I got an internet the other day...

We have some real geniuses running our country. In this quote somebody sent to me, the insightful and culturally hip Republican Ted Stevens proves why our politicians really need to undergo mental screenings after a certain age. Read how he describes in intricate detail the problems with those bothersome internets:

"I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?
Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially...

They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the internet. And again, the internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a truck.

It's a series of tubes.

And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and its going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material."

Doesn't it give you a warm, fuzzy feeling to know that our country is in such good hands?

Overall list and other things

-Holy crap, IMDB film pages have a kind of new look. Awesome.

-Lady in the Water looks terrible. Shamalalalala is a pretentious hack who thinks he's the next Hitchcock. And Alfred Hitchcock was a mysogenistic bastard.

-I leave for London in 10 days, then Edinburgh, Scotland, 4 days later for the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Should be a blast, hopefully. It's gonna be really weird seeing my cast, since I've, like, graduated, and stuff. The fact, though, that our little play is getting attention from BBC public radio is pretty awesome. I think I'll devote a post or two to this later.

-After that, I head off to Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. I don't know if any of my future classmates will read this, but if you do, hi. I don't remember the last time I've been this excited for school.

-Finally, I figured that I wanted to throw up a list of all of the films I've watched up until this point for my project, even those I haven't reviewed yet. I think the number is around fifty, so I'll reach more than half of my original goal by August. I'm actually not all that dissapointed. Just to give an idea of how I thought of the films I haven't spoken about yet, I'm including a +,=, or -. Sophisticated, I know Anyway, here's the list:

-2001: A Space Odyssey
-Metropolis (1927)
-Soylent Green
-M
-The City of Lost Children
-On the Waterfront
-The Seven Samurai
-Citizen Kane
-12 Angry Men
-The Manchurian Candidate (1962)
-The 400 Blows
-The Shawshank Redemption
-The Third Man
-Paths of Glory
-Rashomon
-Taxi Driver
-Beauty and the Beast (1946) (-)
-The Picture of Dorian Gray (-)
-Rear Window (+)
-Spirited Away (+)
-The Rules of the Game (=)
-The Graduate (+)
-The Exterminating Angel (+)
-8 1/2 (+)
-The Seventh Seal (+)
-Wild Strawberries (+)
-Vertigo (-)
-Three Days of the Condor (+)
-Diner (=)
-Casablanca (=)
-City Lights (+)
-High Noon (+)
-Fiddler on the Roof (=)
-Alphaville (-)
-The Bicycle Thief (+)
-Intolerance (=)
-Tokyo Story (+)
-The Passion of Joan of Arc (+)
-L'Atalante (+)
-Sunset Boulevard (=)
-Children of Paradise (+)
-Bringing up Baby (+)
-Raging Bull (+)
-Eraserhead (+)
-Aguirre, The Wrath of God (+)
-Breathless (-)

#16, Taxi Driver

This is one of the more recently made films that I've watched, and one of the first in color, so I don't feel entirely as pretentious viewing it as I have some others. Luckily, the film is very good, so I can enjoy the picture and not feel so much like a geek at the same time.

The thing that I've noticed with Scorsese films is that they tend to be incredibly violent, in a graphic kind of way. I'm sure this puts some people off, but the thing is, the violence is in no way gratuitous. In fact, it's incredibly limited, only manifesting itself in short, unsettling bursts (as in the climax of this particular film), that seem all too appropriate to the intent and aesthetic of the film. Though the actual graphic violence is only directly present for a few moments, you can nevertheless feel it throughout the entire film. It is there, in DiNero's character, both poisoning and seeping out of him, permeating the world and the life he lives in. Oh, it's so very fun.

So, yeah, this film rocks. Scorsese and DiNero work together famously (as I witnessed again when I later watched Raging Bull), and both complement the film perfectly. The film is dark, haunting, and at points almost surreal (especially towards the end), and DiNero portrays the lonely, brooding cab driver who may or may not be a war veteran, trapped in a dark world of whores and murderers with no way to escape, perfectly. And during the few moments when he feels the light of day, when it seems that he can finally escape from his own personal hell, it's all snatched violently and cruelly from him, ironically due to the world he is trapped in seeping into his very being. As the film progresses, he becomes rapidly more and more desperate to achieve some sort of recognition, to justify his existence to both the world and himself. He finally finds a companion soul, the young (12!) prostitute Iris, played by a young (12!) Jodie Foster, who turns in a far better performance than I could have as a 12 year old (or perhaps now). She comes in relatively late in the film, though, and with the exception of one scene that was rife with continuity errors (but otherwise great), there wasn't all that much that built their relationship. I found this a bit disappointing, though the juxtaposition between her and Cybil Shepard, DiNero's apparent savior earlier on, is quite stark and effectively noticeable.

So, then, Scorsese does a wonderful job working with all of the elements laid out before him and constructing them into a powerful, emotional, and deeply disturbing whole. He manages to take the story about a nobody, a common, run-down, and highly unstable man, and turn it into a genuine epic. His skewed cinematography, wonderful pacing, and general mastery of what exactly he is trying to accomplish with every shot without imposing himself in a negative way are all truly amazing. He really is one of the best American directors, though I haven't necessarily been a fan of his later work: Taxi Driver is not nearly as trite as Gangs of New York, for example.

Highlights: Wonderful acting, cinematography, and aesthetic. The film sets a real mood, and drives the viewer forcefully along. It's impossible not to care about what is happening on the screen.

Downers: I really can't Cybil Shepard seriously. At the same time, it's a shame her character dropped out of the film too quickly, and I wanted to see more about that particular story, even though the loose ends were integral parts of the film. In this way, I felt some of the relationships in general weren't fully explored.

8.5/10

#15, Rashomon

Alright, I'm back with my self-indulgent reviews. Aren't you excited?

Next up we have Rashomon, the second film by Akira Kurosawa I've watched during this project. Personally, I liked Seven Samurai more. That's not to say, however, that Rashomon isn't one of the best films I've ever seen. Kurosawa and Mifune once again deliver in a fashion that makes this film truly worthy, this time as an examination of justice and the tragedy of human nature.

The premise of Rashomon alone is fantastic. Two men trapped under the decaying Rashomon gate during a downpour relate the story of a bizarre murder trial to a third man. They relate how each of the four testimonies, including that of the woodsman, one of the witnesses, tells an entirely different story about what happened in the forest. As the movie progress, we see that each individual has entirely selfish motives behind his or her story, and that even in death or innocence there is no redemption. The film essentially chronicles the decay of human honesty, until the very end, when the actions of the woodsman restore the faith of his clerical companion.

Mifune, as the bandit murderer, is of course fantastic, lending his hysterical, lunatic, and often disturbing energy to the role perfectly. His portrayal of the crazy, bold, and absolutely desperate bandit is flawless. You really can't take your eyes off of him, as he dominates the screen with the intensity of a mountain lion. That isn't to say the rest of the cast isn't superb, either, as each actor or actress fits their role perfectly, as we slowly see the decay of the facades they try and create for themselves into pathetic desperation that hits disturbingly close to home. By the end of the film, you realize you understand these people very well, and yet you know nothing about them, completely opposite of the initial impression.

And to support the perfect acting, of course, the film is perfectly made, and then some. Kurosawa and his cinematographer Kazuo Miyagawa created an absolutely beautiful film. It is full of haunting visuals of both the characters and the nature around, seeming almost to suffocate the hapless individuals, or, as in the case of the trial scene, leave them vulnerable and exposed, the other characters sitting in the background like specks. The pacing and editing of the film are gripping, as well, slowly unfolding the story and the tone in a wrenching and unsettling manner. Everything is timed almost perfectly, and each moment holds both a new revelation and a new question. The aesthetic Kurosawa managed to create touches the very soul of the viewer, and raises far more questions than it ever attempts to answer. Superb film.

Highlights: Beautiful visuals and sounds, fantastic acting, disturbing, haunting, and captivating all at the same time. A quality examination of the human condition that leaves just enough hope at the end.

Downers: Perhaps a bit choppy in getting to the meat of the story: the testimony of the priest and the first testimony of the woodsman seemed a bit awkward. I struggled with the idea of having a dead man testify, but it ended up working.

9.5/10

Update pending

I've been lazy and unmotivated due to lack of readership (or perhaps it's the other way around). I'll get something up soon, though, so don't you worry, yee of little faith.

The Hysterically Good Pick from 1-10

Okay, I realize that, in essence, my blog so far has simply been a series of film reviews that one could, in all likelihood, just as easily find on IMDB with only slightly more effort than it takes to read my blog. I need something with a bit more flair. So, in order to add a bit of variety to this project, and distinguish it a bit from a simple series of brief film reviews by a decidedly amateur student, I've determined that out of every ten films I watch, I'll pick one that I particularly recommend people to watch.

Another reason I decided to do this is that I've sometimes found it difficult in writing down my ratings to distinguish how much I enjoyed a film, and how good I actually thought the film was. Though I've tried to keep the ratings toward the latter, I'm well aware that some of my biases have crept in. With this post, I can specifically recommend a film that I love, which I don't necessarily think is perfect (Which is the case in the first series of ten). Plus, of course, there are many films that you can appreciate to some extent by simply reading about them, but certain gems I feel absolutely require a viewing. Basically, all you have to do to act like a film snob is read about films, but there are some that it simply pays to actually watch.

The series of the first ten contains some of the greatest films ever made by some of the greatest directors, with some truly dazzling innovations and elements. If you ever want to be a film critic, these are the films you must have seen, right? Well, that's sort of why my choice isn't anything like The Seven Samurai, Citizen Kane, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or even M (Though the latter was very close). Out of the list of 1-10, my first recommendation is Jeunet's City of Lost Children.

Please do read my thoughts on this film if you hadn't already. It is simply a visual and emotional masterpiece, engaging, touching, and entertaining. The acting is really superb and moving, especially when you take into consideration that Ron Perlman doesn't speak a word of French and memorized his lines by rote. The film simply moves from one dreamscape to the next, and is a wonderful children's story that still speaks to the emotions and humanity of adults. It is, simply put, one of the most touching films I've ever seen.

As I implied, part of the reason I chose City of Lost Children is that it is not one of the mainstream classics that is ingrained into the cannon of film. Many people have not heard of it, or think of it as "that film by the guy who did Amelie." But City offers something in terms of empathy, visuals, acting, and imagination that is unique and quite innovative. It is a hidden gem among films, an unsung masterpiece that for its very obscurity is worth as much of a viewing as Citizen Kane. It's the kind of film that you feel lucky to have had the chance to watch, rather than one that, in a sense, fulfills some sort of historical obligation. The film is genuinely that personal and enjoyable. In this way, City is a film that you would watch for yourself, and not for anyone else. Except me, since I recommended it to you. So, watch it.

First Hysterically Good Pick: THE CITY OF LOST CHILDREN

# 14, Paths of Glory

At this point it's become apparent to me that I'm, unfortunately, probably not going to meet my deadline. I shall not be deterred, however, and shall continue my regular film viewing for as long as it takes me. And when August 1st rolls around and I'm asked if I finished on time, I'll say, "No no, I still have another month. It's been September 1st all along..."

Anyway, Paths of Glory was the first film about modern war I watched for this project, and from what I've heard, one of the greatest war films of all time. Unfortunately, for perhaps the first time I was disappointed. Don't get me wrong, the film was still great, and Kirk Douglas is always great to watch, but it simply did not live up to my expectations. Now that I think about it, I haven't seen that any war films that I've been a huge fan of. I don't think I went in with any bias, but perhaps the genre simply doesn't interest me as much as I used to think. Oh well. It gives me a chance to give a less than perfect rating, which I'm always thrilled about.

It's hard to criticize this film, really. Kubrick is a wonderful director, and, ironically, I agree with his message in Paths of Glory far more than, say, 2001: A Space Odyssey, even though I liked the later more. In addition, Kirk Douglas is undeniably and rightfully a legendary actor. The characters are humane, and the events genuinely gripping and tragic.

I think what threw me off most was the pacing and composition of the film. Which, once again, is hard to criticize specifically. Somehow, though, it wasn't cohesive. The film was divided into very distinct parts, with the first half or so taking place in the French trenches of World War I, leading up to an impossible assault on German stronghold ordered by the overly-ambitious and prestige greedy officers, while the second part shifts tone, direction, and even characters almost entirely, focusing on the trial of three men unjustly held to trial for cowardice in the failed siege. Something about this shift almost made me feel as if I were watching two entirely different films, and that neither one adequately engrossed me.

I was most impressed by the three men who stood trial, and wished that the story had spent more time on them. Only one of them received more than a few seconds of screen time or story development before the mid point of the film, but they managed to create a genuine call for empathy and sympathy, especially in the last few scenes. The march to the firing range was particularly touching. These emotions were supplemented by Col. Dax's (Douglas) desperate efforts to save the three men who had been ruined by ambition and chance, met with the opposition of his superior, who hid their greed behind a false sense of honor. These dynamics did a wonderful job of realizing the humanitarian and anti-war message of the film, and I understand why it was so controversial in France at the time of its release. The acting was superb, then, and Kubrick's sublime style of filmmaking brought out the humanity of the soldiers and the blind, ignorant greed of the officers marvelously. Coupled with a good script and truly powerful moments, there were moments in the film when the viewer felt true empathy.

Even the first half of the film did a good job building up to the tragedy of the second half, hinting at the fruitlessness of the war that sacrificed men's lives for the sake of the reputation of a few. But besides some isolated, powerful moments, such as the night scouting raid and the assault itself, the first part of the film served as little more than build-up for the second half, and in this way was not satisfying. All of the elements of the film were good, even great, but I just felt there needed to be something more. There was plenty of sympathy in the film, and it rode human emotions very well, but it didn't always cross the line into empathy with the viewer.

Highlights: Superb message and acting, finely tuned character, aesthetic, and ethical dynamics. Moments filled with an honest sense of tragedy and outrage. Beautifully filmed. A well crafted sense of violence against humanity. Great ending.

Downers: Disconnected, lacked an overall sense of flow despite flawless transitions from moment to moment. Did not capitalize on the full potential of its elements. Short lived moments that were all too fleeting. At parts, the build-up and execution were too mechanical, and the impact of what Kubrick was trying to convey fell a bit short.

I know at least one person who would crucify me for this rating, but here it goes.

7.5/10

I'm Back!

Yes, I'm back home and kicking, for all the ten or so of you who care. I just got back from a road trip with three good friends of mine. It was quite a trip. We traveled up along the west coast with stops at various camp grounds and towns (One of the highlights was our stay in the Hoh Rainforest. That was gorgeous), stopped by the San Juan Islands in Washington, then spent a few days in Vancouver. The resort we stayed in at Orcas Island, called Doe Bay, was really fantastic. The elk there were the most domesticated I've ever seen, and they had a spa with a sauna and dipping baths that took a few years of stress off my shoulders. Good times.

Much to the dismay of my associates upon arriving in Vancouver, the drinking age in British Columbia is 19, rather than 18 like most elsewhere in Canada. Since I don't drink, I didn't care all that much, though I did manage to get by a bouncer just for kicks. Since I don't drink, though, it didn't really matter all that much. We then took I 5 back home, with a few detours when traffic got bad (4th of July weekend and all). Saw some really bizarre towns along the way. Well, bizarre from our perspective. We also stopped by Crater Lake in Washington, which was amazing beyond words.

So yeah, that's the trip in a nutshell. I'll post some photographs I took once I get around to uploading them, and if you'd like to hear more, give me a buzz. Besides a few arguments and an allergic reaction I received to a few (21!) spider bites on my arm, the whole thing was a blast. Not any European epic or anything, but fulfilling nonetheless.

Now I have all of July before I embark to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival. Trying not to think about that right now...

So, that's enough about me. I'll get back to my movie reviews as well as a few other things I want to throw up, and hopefully try and get some more readership for this deal. If you have any suggestions, do let me know. Need to feed my ego, dontcha know.

I'll try and put up my thoughts on Paths of Glory tonight after I watch Alphaville.