Well, Sandy has her Oscar and her millions and I'm still just me, plodding along during an interminable Minnesota winter. I guess she showed me who is boss.
Some friends invited us over for dinner on Sunday night and to watch the Oscars. Yep, I was forced to watch them in polite company, meaning that I couldn't even express my frustration over what was about to happen. Thankfully, though, the Oscars are just about as long as this winter, so I nudged the wife about 9 PM and said, "Let's get home so Miss SBG can get to bed." So, we bid our adieus and headed back to Casa de SBG. I was pretty exhausted and I went right to bed. That's right. I gave the second half of the Oscars my Bullock Rule. I refused to watch it.
So, I saw one movie that garnered a nomination -- Julie and Julia. So, tell me about the other winners (outside of the best actress category). Anybody see any of these movies? Precious? Crazy Heart? The Hurt Locker? Inglorious Basterds?
I saw about half of the nominated movies and I am 100% okay with Hurt Locker winning the award for best picture.
Other movies watched this week, 2012, and North by Northwest. I could not believe how well NXNW held up after 50 years. No wonder it was avatar (not that one) worthy for so long. Oh, and and for 2012, Day After Tomorrow was better.
What did Sandy say? Something like, "Do I really deserve this or did I finally just wear you guys down?" Perhaps even she realizes she's no Meryl Streep.
Wear them by what? Releasing a string of horrible movies? Or relentlessly campaigning to win this award and in the process starting a feud with Ms. Streep?
The Hurt Locker was really, really good. In a previous Movie Wednesday, I said I was a little underwhelmed, but as I've had time to ruminate, it's become better.
I also saw IB and Precious of the Best Pic nominees. Hurt Locker was by far the best of the three, but the other nominations were well deserved, thought I am saying that without having seen 7 of the films.
I only watched 1 Nominee and that was the delightful Up. I hope to see Inglorious... soon
I watched a few 'classic' movies this past weekend. North By Northwest was pretty much what everybody says it is...great! I love the crop duster scene. Sunset Boulevard was great too. I wonder if this movie is required watching for anyone going on a reality show these days? The tale and morel of the story seems applicable today. To tried to watch The Maltese Falcon but fell asleep half was through and wasn't bothered to pick up where I left off.
I also saw a few newer flicks. I thought I would adore The Invention of Lying because I find Ricky Gervais a pretty funny dude, but it was just an ok movie. Good premise (Gervais' character discovers lying in a world where everyone tells the truth), but its ended up to be a formulaic chick flick. I also saw Away We Go starring John Kransinski (Jim from 'The Office') and Mya Rudolph. I thought I would like this movie because I like Kransinski, but I found the movie slow paced and dull. a yawnfest for sure.
I loved Inglorious Basterds and wish it would have won, although I understand why it didn't. Even my wife said it was a lot better than expected.
Also saw 2012 this weekend. I disagree with FTLT above, I thought it was better than The Day After Tomorrow but that is like saying I like The All American Rejects better than Blink 182.
Corey Haim -- Dead.
Good Lord.
It seems to me that an inordinate amount of overdoses happen between the ages of about 36-42. It must be when the subject thinks they still have the ability to do what they've always done, but their bodies just can't handle it anymore.
This is a strange one...Haim had been more about self-parody than anything for the past decade. He wasn't on my radar for actors who might die young (not that I have a list or anything, but if I did, I don't think he would've been near the top).
Note to self: avoid NYPost reader comments. Good grief.
Do I dare? Most likely, because I'm angry at myself, or something. (Also read the comments from the "Nathan may have surgery story" on the Strib.)
I understand that some people are angry and that the Intertubes provide a swell medium to vent with little personal consequence. But at this point, I just feel any media source could throw up a piece on sugar and spice, and everything nice, and the discussion would still devolve into the same shlep.
Recent movies seen at the Casa Spookymilk include Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs and The Hangover. The latter is occasionally funny, but the former is considerably funnier and has the stronger writing. I also started the little-known indie Goodbye Solo on Netflix streaming, and it's promising, but the kids were suddenly all up in my face and that's not really the type of movie that should be in the background when they're nearby.
After a ridiculous four-month stay in my house, the Rear Window DVD finally made it into my player as well. I'm glad to say that the movie was damn near perfection and worth the wait. Hitchcock's directing makes for a work of art in every shot; I can see how he's influenced many, if not all, of today's great directors in everything he did.
It was a real Hitchcock weekend for the citizens of the WGOM, huh?
Spooky will throw me in prison for this, but I feel about Rear Window the same way I feel about Citizen Kane. I can tell that the movie is very well done; but I was just bored throughout. I found nothing about it suspenseful, and the mystery not all that mysterious.
Perhaps it's just the being born later bit. My parents saw The Exorcist in the theater and said everyone was scared out of their wits. I saw it in the theater thirty years later and everyone was unimpressed, even laughing. Different times.
But, it's not always true. The Lady Vanishes, releases much earlier than Vertigo, I found to be a great mystery, and hilarious to boot.
Dang Beau, give Rear Window another chance. With some of these older movies, the movie making is what is fun. Now I know sometimes we just want to be entertained and not think about tracking shots, representations, etc. But Rear Window is a wonderfully made movie that has some pretty compelling ideas about voyerism and marriage. Here at least check out Roger Ebert's review.
I'm a huge Ebert fan, so I've read most of his reviews. And I generally agree with them.
I don't sometimes want to be entertained; I always want to be entertained. The movie was well made enough and compelling enough that I enjoyed watching it. But I wasn't entertained enough to want to put it in the pantheon of my collection.
That's not to say I won't watch it again.
I understand what you're saying, Beau; when a movie is so well done and is an inspiration for so many later movies/directors, what was ingenius and inventive will now appear commonplace.
I've been tracking the opening of Clash of the Titans -- now this is a remake that has a great chance of topping the 1981 original. Obviously the remake will have much better special effects, and although it doesn't have Vida Taylor's "assets" it also doesn't have Bubo (or, I HOPE it doesn't have Bubo)
Aww, c'mon Rhu_Ru! Bubo was one of the highlights of that film.
Got to watch a bunch of movies a couple weeks ago when we were in the hospital having our 4th child.
Invention of Lying - Movie started out okay, then it got to the religious satire. Did not amuse me.
Amelia - boring, didn't make it through
Coco Before Chanel - boring, subtitled, didn't make it through
Couples Retreat - Had some funny moments, but ultimately forgettable
Time Traveler's Wife - Not bad. Wish it would've explained more.
On the Oscars, I'm not upset Bullock won, just surprised that an actress like her could ever attain that. I guess with Tomei and Cage winning Oscars, it's not too unusual.
I've seen Julie & Julia, Up, Avatar and Coraline. I liked each one of them. As much as I liked Avatar, I recognize that it's NOT best picture material. I'm glad it didn't win even if I haven't seen Hurt Locker (which I hope to see soon.)
I really wish Coraline could've upset Up, though I knew that was unlikely. Not to say anything bad about Up, I just really liked Coraline (except for one scene).
Me thinks I'm going to have to find a copy of North by Northwest.
congrats on completing your barbershop quartet, punman, and welcome back.
Yay for punmanbaby4!
I got X days left where X∈[0,10].
(Scheduled C-section on the 20th if the baby doesn't decide she wants out before that).
I was a little torn for best animated feature (the one award I care about).
Up was great, but so was the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
I think I liked Fox better, kept me more excited to see what was going to happen next.
Towards the end of Up, a lot was just standard madcap animation.
But then I go back, and there was a lot in Up that was great, too.
But if I were voting, Fox probably would have gotten it. Maybe on the bad logic that Pixar's already got theirs, and this wasn't their best.
Also, I don't get how Fox didn't get score and original song nominations. I figured it would have been a contender to win both.
I thought The Hangover was sorta funny. I don't get the big deal.
For all you NxNW watchers out there, I would suggest you go out and rent/stream Hitchcock's The 39 Steps. Now it was filmed in the 30's and definitely shows its age, but it really is the precursor to NxNW. It's kind of the same story line, a guy is accused of a murder he didn't commit and goes around the English and Wales countryside to figure out the nefariuous plot behind his set-up. There is one classic scene that I don't want to spoil but if there is any justice in the world we all would be familiar with the line: "Are you sure she didn't mean this one."
If you have Comcast, I think you can actually stream this movie for free, otherwise get it from Netflix or where ever you get your movies.
I enjoyed Julie & Julia and The Hangover, but wasn't crazy about either. The kids narrowly picked Up over The Talented Mr. Fox.
Sheenie and I went and saw The Princess and the Frog. They did a great job of capturing New Orleans culture and Randy Newman's music was fantastic. Every time they mentioned food (one of the characters wants to open a restaurant) I was salivating, but thankfully we're heading down there for Passover in a month, so I can get my fix of oysters and other yummy regional fare.
Mmmmmmmmmuffuletta.
No movies, but I'm still going on that LOST show. Dan is (was?) a likable character. As is Ben. So that makes two out of the entire ensemble cast. Ben kinda gives me the Cancer Man vibe from X-Files. In fact, he's probably a better villain. However, having seen the entire X-Files series, I feel able to say X-Files>LOST.
Hey Milt. Did you ever play X-Files: The Game, that came out in like 1998? I thought it was fantastic, but I think I'm in the minority.
The one that came on something like 34 CDs? And anytime you did something wrong X killed you? Yeah. I loved that game!
It was weird that you weren't either Fox or Dana though. Some random Seattle FBI agent who just got a divorce?
Budget constraints, perhaps? They had Fox and Dana, but only in a couple scenes, which may have saved money. Either way, I felt the random Seattle FBI agent was a pretty good actor for a video game.
It came on six or eight CDs I think. I played it last year, but I was able to set up my computer so I had everything preloaded and didn't have to switch.
My review: http://www.thebentkangaroo.com/Computer/PCReviews/XFiles.html Have you played other X-Files games? Any others you'd recommend?
I should elaborate on this. In my mind, LOST has almost no re-watchability value. To me at least. If I have a spare 45 minutes and I have both LOST and X-Files sitting on my coffee table, there's no doubt that I'm watching Mulder and Scully. Probably an episode like 'Jose Chung's From Outer Space' (featuring Jesse the Body and Alex Trebek) or Clyde Bruckman's Final Repose (featuring the Emmy winning performance of Peter Boyle).
Clyde Bruckman is a great ep. And based in the Twin Cities supposedly too, I believe.
I don't think it's entirely fair to compare X-Files to LOST based only on rewatchability, since LOST is so episodic. I do like both series, as well as Twin Peaks (when it's not at its soap-operaest worst), and I'll even throw in The Night Stalker -- all fairly innovative in their own ways.
oooh, Kolchak reference! I loved that show.
As is my typical viewing habits, I haven't watched any movies in weeks, but I've watched plenty of TV. So I'll post about that!
I finished up the last season of Flight of the Conchords, which I enjoyed. I enjoy it a whole lot, but it doesn't make me howl with laughter like say Curb Your Enthusiasm or Mr. Show. It's a pretty excellent series.
I also blasted through season 2 of True Blood in preparation for season 3 this summer. This is probably my favorite show currently on TV, I completely adore it. I can see how it can be a love it or hate it show, but it's just the right amount of cheesy and just the right amount of taking itself seriously, so it's completely in my wheelhouse. I'd be more impatient for season 3 if we weren't getting Treme in a month!
After we finished catching up on True Blood, we started watching season 1 of Homicide: Life on the Streets. My friend & I are both huge Wire fans, and of solid TV drama in general (hence the ratio of TV to film viewing we do). We went in with high hopes and so far I'm enjoying it quite a bit. I've only seen 4 episodes but it seems quite good. It's crazy to me how long ago the 90s were. It's a strange feeling. "Holy crap, cars are boxy, and they're smoking indoors? Whaaaat?" Good show, though, and I'm looking forward to watching more of it.
I plan on watching Ponyo & Where the Wild Things Are this upcoming weekend, I bought those both on Blu-Ray last week. I love Studio Ghibli & Spike Joze, so I'm hoping for the best.
Also, for what it's worth, Inglourious Basterds was the best movie I saw last year.
A Studio Ghibli fan! I'd also like to see Ponyo; it didn't look as entertaining as their other films from the trailers I'd seen, but still like to watch it. Are you also a Joe Hisaishi fan?
I love his scores quite a bit, but I've never listened to his music outside of that avenue. The Mononoke Hime score is absolutely gorgeous, and probably my favorite. That was the first Ghibli film I watched. My friend imported the Japanese laserdisc for something absurd like $100, and we watched it with a printed out translation in his basement. My mind was blown.
I finally saw The Hurt Locker last week (the same night I came home reeking of hops). I understand the criticisms some vets have had over the film (certain things happen which would never happen in reality), but I can accept them as artistic license.* In terms of catching the spirit of war-zone military culture/relationships and the way war can displace "the real world" as one's frame of reference on reality, I thought it was excellent. My major quibble was that the movie could have ended twice before the actual ending Bigelow chose, once at the end of the supermarket scene, and once when James is holding the jack-in-the-box and talking to his son.
*An interesting problem regarding war cinema and artistic license: there's a window of public memory which makes filming movies about recent wars problematic when it comes to balancing accuracy and story which isn't present with films about older wars - the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, now WWI, and someday (sadly) WWII and so on. Just like we don't really know what dinosaurs looked like (nobody really complains about Jurassic Park's accuracy in depicting dinosaurs), nobody alive today was there when these older wars were fought. Consequently, audiences don't get bogged down in the smaller details when it comes to criticism; they're much freer to examine the broader issues the director and cast are presenting. Movies depicting events which living veterans have participated in are much more difficult to make because there's so much pressure from vets (some of it legit, some not) to make an accurate film and be respectful of the diversity of their experience (not reducing things to cliches). It's practically impossible to make a movie that represents the entirety of experience in one war, but that's often the perception and/or demand which audiences place on films. How effective a particular film is as a piece of war cinema really depends on what the audience is hoping to get from it - do they want a straight-up documentary, with the understanding that the scope of the film will be somewhat/greatly restricted, or do they want a broader story/message shaped around certain events with an acceptable veneer of plausibility/historical accuracy? I don't envy directors who set out to make war movies, but I really do appreciate solid efforts of war cinema.
Do you have any idea what veterans thought about The Thin Red Line? That might be my favorite war movie, if not the one that I've seen the most often.
I wish I could say, Walt; most of the older vets I know are Vietnam vets. The good thing about the aging of the WWII generation is that they're becoming more vocal about their experiences and the depiction of those experiences than they were previously. The bad thing is that we're losing them at such a great rate (about 850 per day) that we'll never be able to get enough oral histories of the rank and file veterans on record. I asked the WWII vet I interviewed to this past weekend for his opinion on the depiction of the war in film, and he honestly didn't have much to say about it. I'm not sure what the last film he saw was, or even if he's seen any in the last twenty years. It's such a personal thing to ask, and I know some of those guys just don't want to see these more realistic movies because of the memories they refresh, even 65+ years later.
My step-grandfather was a WWII vet. All I know is that he saw some action in Europe.
He had some sort of injury but never talked about it. He died about 6 years ago.
I guess just the basic concept of war cinema from the perspective of soldiers who participated is something about which I've never even thought. So I looked up some of the criticisms you referenced of The Hurt Locker, a movie I haven't seen. Honestly, I never would have noticed the issue with the unis or the vehicles used, or even the improper response to a superior. The extrapolation that, because the group in the movie is not disciplined and therefore viewers of the movie will assume that all of the military is undisciplined, is a little further afield. But maybe that's true.
I tried to use the Google to find, I don't know, a Rotten Tomatoes equivalent to military folks discussing war cinema. No luck. I suppose on a personal level I was concerned that my favorite war movie is just a load of Hollywood phooey in the opinion of those who would actually know.
@AMR My dad is a Vietnam vet and, other than a few humorous stories, he doesn't have much to say about his experiences either. When I was a kid, there used to be, maybe there still is, a small-scale version of the Memorial Wall that traveled from city to city. All I remember is the ride home was the quietest ride home I could ever remember.
My dad served in Vietnam as well, but missed any real fighting. As far as I know, he was never shot at an no one in platoon or whatever died while he was there. So he's mostly told me about what they did to pass the time.
He did tell me that the movie Platoon did a better job of expressing what it was like than anything else he saw, even though it wasn't really reflective of his own experience.
I would probably rate Spielberg as the top WWII movie director/producer of our generation, if you give him a mulligan on 1941. Between Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, Schindler's List, Flags of our Fathers, Letters from Iwo Jima, Empire of the Sun, the upcoming The Pacific, and a few documentaries, he's built a body of work that I feel portrays WWII better than any other film maker. He even gets credit as creator of the Medal of Honor video game franchise, and that has to put him over the top.
I recognize your larger point, but I think including Flags of our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima in Spielberg's list gives him too much credit for whatever contributions he made to those films. Those were very definitely Clint Eastwood's movies.
As for The Pacific, my concern is that it will just be Band of Brothers transplanted in the Pacific Theater since the very same people are involved in the production of both. With the amount of attention that has been given to veterans of the European Theater*, I worry that veterans of the war in the Pacific are going to be relegated to secondary status. The guy I interviewed this weekend will be 92 years old in August and was at Tulagi, Guadalcanal (where he reenlisted), and Tarawa, where a sniper shot him in the head before he left his landing craft. I think of him and Pacific War vets like him, and for their sake I hope The Pacific has something new to offer viewers, or many of them are going to tune out pretty quickly.
* I'm not saying European Theater vets don't deserve that respect, but simply that there appears to be a disparity in attention paid to the two theaters, particularly since Japan was the much more exigent threat to the United States.
You are absolutely right about the ETO/Japan distinction. Americans anymore seem to think that the war was about toppling Hitler and "saving" the Jews, but the time from D-Day to VE-Day was only 11 months.
The presence in the Pacific was a hell of a lot longer, a hell of a lot costlier and bloodier, and Japan was a much greater long-term threat. It is a shame that the D-Day actors (no doubt heroic) kind of have top billing in the collective consciousness of Americans today. It could very well be that Americans have a hard time coping with the savagery that took place in the Pacific, while the ETO was "civilized" in comparison. It could also be that Americans have some collective (if misplaced) guilt about the A-bombs.
Moss does think that The Pacific will be far more than BoB revisited, though. BoB was pretty true to the book, which itself was consistent with other accounts. There wasn't a ton of poetic license taken. Moss would expect similar treatment with The Pacific, so the story should stand on its own, not be a remake of BoB.
Interesting discussion.
Of course, U.S. involvement in the European theater precedes D-Day by a considerable degree. If North Africa is included, the U.S. played a significant, if secondary role in the Battle of Tunis in November 1942.
By July of 1943, the U.S. was heavily involved in strategic bombing of mainland targets (e.g., the Battle of Hamburg). The Allies invaded Sicily on July 9, 1943 under the overall command of Eisenhower.
That said, once upon a time, the Pacific theater had a pretty big presence in our consciences. Or have people forgotten such films as Guadalcanal Diary (1943), Sands of Iwo Jima (1949), Flying Leathernecks (1951), The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), King Rat (1965), Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970), and Midway (1976) to name a few.
True enough, but Moss' point is that the American public thinks (anymore) that WWII was all about Europe, and that it started on D-Day.
Moss also acknowledges that the PTO had a significant presence in the collective consciousness for quite some time, but that it seems to have faded and been crowded out by a collective impression that WWII was about ending the holocaust. Maybe the result of The Pacific will be that that changes to an extent. And maybe that's part of the creators' intention.
(Another shame is that the Russian Front is almost virtually unknown to Americans. Moss has been seeking a good English-language source/book about the Russian Front, but has struck out so far.)
Moss' point is that the American public thinks (anymore) that WWII was all about Europe, and that it started on D-Day.
I'd wager that a significant portion of the American public thinks (anymore) that we fought the Russians in WWII too.
In my day, we were inundated with shows about WWII (think Victory At Sea in regular rotation, plus shows like The Rat Patrol, and, of course, Hogan's Heroes. Of course, all of those were about the European Theater.
I'd wager that a significant portion of the American public thinks (anymore) that we fought the Russians in WWII too.
We didn't fight them in WWII, but we did invade Russian and fight the Soviets during & after WWI. Not many folks seem to know that, either.
Moss, if you're looking for a good general history of the Russian front, I'd suggest starting with Richard Overy's Russia's War: A History of the Soviet Effort: 1941-1945. Though I haven't read this particular book, I just finished Overy's Why the Allies Won, which is an excellent dissection, including quality statistical analysis, of the Allies' coalition efforts. My one problem with the book I read is that it places the majority of its focus on Europe (both the Western and Eastern fronts) at the expense of the Pacific, but considering Overy's a Brit, I'm inclined to cut him some slack considering his likely primary audience. Based on my experience with the other book and things I've read about Russia's War, I'd say it comes pretty highly recommended.
Much obliged, CH!
Here's an article in which Tom Hanks discusses "The Pacific". Link.
I agree with ending the film after James just stares at the giant wall of cereal.
And thanks for your insight into the veteran's views on the subject of war cinema