The goal: 365 films in 365 days
As someone with a slight interest in film (being enrolled in several courses with regular film screenings) as well as a fairly large stock of films attained through questionable methods, I figure I might as well make a daily screening for myself.
The rules are simple enough: a film a day. Short films don't count, just as a stipulation for keeping myself from taking an entire month off watching Pixar shorts. Each film can't have been watched in 2010, but I have some leeway in being able to view movies I've seen before, although I'm leaning towards keeping them as fresh as possible.
For anyone who actually keeps up (so no one) my general tastes in film will be apparent quite quickly I would think. Also, as it may not always be possible to take a couple hours from the day to see something, I'm allowing myself time to catch up, just as long as by December 31st 2010 I've seen 365 movies.
Now, as clearly it's already January 7th, I have some catch up to do, not in terms of watching but rather putting down my thoughts on what I've seen. So in the spirit of getting this thing going, here are my first few reviews.
Film#1 - Natural Born Killers, 1994, dir. by Oliver Stone.
What a way to kick off the year. Honestly, a major let down. With Quentin Tarantino writing the original script, and starring such charismatic actors like Woody Harrelson and Tommy Lee Jones, this movie didn't cut it for me. The opening scene, a diner-massacre if you will, at first seemed as if it was just a highly stylized bait to grab your attention. But no, the entire movie went on in this twisted-angle, bizarre narrative structure that leaves what may have been a compelling story in a disjointed heap of scenes. The colors are so highly saturated and skewed it almost makes the film unbearable at times (namely the grocery store shootout in so drenched in pea-green it could make you sick to your stomach). I must admit the acting is at times very well done, with unique characters and dialogue, but is completely glazed over in over-the-top aesthetics. Overall it was a decent movie and I'm sure many people have much to say about it, but for me it gave up too much to achieve far too little.
5/10
Film#2 - Jackie Brown, 1997, dir. Quentin Tarantino
Now here is a phenomenal film. After this I've now seen ever major Tarantino to date and I must say he just knows how to make a movie. Simple as that. After watching Inglourious Basterds again just a few weeks ago, Jackie Brown quickly reminded me of a similar narrative structure, much like Pulp Fiction as well. I see a clear development of a type of story that revolves around exploring stories of multiple sides to an upcoming event and how these characters meet through chance encounters, often focusing on strange hiccups in plans along the way. Opposed to Quentin's first Reservoir Dogs which focused on the immediate aftermath of a heist gone wrong, these films show the lead up, the event itself and the dwindling aftermath. Jackie Brown seems the least stylized of all Tarantino's films and rather focuses on dialogue and acting more to create an equally effective film. Well written characters, recurring Tarantino stars (namely Samuel L.) and of course those jaw-dropping moments of unexpected brutality (honest to God I couldn't help but stare open-mouthed at one point or another). A great film I highly recommend, especially to those who dislike Tarantino's overly violent style in his more popular movies.
8.5/10
Film#3 - Swimming With Sharks, 1994, dir. George Huang
Now this was a required class screening so not something I would have probably watched otherwise. Walking out I said the film was basically the same scene over and over. And it is. Kevin Spacey berates his new assistant in a Hollywood production studio. He's an ass, the world revolves around him, blah blah. In between these scenes of harassment and belittlement is a sequence taking place afterwards, where Frank Whaley aka Guy the assistant is torturing Kevin Spacey in his home with no real goal in mind as to what he hopes to accomplish. This is an entire plot summary. It presents Hollywood as this horrid world where shells of human beings continually hunt for ways to hoard more for themselves while completely ignoring the needs of others. It's all about looking out for number one and it all too pessimistic for my taste. Mediocre acting (lets be honest, yelling does not equal passion or conviction) and all too noticeable audio flaws (bad dubs just throw me right out of the experience) make this film an attempt to be something it can't.
6/10
Film#4 - Dracula, 1992, dir. Francis Ford Coppola
As soon as the film started I had a major realization: we all know who Dracula is, but who actually knows his story? This film is based on Bram Stoker's notorious telling of the Dracula myth and is really quite interesting. However, I had major complaints with the film. With what I would consider an eclectic cast with the likes of Keanu Reeves and Winona Ryder alongside film-heavyweights Gary Oldman and Anthony Hopkins at times makes it hard to take seriously. Even Anthony Hopkins plays a somewhat eccentric Doctor Van Helsing, while Keanu Reeves tries to break away from his very "ehhh dude" type look of the time and pretend to be a serious character. The style of the film what somewhat disappointing, especially to have the Coppola mark of approval on it. It clearly was extremely well thought out but still lacks a real depth of scenery, where everything is just slightly too obviously constructed for particular purposes. Character shadows often move with a mind of their own which while it may be a good idea is also too clearly seen before it's supposed to be. However, the film is still very enjoyable, telling a wonderful story with interesting characters. A mix of violence and sexuality really gets the film going with some of the most effective sequences, although a certain red-head seems to have trouble keeping her breasts under control. A good movie, just not on par with my Coppola expectations.
7/10
Film#5 - Carnal Knowledge, 1971, dir. Mike Nichols
Another class viewing, but very interesting. I struggled to understand if the views in the film where actually how people thought back then (or even now for that matter) or if it was an exaggeration to criticize male chauvinism. Jack Nicholson and Art Garfunkel head this up with a narrative spanning several decades, from early university, through several relationships and eventually leaving off during their mid 40s. Garfunkel on one hand is under the impression you date a girl, kiss her, feel her up, and go from there, which quickly leads to marriage. Nicholson on the other hand, while still going through the same step-by-step process, isn't too comfortable with marriage. In this sense, they are practically the same character. Girls are objects. The boy does this, and the girl does this for them. They never stray from this idea, no matter how old they get. Whether the intent of the film, I feel that people watching today can agree these men are socially backwards. What I do wonder is if someone watches this and in the end, when we see that for both of these men that searching out beauty over depth doesn't always work out, if someone can say "damn, these dudes are living the life". Truly a sad perspective. Anyways, this film is not anything special aesthetically and rather simple, but not simple in a "oh I love the simplicity" but more of a "we have nothing else to show". However the redeeming quality is the way these characters become so real even in their surreal perspectives.
7/10
