I feel I should be updating more. I will work on that.

As a writer, it often comes up that I'm required to shrink my stories -- that is, to summarize a story I've written in a paragraph, a page, two pages, rarely more. But see, therein lies the problem. If I could put all the important stuff from my story down into one page, why wouldn't I just make the story itself one page?

Or maybe I'm just bad and I will always need someone else to do it for me.

Continue reading...

La Vie en Rose

Backstage, an old Edith Piaf stands, preparing for one of her final performances. Her torso is wrapped, and her doctor tells her that she is risking her life if she goes on with her performance. “So?” she responds. “You have to risk something.”

One would not think much of Marion Cotillard’s looks if they only saw her in the roles she takes. Outside of the movies she is gorgeous, but here, in ‘La Vie en Rose,’ she shaved her eyebrows and reduced her hairline to become Edith Piaf -- and that is only the beginning of the transformation.

The movie takes place around three stages in Edith’s life. The first is of her as a child, and this is one of the few movies, biopic or not, that has successfully managed to evoke sympathy for a character within the first twenty minutes. Practically orphaned, Edith suffers to the point where she may become blind. She goes to pray, blindfolded, to Saint Theresa and Jesus, so that she may have sight and be able to read like the rest of the children.

But this is a few of the only words Edith says during her childhood, until her father steals her from the brothel she was being raised in so he can use her in his circus act. Which is a better home, a whorehouse or a circus cart? One could have a tough time making that decision. Her father has her on the sidewalk holding out a hat, begging for change as he does cheap acrobatics, until the crowd wants Edith herself to do something. What does she do? Oh, she sings.

Time passes, and Marion Cotillard comes out as a teenager who sings on the streets for change, to which she has to give her father a cut as he wastes his life away in a pub. Edith’s luck comes and goes in a rollercoaster of successes and failures. One day she is drinking champagne at a New Years’ party, the next she is a step from having to whore herself out for food money. There is no doubt, in this stage of her life, that she lives for the moment -- whether good or bad.

A third chunk of the movie’s time line is the elder Edith Piaf, one who cannot pick up a glass without her hand shaking furiously. But her determination is possibly the strongest of any character in a movie I’ve seen in a long time. She is the lady who holds her friends close, but everything is second to her love of music. She became a national treasure for France, and she worked hard to uphold that image.

These three time lines are intertwined throughout the movie’s 140 minute run-time. The director, Olivier Dahan, manages to piece these events together in a way that nothing is spoiled and each chunk makes the next that much more important, regardless of how it happened chronologically. This is not a movie of stages of life, but of the events that shape a person.

The real achievement in this movie is Marion Cotillard herself. She plays Edith Paif with such vigor, yet in her face you can always see that behind her eyes she has worries and desperation, but that tiny smile she gives with her bright red lips is just enough so you also know she is full of love, whether she is singing, drinking, or praying. If this isn’t an Oscar-worthy performance, I don’t know what is.

And how can one ignore the music in a biopic about a singing legend? I think my reaction to this movie says enough: Starting the movie, I was familiar with La Vie en Rose as a song. As the movie played, and ended, the next thing I did was look for a soundtrack. It is a rare thing when the singing in a movie, even of a country’s national anthem, can take over one so completely. This is the movie that does it.

I’ve seen a number of biopics, a number of which have been about musical legends. ‘La Vie en Rose’ tops any I can think of at the moment, in acting, composition, art direction, and just plain, good old-fashioned storytelling.

Rating: 7/7

La Vie en Rose is now out on DVD.

Continue reading...

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to see two movies that are still both in limited release. Fortunately, both movies were great.

No Country for Old Men

The new movie from the Coen brothers (Fargo, Blood Simple) is taken out West this time -- West being Texas. Their source material is the novel of the same title by Cormac McCarthy. The film follows three primary stories revolving around about $2 million in cash.

First we have Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin), a retired 'nam Vet who, while out hunting one day, comes upon the remnants of a drug deal gone bad. Among the corpses he manages to come across the money, which he takes home to his wife in their trailer park. He's a smart character and knows whoever's money it is will come looking for it. He goes on the run while he tells his wife to hide elsewhere.

His pursuer is Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem), who may or may not be the primary character of this story. He is unsympathetic to human life and does what he wants, freely and without worry. To figure out his motives is not an easy task. There is no method to Chirugh's actions, other than it involves lots of killing and the pursuit of the money.

To complete the triangle is an old sheriff, Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones). He starts the movie with a voice-over that establishes a number of things, the most important may be his matter-of-fact way of dealing with the law. He also talks about how old-time sheriffs never used to carry guns. Tom Bell is on the trail of Chigurh's killings, not because he wants justice, but because he wants to save lives. He knows he'll never understand a person like Chigurh, but he does know he can save Llewlyn Moss if he catches up to them.

With those introductions going, let me say this -- the movie is hardly what you may expect, especially from a movie in this genre (crime/western). You may, and probably will be, frustrated. Some scenes are graphic enough to make you churn in your seat. At the very beginning, the first murder Chigurh commits on screen, you'll realize that this is not a movie of good against bad, right against wrong, but instead a movie about the actions of an incomprehensible killer in the face of his victims. Chigurh enjoys having small chats with the casualties before he murders them.

If there's one thing the Coen brothers have done well in their movies, it is a simultaneous pull where you do not want a scene to end, but at the same time can't wait to see what happens next. And each scene is like this in a different way. Moss and Chigurh encountering each other in hotels across the state is enough tension, but scenes where Tom Bell sits in a diner reading the paper strike equally, if not more-so. Through the movie Tom Bell has a younger sheriff, Wendell, tagging along. Wendell asks Tom Bell if he thinks Moss knows what he's into, and Tom Bell responds, "I don't know, he ought to. He's seen the same things I've seen, and it's certainly made an impression on me."

It is this sense of intelligence among the main characters that makes this movie a success. Moss knows how to saw off shotguns, Chigurh can pull shotgun shrapnel out of his own knee and completely sanitize it, and Tom Bell can tell how long it's been since pretty much anyone has been pretty much anywhere.

I know these paragraphs are vague, but more than anything I do not want to ruin the hints and surprises of the movie. It is a story of nuances and subtleties, but also the blood sometimes hits you right in the face. Be sure to see this movie.

Rating: 7/7


Before the Devil Knows You're Dead

Director Sidney Lumet is back behind the camera, and what a great movie this is. I would say it's on par with 'Dog Day Afternoon,' but that may even be an understatement. This could be among his masterpieces, such as 'Network' and '12 Angry Men.'

With that said, I will give a small overview for those who have not seen the preview. I say this only because to reveal more than the preview shows would be disastrous to the experience. Two brothers, Andy (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and Hank (Ethan Hawke), both have their money problems. Hank has to pay $900 a month for child support to his ex-wife, and he's already three months behind. Andy has to scramble for cash to keep his wife Gina (a gorgeous Marisa Tomei) happy. Her self-esteem is so low around Andy all she can do to keep going is to tell herself they will go back to Brazil, where they took a vacation and everything was perfect.

With money in mind, Andy and Hank arrange a jewelry store robbery. The catch is that it's their mom (Rosemarry Harris) and dad's (Albert Finney) store. But that's good, because they know the schedule, they know where the alarms are, and the parents are covered in the insurance. But oh, how everything goes completely wrong.

There is much credit due to screenwriter Kelly Masterson, whose first movie this is. The non-linear storytelling of how each character's life goes a few days before, and a few days after the robbery is enough to make Quentin Tarantino jealous. And Lumet takes control of these scenes and gives them so much life that we almost feel like we're part of the Hanson family ourselves.

The family dynamic is played perfectly. In a scene where Andy asks Hank if he's "in" on the plan, he makes Hank raise his hands into plain view so there's no fingers-crossed, like when they were kids. Small things like these show us that even though Ethan Hawke and Philip Seymour Hoffman may not look alike at all, there is never any doubt of their kinship.

The great performance in this movie, though, is Albert Finney. There is a funny thing about this movie. The "law" seems to prove completely incapable of doing anything. Charles Hanson (Finney, the dad) finds this out and begins investigating the robbery himself. Andy and Hank do not know this, and their extreme paranoia drives them to a climax that is so epic it almost redefines the word.

The film also relies heavily on the music by Carter Burwell, who with his low chords and slow melodies sets a mood in every scene that feels like the movie would fail without it. A success regardless, the score just propels it the movie to greatness.

And there is the tip of the iceberg. Here Lumet proves that even in his old age he can still make movies much better than most, and because of that, this one should not be passed up.

Rating: 7/7

Continue reading...

Last night I was channel flipping, going down in numbers. I got to channel 12, which here is TBS, and it was the end of The Wizard of Oz. Great movie. A fine coincidence. I note the channel, and continue through the last few to see if anything better was on.

So I went down one more channel, which is TNT, and The Wizard of Oz was on that channel was well. At the same part (I think TBS' was about 40 seconds ahead). Freakin' weird.

What are the odds that on November 9th, a random Friday night, at the exact same time two cable channels which, as far as I know, don't have anything to do with each others programming, would be showing the same movie at the same time? And not a new movie, but a very old movie.

The odd thing though was that The Wizard of Oz was re-released on DVD maybe a year ago on a special edition, which I bought. I think it was newly restored or something. Anyway, TBS had a restored, more colorful version, where it looked like TNT had the original.

Man, I love that movie.

Continue reading...

So finally, after about a year, I have now seen every movie on AFI's list of the 100 greatest movies (view the completed checklist here). The reason I did this was to discover great movies I would never otherwise watch, and in that aspect this list was very helpful.

I sat here for a few minutes and thought, 'Why not rearrange these into a top 100 of MY picking?' I began doing so, and after about twenty movies I had to stop because there's so many fantastic movies on this list it's literally impossible to rank them against each other fairly. How do you compare 'Vertigo' to 'The Searchers?' They're two completely different movies. 'Singin' in the Rain' versus 'The Maltese Falcon.' Two very different genres, yet they're both probably the best of the best within those areas.

Which movie do you rank higher -- the innovative movie that set the bar for a whole movement, or the movie that perfected those elements a few years later? Each movie is unique and special by its own criteria.

For that reason, I will instead split the movies into three categories. The first category will be 'Perfect Movies.' These will be movies that should be on everyone's must-see list. They age like wine. Their importance to film cannot possibly be understated.

So, the Perfect Movies list (in alphabetical order):

12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
All About Eve (1950)
Annie Hall (1977)
The Apartment (1960)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Casablanca (1942)
Chinatown (1974)
Citizen Kane (1941)
City Lights (1931)
The Deer Hunter (1978)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dr. Strangelove (1964)
The General (1927)
The Godfather (1972)
The Godfather, Part II (1974)
Gone With the Wind (1939)
The Graduate (1967)
It Happened One Night (1934)
It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
M*A*S*H (1970)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939)
Network (1976)
On the Waterfront (1954)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975)
The Philadelphia Story (1940)
Psycho (1960)
Raging Bull (1980)
Rear Window (1954)
Rocky (1976)
Schindler's List (1993)
The Searchers (1956)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Singin' in the Rain (1952)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
Star Wars (1977)
A Streetcar Named Desire (1951)
Sunset Boulevard (1950)
The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Vertigo (1958)


Next, I guess would be 'Great Movies.' These are the movies that should also not be ignored. They probably rank around a 4.5/5 rating, and definitely not below a 4/5. There are two reasons a movie may fall here. The first is that while some of these movies are loved by a majority of movie historians/film critics, they just don't hit me like the best of them. I understand why some of these movies are great, and while I learned things from watching them, they just don't do it for me. The second reason may just be that the movie is very solid (i.e. 'King Kong'), but I mean it's still maybe only a 9/10. It doesn't have that little extra thing that separates goodness from greatness.

Here's the Great Movies list:

All the President's Men (1976)
The African Queen (1951)
Ben-Hur (1959)
The Best Years of Our Lives (1946)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
A Clockwork Orange (1971)
Duck Soup (1933)
Easy Rider (1969)
E.T. -- The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
The French Connection (1971)
The Gold Rush (1925)
Goodfellas (1990)
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
High Noon (1952)
In the Heat of the Night (1967)
Intolerance (1916)
King Kong (1933)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
Midnight Cowboy (1969)
Modern Times (1936)
Nashville (1975)
North by Northwest (1959)
Platoon (1986)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Shane (1953)
Sophie's Choice (1982)
The Sound of Music (1965)
Sunrise (1927)
Swing Time (1936)
Taxi Driver (1976)
Titanic (1997)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Tootsie (1982)
Toy Story (1995)
Unforgiven (1992)
West Side Story (1961)
The Wild Bunch (1969)

And last, I'll have the 'Other List.' This list will be movies that I either did not enjoy at all, I don't think were very culturally important (or, were done better in other ways in other movies), or I think should just be completely off the list. And if those three aren't enough, it may be that I am annoyed these movies are on the list, but great movies like 'Amadeus' and 'Fargo' were cut. So here's the Other List:

American Graffiti (1973)
Blade Runner (1982)
Cabaret (1972)
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Forrest Gump (1994)
The Last Picture Show (1971)
A Night at the Opera (1935)
The Sixth Sense (1999)
Spartacus (1960)
Sullivan's Travels (1941)
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
Yankee Doodle Dandy (1942)


These lists are really hard, as I was saying. I know some people who would kill me for having 'High Noon' and 'Taxi Driver' and 'Lawrence of Arabia' not under perfection. But what's the point in making a list like this if I'm not completely honest? I can go around all day telling you why 'The Grapes of Wrath' was a great movie, but if I don't love it, why should I pretend to?

Yet on the other hand, I really enjoy watching 'All the President's Men' and 'Butch Cassidy' and 'Pulp Fiction,' but I would feel like I'm toying with my standards if I grouped them with 'Some Like It Hot.'

And it's hard to clump everything into three groups like this. Of course I love 'All About Eve' a lot more than '12 Angry Men,' and while 'Eve' is probably the better movie, they're both great and enjoyable. Hell, I liked 'Swing Time' more than 'The Searchers,' but I know 'Swing Time' isn't the better movie.

But with that said, I also can't help somewhat contradicting myself. If I had to pick only ten from this list to be a 'Top 10,' in alphabetical order, they would be...

All About Eve
Annie Hall
The Apartment
Casablanca
Citizen Kane
Dr. Strangelove
The Godfather
It's a Wonderful Life
Psycho
The Wizard of Oz

There. There it is. Be happy.

Honestly, I recommend everyone tries to see at least half the AFI list. You'll learn so much and be entertained. What can be better than that?

Continue reading...