasn't paying attention might think she would escape in similar fashion to the first film's hero. But you would be forgetting her massive bank account. These are business men. She BUYS her freedom and essentially becomes a new member.
If I ever suggest I might see Hostel 3 (I'm sure it will be made), someone please restrain me. Tell me I will regret wasting two hours. Tell me it will be cheap with a cheap end.
As a side note, Bijou Philips was in this film and didn't get naked. I actually was shocked. I thought she had it in her contract that she always got naked. Even if it wasn't supposed to be in the film. Maybe it was on the cutting room floor.
Does anyone even remember Hostel? It followed backpacking male friends who travel to eastern Europe and stay at a hostel where they are essentially provided with free hot prostitutes. Unfortunately for them, it is also a hostel that kidnaps its visitors and allows rich people to torture and kill them. There was gruesome scenes of torture and death and one of the three backpackers manages to escape and kill several of his nemeses. It was exploitive and gruesome and I told myself I would not watch the sequel when they announced it was in production.
So, of course, here I am having seen the sequel. The film picks up with the previous film's hero who now is haunted by his experience and paranoid for his life. In good fashion, he is quickly iced and we move back to Europe to a new cadre of young people. This time we get three women who are convinced to go to a spa in Slovakia. The film attempts to delve deeper into things by showing more of the business end. We see the process of selection and bidding which people from all over the world participate in with the hope of getting to kill and torture. Two American men win two of the girls and head out to participate. They are first timers. One is gung-ho and the other reluctant. Stay with me now, I'm sure this will be important. We also learn that one of the girls (clearly the lead role) is uber rich. (hmm, I wonder if that will be significant?) The girls are taken and the torture begins.
If I had to compliment Eli Roth, I would say he has a lot of style. He also knows how to make an exploitation film. Oh and he is one sick individual. He seems to make these films to discover the creepiest way to kill someone. Is it cathartic? I hope he exercises demons by doing this because otherwise he's just one step from being a weird serial killer. This film gives us a woman who likes to bathe in a shower of blood, a man who eats raw flesh like a steak and plenty of other disgusting scenes.
The gung-ho guy of course chickens out before the actually killing and the reluctant guy becomes psychotic in his lust to suddenly kill. He's also an idiot. When the inevitable turn comes and our heroine one ups the guy, a viewer who wasn't paying attention might think she would escape in similar fashion to the first film's hero. But you would be forgetting her massive bank account. These are business men. She BUYS her freedom and essentially becomes a new member.
If I ever suggest I might see Hostel 3 (I'm sure it will be made), someone please restrain me. Tell me I will regret wasting two hours. Tell me it will be cheap with a cheap end.
As a side note, Bijou Philips was in this film and didn't get naked. I actually was shocked. I thought she had it in her contract that she always got naked. Even if it wasn't supposed to be in the film. Maybe it was on the cutting room floor.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Michael Bay is trying to kill me
This has always been a movie blog. Movie reviews, strictly. I've tried to keep it that way. I probably shouldn't be writing this post. It is a slippery slope from movie reviews to obnoxious, here's how my day went fodder. But I justify myself in that it will still be about film, albeit short film. Summer is here, all my shows (whether you think they are good or not) are no longer airing new episodes. I'm left with a void I must fill with summer programming. One program that intrigued me from the start was On the Lot. A Fox reality show where they selected 50 aspiring directors and put them in a competition for a contract with Dreamworks. They whittled that fifty down to eighteen and then started having America (not the best judge of character, Spider-Man 3 made 150 million in one weekend) vote on who they liked best. Since they winner could one day have a movie reviewed on this very site, I've taken an interest (or so I keep telling myself).
Initially, the format was to show the filmmakers making their films and the struggles they had. Apparently that didn't test well, so the show went to an American Idol model of performance and results. They show the films of the directors, the judges make comments and then America gets to vote. The show has three judges who make comments for the directors after each film. There are two standard judges and a guest judge every week. The first standard is Carrie Fisher (yeah Princess Leia) who is billed as an actress and screenwriter (check IMDb for a rather sad writer's c.v.). Was she the only screenwriter they could get? Spielberg produces this show, he couldn't demand someone else? Scott Frank or Shane Black, I think would both be really good.
The second standard is Gary Marshall. Gary "Pretty Woman" Marshall. Okay, fair enough. Respected Hollywood icon, pretty successful, sure not the best director ever but is competent in the director's chair and makes Hollywood money. Guest judge for the first week was Brett Ratner (the man who took what Brian Singer brilliantly created (X-Men franchise) and toppled it in a single film (hell toppled it within the first half hour of that film). Things improved in the next week when the had D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia on. His advice was actually useful and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Now lets take one step back.
Last night? Michael Bay. Michael "if movies were a religion, I would be the antichrist" Bay. Director of such disasters as Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. The host actually said the contestants hope to be a Michael Bay one day. I think any contestant who hopes that should immediately be dismissed from the competition. The three judges watched five 3 minute films last night. Carrie commented and Marshal commented, but I really don't care. Bay's comments are what are causing me to feel like I'm having an embolism.
Bay said to the first filmmaker, you need to make your movie tighter, work on editing. Let's just pause for a moment. Seriously. Just stop reading and think about that for like thirty seconds. I'll wait. .... Okay, ready? Michael Bay the man who had the interminably long Pearl Harbor which could have been cut down to five minutes and still would have been a bad film actually told another person he needs to work on editing?
Bay told another filmmaker that they needed to work on their dialogue. Again sit back read that last sentence again, think of a Michael Bay film and just realize how absurd that advice truly is. He directed a film in which the line "I take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" was uttered. He didn't stop and say wow is this dialogue bad. He just kept filming. Michael Bay telling people to write better dialogue, has the world gone crazy?
Bay told a third contestant his film felt like retread.
...
...
...
I just don't know what to say anymore. Enough of Mr. Bay.
Okay, the films:
Sam Friedlander directed Broken Pipe Dreams. Despite my rant above I had to agree with Mr. Bay (and you have no idea how physically ill that makes me). This film could have been shorter. It had a few too many drawn out shots. Other than that, it was a fantastic send up of the very films Bay loves to direct. I wonder if he knew Bay would be the guest judge because it was just too perfect. When the protagonist falls onto his knees at the end (I was reminded of Nick Cage in The Rock falling on the ground at the end). The red wire, blue wire gag was classic as well.
Trevor James directed Teri about a guy's irrational fears about what his blind date would look like. I found this film boring. The sappy end with the pretty girl (who could still be crazy, didn't anyone ever tell this guy not to judge a book by its cover?) was a poor end to a mediocre film.
Adam Stein directed Dough: The Musical. This is a musical about a bakery owner looking for love. I as a rule hate musicals but this was short, to the point and funny. The lyrics (with exception of a few awkward lyrics to make a rhyme) were fun and the story was good.
Hilary Graham directed The First Time I Met The Finkelsteins. This was a film in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding genre. Maybe it would be funny to someone who knows people like this or families like this. I just found it tedious and over the top and retread (note this was not the film that was called retread by Bay (that would be Trevor James' film).
Shalini Kantayya directed Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey. This was a documentary about a gay Indian (from India, not native American) comedian. I actually didn't know if this was a mockumentary or a real short documentary. I was under the impression that they were all to direct a comedy but maybe I was wrong. It was interesting but not funny.
Surprisingly for me I would have to say I enjoyed the musical by Stein the most. If for no other reason, this show has some decent short films every week, so I'll be watching despite the likes of Mr. Bay.
Initially, the format was to show the filmmakers making their films and the struggles they had. Apparently that didn't test well, so the show went to an American Idol model of performance and results. They show the films of the directors, the judges make comments and then America gets to vote. The show has three judges who make comments for the directors after each film. There are two standard judges and a guest judge every week. The first standard is Carrie Fisher (yeah Princess Leia) who is billed as an actress and screenwriter (check IMDb for a rather sad writer's c.v.). Was she the only screenwriter they could get? Spielberg produces this show, he couldn't demand someone else? Scott Frank or Shane Black, I think would both be really good.
The second standard is Gary Marshall. Gary "Pretty Woman" Marshall. Okay, fair enough. Respected Hollywood icon, pretty successful, sure not the best director ever but is competent in the director's chair and makes Hollywood money. Guest judge for the first week was Brett Ratner (the man who took what Brian Singer brilliantly created (X-Men franchise) and toppled it in a single film (hell toppled it within the first half hour of that film). Things improved in the next week when the had D.J. Caruso, director of Disturbia on. His advice was actually useful and he seemed to know what he was talking about. Now lets take one step back.
Last night? Michael Bay. Michael "if movies were a religion, I would be the antichrist" Bay. Director of such disasters as Bad Boys, Armageddon, The Rock and Pearl Harbor. The host actually said the contestants hope to be a Michael Bay one day. I think any contestant who hopes that should immediately be dismissed from the competition. The three judges watched five 3 minute films last night. Carrie commented and Marshal commented, but I really don't care. Bay's comments are what are causing me to feel like I'm having an embolism.
Bay said to the first filmmaker, you need to make your movie tighter, work on editing. Let's just pause for a moment. Seriously. Just stop reading and think about that for like thirty seconds. I'll wait. .... Okay, ready? Michael Bay the man who had the interminably long Pearl Harbor which could have been cut down to five minutes and still would have been a bad film actually told another person he needs to work on editing?
Bay told another filmmaker that they needed to work on their dialogue. Again sit back read that last sentence again, think of a Michael Bay film and just realize how absurd that advice truly is. He directed a film in which the line "I take pleasure in guttin' you, boy" was uttered. He didn't stop and say wow is this dialogue bad. He just kept filming. Michael Bay telling people to write better dialogue, has the world gone crazy?
Bay told a third contestant his film felt like retread.
...
...
...
I just don't know what to say anymore. Enough of Mr. Bay.
Okay, the films:
Sam Friedlander directed Broken Pipe Dreams. Despite my rant above I had to agree with Mr. Bay (and you have no idea how physically ill that makes me). This film could have been shorter. It had a few too many drawn out shots. Other than that, it was a fantastic send up of the very films Bay loves to direct. I wonder if he knew Bay would be the guest judge because it was just too perfect. When the protagonist falls onto his knees at the end (I was reminded of Nick Cage in The Rock falling on the ground at the end). The red wire, blue wire gag was classic as well.
Trevor James directed Teri about a guy's irrational fears about what his blind date would look like. I found this film boring. The sappy end with the pretty girl (who could still be crazy, didn't anyone ever tell this guy not to judge a book by its cover?) was a poor end to a mediocre film.
Adam Stein directed Dough: The Musical. This is a musical about a bakery owner looking for love. I as a rule hate musicals but this was short, to the point and funny. The lyrics (with exception of a few awkward lyrics to make a rhyme) were fun and the story was good.
Hilary Graham directed The First Time I Met The Finkelsteins. This was a film in the My Big Fat Greek Wedding genre. Maybe it would be funny to someone who knows people like this or families like this. I just found it tedious and over the top and retread (note this was not the film that was called retread by Bay (that would be Trevor James' film).
Shalini Kantayya directed Laughing Out Loud: A Comic Journey. This was a documentary about a gay Indian (from India, not native American) comedian. I actually didn't know if this was a mockumentary or a real short documentary. I was under the impression that they were all to direct a comedy but maybe I was wrong. It was interesting but not funny.
Surprisingly for me I would have to say I enjoyed the musical by Stein the most. If for no other reason, this show has some decent short films every week, so I'll be watching despite the likes of Mr. Bay.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Knocked Up
If you are really interested in reading my Knocked Up review, you will have to travel over to Cinematic Arena to view it there, as it was the inaugural film of that blog.
Monday, June 04, 2007
Arguments, I live and breath
I've convinced fellow cinephile Cinema Romantico (Nick) to join me in occasionally reviewing films in a more combative multiple opinion format. Nick and I have disagreed on movies almost since the day we met. Even the movies we both liked, we liked for different reasons. Things turned violent, or pseudo-violent. We contemplated a tv show where every review would degenerate into a drawn out fist fight. Sadly who has the time, money or inclination to do a tv show? Especially when the internet is so much less effective an outlet? Introducing Cinematic Arena. (see link in links section) A place where Nick and I can express our cinematic differences in a hostile environment. Come one, come all, feel free to drop your own two cents (or dollar 37) any time. Join sides, defect, enjoy or despise as you see fit.
The Apartment - Winner 1961
Billy Wilder is one of those writer/directors that is praised and praised and praised and I just cannot for the life of me understand why. I saw Sunset Boulevard (1950) which many consider his magnum opus and I thought it was okay. I didn't think it was as great as I was led to believe. But surely The Apartment (1960) would be different. It did win four academy awards. It does star Jack Lemmon and Shirley MacLaine. Once again I've somehow missed why exactly he is considered such a genius.
The film introduces us to our hero, C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), who is stranded outside while one of his superiors at work uses his apartment for an extra marital affair. Baxter appears to do this alot, so much that his neighbors (who conveniently never see the cheating husbands) think he is quite the player. Baxter gets very little sleep and works a boring 9-5 job. But helping out these men is done on the promise that they will recommend him for a promotion in the company. On the way, Baxter shows his interest in the elevator operator girl Fran Kubelik (MacLaine). But it turns out she is having an affair with one of his bosses.
After a falling out with the man, she takes several sleeping pills and Baxter is the one who saves her and helps her recuperate. The film peters out with a fairly unconvincing love story between the two and ending with Baxter quitting due to his unwillingness to continue to have his apartment used. It has a pretty standard happy ending with nothing really surprising.
One major problem with this film is that it isn't funny. I'm not sure I laughed once in the entire film. It was actually quite agonizing as it plodded on. The death blow of this film is that I utterly did not care about the people in this film. I didn't like Baxter and I didn't care that he triumphed. In fact I rather disliked him. I didn't like Fran either. I thought her character was a fair idiot. Since I didn't care about the character I took no satisfaction in the outcome of the film. I just wanted the "the end" credit to come up.
The film introduces us to our hero, C.C. Baxter (Lemmon), who is stranded outside while one of his superiors at work uses his apartment for an extra marital affair. Baxter appears to do this alot, so much that his neighbors (who conveniently never see the cheating husbands) think he is quite the player. Baxter gets very little sleep and works a boring 9-5 job. But helping out these men is done on the promise that they will recommend him for a promotion in the company. On the way, Baxter shows his interest in the elevator operator girl Fran Kubelik (MacLaine). But it turns out she is having an affair with one of his bosses.
After a falling out with the man, she takes several sleeping pills and Baxter is the one who saves her and helps her recuperate. The film peters out with a fairly unconvincing love story between the two and ending with Baxter quitting due to his unwillingness to continue to have his apartment used. It has a pretty standard happy ending with nothing really surprising.
One major problem with this film is that it isn't funny. I'm not sure I laughed once in the entire film. It was actually quite agonizing as it plodded on. The death blow of this film is that I utterly did not care about the people in this film. I didn't like Baxter and I didn't care that he triumphed. In fact I rather disliked him. I didn't like Fran either. I thought her character was a fair idiot. Since I didn't care about the character I took no satisfaction in the outcome of the film. I just wanted the "the end" credit to come up.
All The King's Men - Winner 1950
In 1950, All The King's Men (1949) won the best picture category at the Academy Awards. The movie details the rise of a man from country nobody to the governor. Quickly he seems to be corrupted and although he gets things done, the ways in which he goes about it are in no way laudable. Eventually the indecent things he has done to maintain power begin to snowball and he does more and more virtue-less things. Countless reviews comment on how its a film about how politics can corrupt even the noblest person.
These reviewers couldn't be more wrong. From the start, one can see the true nature of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). He speaks truth about corruption in politics, but in the first interview he has with Jack Burden (John Ireland), when Stark's adopted son comes in beaten up, the manner in which Stark addresses the boy and treats the situation is a little to callous. While his wife is concerned, for Stark it is only fuel to the fire. He loses his first campaign in politics but tragedy forges another chance for him.
A poorly built fire escape breaks off a building killing several children, which inspires people to get behind what Stark has been saying. It is at the funeral that we get our second look into what is in reality a very dark soul. A mourner grabs his hand and invoking God (an inauspicious start if ever there was one) claims he should have voted for Stark. The look on Stark's face says it all. He likes being idolized, he likes power. Thus a demagogue is born. Demagogues rarely a good thing. A bumbling aristocracy fuels the power of the demagogue and Stark becomes governor.
Campaign promises are kept but at what cost? The corruption is worse than before. The politics dirty. Stark becomes more of a monster than he was before. And Jack helps him along the way. Jack, who has been established as a lost character but with principles, gets dragged deeper and deeper into the world of dirty politics and although he has qualms about what he is doing at times, it never stops him from continuing to do the dirty work.
It is only after the suicide of his childhood idol, that he finally breaks from Stark completely. Forced to live with a monster he helped not create (for Stark was already a corrupt man waiting for his chance) but he did help him attain the office. So it is Jack's penance to live with what he had done, not a very promising life for someone who believes he has principles.
Apparently this movie has been remade and will come out this year. Sean Penn in the Willie Stark role. In our political climate, I'm not surprised that a movie about political corruption would be made, but that this movie would be does make me wonder. Since it seems to me that the message is not that politics corrupt, but that politics draws in the corrupt, it is a cautionary tale we can't actually heed. It could warn about demagoguery, but again they don't call it mob mentality for no reason. I wonder what angle the new film will take and if the true character of Willie Stark will be lost.
These reviewers couldn't be more wrong. From the start, one can see the true nature of Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford). He speaks truth about corruption in politics, but in the first interview he has with Jack Burden (John Ireland), when Stark's adopted son comes in beaten up, the manner in which Stark addresses the boy and treats the situation is a little to callous. While his wife is concerned, for Stark it is only fuel to the fire. He loses his first campaign in politics but tragedy forges another chance for him.
A poorly built fire escape breaks off a building killing several children, which inspires people to get behind what Stark has been saying. It is at the funeral that we get our second look into what is in reality a very dark soul. A mourner grabs his hand and invoking God (an inauspicious start if ever there was one) claims he should have voted for Stark. The look on Stark's face says it all. He likes being idolized, he likes power. Thus a demagogue is born. Demagogues rarely a good thing. A bumbling aristocracy fuels the power of the demagogue and Stark becomes governor.
Campaign promises are kept but at what cost? The corruption is worse than before. The politics dirty. Stark becomes more of a monster than he was before. And Jack helps him along the way. Jack, who has been established as a lost character but with principles, gets dragged deeper and deeper into the world of dirty politics and although he has qualms about what he is doing at times, it never stops him from continuing to do the dirty work.
It is only after the suicide of his childhood idol, that he finally breaks from Stark completely. Forced to live with a monster he helped not create (for Stark was already a corrupt man waiting for his chance) but he did help him attain the office. So it is Jack's penance to live with what he had done, not a very promising life for someone who believes he has principles.
Apparently this movie has been remade and will come out this year. Sean Penn in the Willie Stark role. In our political climate, I'm not surprised that a movie about political corruption would be made, but that this movie would be does make me wonder. Since it seems to me that the message is not that politics corrupt, but that politics draws in the corrupt, it is a cautionary tale we can't actually heed. It could warn about demagoguery, but again they don't call it mob mentality for no reason. I wonder what angle the new film will take and if the true character of Willie Stark will be lost.
An American In Paris - Winner 1952
An American In Paris (1951) is a mediocre film. It has the disadvantage of being a musical, which I dislike, since I find it next to impossible for the advent of song and dance to come out of everyday situation. However, this film does manage to integrate the two better than most. Typically singing and dancing is used when the characters are happy and expressing joy. Beyond the musical aspect, however, the film is so average.
The film follows Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) as an ex-GI who stayed in Paris after World War 2. He is an artist trying to make his fame, like the greats that inspired him. This already is such a cliched character type that I found myself being bored within the first three minutes. Jerry is discovered by a rich woman who wants to be his patroness and perhaps a bit more, while Jerry becomes enamored for a young French woman Lise (Leslie Caron). Caron smiles and looks pretty and puts out one of the most laughably bad performances I've seen in a movie that got this many awards.
The two have there little affair all the while, she is apparently engaged to another man, whom Jerry knows. Her reason for being engaged to him is ridiculous and makes little to no sense. Inevitably she chooses her fiance because of her obligation and gives up true love. Jerry attempts to forget his misfortune by finally taking up with the patroness although he feels nothing for her. There is a confrontation scene between Jerry and Lise at a party, where Lise reaffirms her decision woefully as her fiance watches from a dark corner unnoticed.
There was about twenty minutes left when this scene took place and I expected an interesting resolve. Well I can't say I didn't get that. The movie proceeds into a seventeen minute, no dialogue, music and dance sequence. I'm not sure if it was just extravagant dance or if there was a story being told that I wasn't picking up on. Regardless, if I wanted to see a dance performance I'd go to a dance performance not watch a film. After this elaborate sequence, the film comes back to its reality and forces a conclusion down our throat in a minute flat.
Beyond its musical leanings this film was uninteresting and poorly performed. It feels like a better story could have been told here, even in musical format. For one who enjoys musicals I'm sure its perfectly delightful, but it was not deserving of its best picture award.
The film follows Jerry Mulligan (Gene Kelly) as an ex-GI who stayed in Paris after World War 2. He is an artist trying to make his fame, like the greats that inspired him. This already is such a cliched character type that I found myself being bored within the first three minutes. Jerry is discovered by a rich woman who wants to be his patroness and perhaps a bit more, while Jerry becomes enamored for a young French woman Lise (Leslie Caron). Caron smiles and looks pretty and puts out one of the most laughably bad performances I've seen in a movie that got this many awards.
The two have there little affair all the while, she is apparently engaged to another man, whom Jerry knows. Her reason for being engaged to him is ridiculous and makes little to no sense. Inevitably she chooses her fiance because of her obligation and gives up true love. Jerry attempts to forget his misfortune by finally taking up with the patroness although he feels nothing for her. There is a confrontation scene between Jerry and Lise at a party, where Lise reaffirms her decision woefully as her fiance watches from a dark corner unnoticed.
There was about twenty minutes left when this scene took place and I expected an interesting resolve. Well I can't say I didn't get that. The movie proceeds into a seventeen minute, no dialogue, music and dance sequence. I'm not sure if it was just extravagant dance or if there was a story being told that I wasn't picking up on. Regardless, if I wanted to see a dance performance I'd go to a dance performance not watch a film. After this elaborate sequence, the film comes back to its reality and forces a conclusion down our throat in a minute flat.
Beyond its musical leanings this film was uninteresting and poorly performed. It feels like a better story could have been told here, even in musical format. For one who enjoys musicals I'm sure its perfectly delightful, but it was not deserving of its best picture award.
Death Notice
Remember when I set up that other blog to write reviews of Academy Award Best Picture Winners? What was I thinking? I'll just post them here in future and repost for no one's benefit what I wrote previously.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)