One of the more stunning films I have ever seen. The world famous England-bred street artist Banksy subverts a film project into something he decides is more suitable. He turns the camera on the man with the camera. The result is "Exit Through the Gift Shop". Instead of learning more about Banksy (the initial aim of the project), we see the world through the lens of Thierry Guetta, a man obsessed with filming his life and the work of his friends in the street art underworld. All kinds of wacky hijinks ensue, and this finished work may be an elaborate put-on. But that doesn't make it any less fascinating.
Joan is awesome! My respect for her grew immeasurably after watching this documentary film on her life. She is a phenom in the entertainment world, but not because she is specially gifted. Her main talent is her incredible work ethic. This woman is in her mid-seventies now and all she wants to do is book her calendar with work. Any work will do. Outsiders may perceive her as vain and self-absorbed, but she is not these things. She simply has an outlook on life different than you or I. She wants the limos to keep arriving at her door, but she'll never take the luxuries for granted. They'll have to tug the "Queen of Comedy" mantle from her casket, because in her lifetime she will never yield.
This is a classic film. Lead actor Sidney Poitier is luminous - he glowers with such intensity. He delivers in one of the first mainstream "leading man" roles offered to an African-American actor. The incessant racism on display in this film is a shock - these Southern Caucasians are appalling! They drop the N-word at every turn, but Poitier's Virgil Stubbs never buckles - he's heard it all before. Any plot twists that seem doubtful along the way are redeemed by Poitier. He is the beating heart of the film, and he sells everything, he is always believable. His repartee with his foil, small-town police chief Rod Steiger is acting of the highest calibre. A must-watch for any fan of cinema.
I was shocked that this didn't grab me. My heart is always open to Disney animated films, but "The Jungle Book" mostly lands with a dull thud. Firstly, I never really cared much for the protagonist, the man-cub Mowgli. He is not a sympathetic child. Secondly, the animation is less than stunning, with static backgrounds and a dearth of inventiveness. Thirdly, the prominently-featured songs feel forced and don't serve the story. Fourthly, the lead villain is hardly threatening. Never once did I feel that Mowgli's life was truly in danger. Their presence is a reminder that commerce has won the day. Still, there are some worthy elements to this one: the elephants are fun, Baloo the bear is occasionally entertaining, and the chief of the monkeys is fun during his brief interludes. But most of the time it's just Mowgli whining about not wanting to leave the jungle. Not good enough.
The travails and successes of Disney's famed animation department during the 1980's and 90's are featured in this lovingly curated documentary. "Waking Sleeping Beauty" is crafted by two insiders. They were there, man. Thus their filmmaking is as authoritative as can be. When they say Walt Disney's nephew Roy was not the buffoon that many perceived him to be but was in fact a sage man with a great heart and an unshakeable desire for Disney Corp. to return to making classic animated films, you believe them. They were there, man, and the footage presented bears this out (this documentary's director and producer are often in the frame). Viewers learn more than they likely ever wished to about former Disney President Michael Eisner (yay!) and former studio chairman Jeff Katzenberg (boo!). The struggles of the workaday animators are featured prominently. Some of the editing and voice-overs can seem choppy since the type of footage included (i.e. newsreel, Disney archival, super-8) varies greatly in quality but on the whole, "Waking Sleeping Beauty" is entertaining and thoroughly educational.
This is a film about a doomed romance. In it, stars Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider do crazy things. There are many sex scenes. The two characters don't always treat each other well. Their relationship is usually destructive. Marlon Brando is in full-on "artiste" mode throughout, and seizes any opportunity to act like a madman.
Is "Last Tango In Paris" exploitative of its female star Schneider? Can it be labelled as pornography even though the film's art director does an amazing job? ("Last Tango" is visually stunning; the walls of the apartment in which most of the film takes place look like discarded Rothko paintings - awesome.) These are questions I do not feel equipped to answer after a single viewing. And it's likely I'll never feel compelled to watch this again. But director Bernardo Bertolucci's talent is undeniable. There's something here, but it requires wading. Not everyone possesses the tolerance and open-mindedness required by "Last Tango In Paris". This is not necessarily a bad thing.
Welcome to another episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? The podcast that compares the top box office earner and the Academy Award Best Picture Winner of the same year. For this episode, the year is 1967 and the two films are In The Heat Of The Night (Best Picture) and The Jungle Book (Top Box Office).
In In The Heat Of The Night, directed by Norman Jewison and starring Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger, Virgil Tibbs (Poitier), a black detective from Philadelphia, becomes entangled with a murder mystery in the rural south. Fighting racist attitudes throughout the investigation, Virgil manages to stay one step ahead of the local authorities with his seasoned forensic skills. This earns him the begrudging acceptance of police chief Gillespie who becomes an unlikely ally against the growing threat of the townspeople's racism. Poitier carries the film, pushing his strong black character hard against racist stereotypes, while Steiger manages a subtle tension between the chief's inherent racism and his professional respect of Tibbs. The editing and cinematography have a "film school" edge to them, lacking polish. But this is made up for with a dynamic and gritty shooting style. This film is a must see, not only for its cultural significance but just because it is a great film.
The Jungle Book, directed by Wolgang Reitherman and starring Phil Harris, Sebastian Cabot, and Bruce Reitherman, is another Disney marquee picture in their line of classic animated films. The film features man-cub Mowgli, a wild boy raised by wolves, cast out of his pack due to their fear of the tiger Shere Khan, whose prey is man. Bagheera, a black panther and mentor of sorts to Mowgli, offers to take the boy back to his own kind where he'll be safe. Mowgli doesn't want to leave his jungle home however, being more interested in a carefree life with his friend, Baloo the bear. In addition to the fearsome Shere Khan, Mowgli has to cope with dangers from crazy monkeys and treacherous snakes. While the song and dance in the film is fun and enjoyable, the main story lacks structure and a feeling of real threat to Mowgli's life. The animation is satisfactory, but not up to par with other Disney classics. The jazz influences on the music and style of the film are unique and add a vibrant element to the story. Ultimately though, this film ends up being too light in its presentation, as it can be difficult to stay engaged.
Which film will we choose in the latest episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? The classic Disney animation The Jungle Book with its jazzy dance numbers and memorable songs or the cultural milestone In The Heat Of The Night with the slap heard 'round the world? Find out on the latest Highbrow! Lowbrow?
There’s nothing more that needs to be said about “The Godfather: Part II”. This is a majestic work. Everything is well-realized. Al Pacino is mesmerizing as Michael, the newly crowned head of the Corleone crime family. He glowers with remarkable intensity, the weight of the world always hovering just above his shoulders. Robert Deniro plays Michael’s father Vito. As counterpart to Marlon Brando’s Vito from the original “Godfather” film, Deniro plays Vito in his younger years when he was just starting to make a name for himself. The cuts between 1950’s Michael and 1910’s Vito initially seem too big a stretch, but director Francis Ford Coppolla proves masterful in his ability to connect the formative experiences of each man. This is the rare instance of a sequel supplanting the original work. So what if Coppolla hasn’t made a great film in ages? His reputation is established - let the man rest now and sell wine! If that’s what he wants to do, who are we to decry the void in cinema. The man’s work is done, and perhaps no one will ever catch up.
Time for another round of Highbrow! Lowbrow?, the podcast where we look at the top box office earner and Best Picture Academy Award winner from the same year. The 1970's were a great time for film, and 1974 is no exception with Mel Brook's classic Blazing Saddles and Francis Ford Coppola's epic Godfather Part II.
The Godfather Part II, directed by Francis Ford Coppola, is the continuing saga of Michael Corleone, the new "Godfather" or crime boss of the italian mafioso. Al Pacino reprises his role of Michael Corleone, who has become colder and more business-minded. Michael's story is contrasted with the story of the original godfather, Vito Corleone - played by Robert De Niro - and how he came to power. This film is an undeniable classic, a sequel that no one thought could be done. It continues the Godfather story with a gritty cinematic style, capturing 1950's-era Michael Corleone in Hollywood, Las Vegas and Cuba, and Vito Corleone's life from Italy to New York. Robert De Niro has tough shoes to step into, following Marlon Brando's classic performance in the original Godfather film, but he delivers an excellent performance. This movie is one for every lover of film and deserving of every accolade and word of praise it receives.
Blazing Saddles, directed by Mel Brooks, is a parody of all classic western movies, but it turns the form on its ear by making a black man the centerpiece. Throughout his trials and tribulations as the first black sheriff of Rock Ridge, Bart - played by Cleavon Little - skewers his scenes jokes commenting on the racism of the time. Also starring Gene Wilder as Jim, a hotshot gunman turned perennial drunkard. Some of the humor doesn't translate as well today due to the passage of time, and Mel Brooks' style of comedy isn't for everyone, but there are definitely some classic scenes. Also, Brooks should be commended for tackling the issue of racism in a light-hearted but no nonsense manner. He is definitively mocking racists, although some viewers will certainly be turned off by his use of the N-word. Maybe not a film for everyone, but I would recommend it to most because the people who do start laughing with it don't seem to stop.
So were we more entranced by the crime drama of Godfather Part II or the laughs in the parody of Blazing Saddles? Tune in and check out the latest episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow?
This is a dumb, goofy time. Unfortunately the subjects Mel Brooks and co. choose to satirize in “Blazing Saddles” don’t always stand up to the test of time. Thus many of the gags fall flat upon viewing the film in 2010. There are some bright lights, though. The production is well-executed and looks expensive. Harvey Korman’s performance is worthy of a tip of the cap. He shines as the devious villain of the piece. You can tell he reveled in the opportunity to “play bad”. There are a number of memorable scenes here, but the film as a whole is too uneven for me. There’s no doubt that comedy is a terribly difficult genre. Something that reads as funny on the page won’t necessarily translate onscreen. Mel Brooks is a wealthy elderly dude at this point, so I’m sure my critiques are just another hollow log floating down the river of time. But I’ll state my heretical piece nonetheless: I don’t love “Blazing Saddles”.
"Leaves of Grass" is an oddity. It's a film that can't decide what it wants to be, and its makers don't quite have the chops to blanket all the genres they wish to. Director Tim Blake Nelson ought to be admired for his scope of vision, but the finished film is just too scattershot. A stretch of scenes lead the viewer to believe they're watching a quirky comedy, but then a grisly murder happens. It's schizophrenic. Edward Norton is game, playing the roles of antithetical twin brothers. He is solid, and winning. Keri Russell is luminous as the inevitable love interest. She memorably spouts passages of Walt Whitman while gutting a catfish. But the work as a whole is unfortunately too much of a stretch. And the ending is lame. L-A-M-E. Things come full circle with all the characters in a way that is far too tidy, belying the chaos that preceded. "Leaves of Grass" may be a mess, but it does have its worthy moments.
"Winter's Bone" is an excellent film, heavy on atmosphere, drama, and tension. Newcomer Jennifer Lawrence shines in the lead role, playing Ree, a teenager desperately searching for her deadbeat dad. But her performance is outstripped by the raw humanity John Hawkes exudes as the character "Teardrop", Ree's uncle. Hawkes is truly awesome. I only wish that Ree's two younger siblings received more character development from the scriptwriter(s). As things stand, we sympathize for those two simply because they're young and helpless. It would have been nice if they were more than just sketches, if the writing could have given us more substantive reason to care about their fate.
I saw this as the second feature in a double bill of Buster Keaton movies. "Steamboat Bill, Jr." is perhaps most notable for its extended sequence of stunts near the end, in which Keaton's character is swept about by a hurricane. In the midst of this sequence is the iconic scene in which the front of a house falls on Keaton but he is standing perfectly positioned where there is a window opening. He emerges unscathed. One thing notable about Keaton is how short he was. He didn't stand more than 5 foot, 6 inches, and his paucity of height is played as a sight gag repeatedly here. The story of "Steamboat Bill, Jr." is a bit thin, but Keaton is always lively and fun to watch.
I was surprised at how clean this film looks, considering that it dates from 1927. I'm sure restoration work has been enacted. Those who participated in the restoration deserve applause for their efforts. Buster Keaton is one of the great screen stars of the silent film era. This is my first time seeing him onscreen (besides his brief cameo in Billy Wilder's "Sunset Boulevard"), and he is a joy to watch, kinetic and lively at all times. "The General" is set in the deep South during the Civil War. Keaton plays a train conductor who yearns to be part of the war effort. A lengthy section of the film involves a runaway train and all kinds of wacky hijinks. Some of the stunts Keaton executes are stunning. Apparently, "The General" was a box office flop in the time of its release, but the film is now esteemed as one of the greats of all time. I understand the revisionism - "The General" may be Keaton's finest hour. It's a fun romp that stands up to the scrutiny of modern viewing.
Director Davis Guggenheim shadows four first-year teachers in this documentary film about the joys and frustrations of the teaching profession. He tends to portray the American public schooling system as broken. The cracks are evident in "The First Year", and the breach is more evident in his 2010 documentary "Waiting for Superman" (which I have yet to see at the time of this writing). "The First Year" is fascinating viewing. These are the average teachers dealing with ordinary kids, kids whose parents may or may not have an active role in their lives. We watch as the teachers contend with administrative mix-ups, budget shortfalls, and disruptive students. And it's important that we care - these kids are going to be running things when you and I are in shuffle mode, constrained to our walkers. Let's not be lamenters at some later date; let's act now.
A fascinating portrait of the collision point between friendship and ambition. There may be any number of half-truths in "The Social Network", a film that steadfastly refuses to change the names of the real people depicted on screen, but I didn't care about any that. I wanted to be entertained, and I was. I knew some of the backstory, the Mark Zuckerberg "Creation myth" if you will, but most of the details were new to me. The cast is awesome and the writing is stellar. The screenwriter Aaron Sorkin pings lines at the audience as though engaging his opposite number in a table tennis match. Jesse Eisenberg is particularly excellent as Zuckerberg, playing him as an outcast who may or may not suffer from Asperberger's. In "The Social Network", a cadre of young men get rich quick. We in the audience are left to toll the cost as friendships shatter and fade in front of our eyes. Ah, the impudence - and brilliance - of youth.
Back yet again with another episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? the podcast that looks at the Best Picture Academy Award Winner and Top Box Office Earner of the same year. The year 1999 brings us American Beauty (Academy award winner) and Star Wars: The Phantom Menace (top box office earner).
American Beauty, directed by Sam Mendes, is a story about how one average American family tries to deal with the drudgery of suburban life. Kevin Spacey, who plays the fed-up dad, lusts after his daughter's friend (played by Mena Suvari) as a way of escape. Annette Benning, the uptight mom, turns to sex and shooting guns to elude her family strife. Thora Birch, the daughter caught between the two, finds refuge in the form of her next-door neighbor, a bizarre filmmaker (played by Wes Bentley) who reveals to her beauty in the least expected places. We were both surprised that the film won so many accolades, since upon second viewing, the film lacks a certain depth. The film paints in broad strokes, and doesn't possess the maturity of filmmaking required by its overarching themes. Nevertheless, although initially it was hard to be invested in the stereotypical setting, there are a number of strong scenes that draw you in.
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace, directed by George Lucas, is the first of the "prequels", depicting the rise of the Empire, and the beginning of the Star Wars Saga. Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman) defends her planet Naboo with the help of two Jedi, Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan Macgregor) against the nefarious Trade Federation. Young Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd) begins his journey into Jedi life, but the dark figure of the Emperor casts a shadow on all their fates. And Jar Jar Binks... why? Oh Lord, why? This film suffers from several problems: poor acting, a confusing and uninteresting story and unnecessary characters. However, after all these years the CG effects are still stunning, as are the fantastic settings and unique costumes. We also enjoyed the action sequences; the intensity of the light saber battles were definitely amped up for Episode 1.
Do the light saber battles of The Phantom Menace entertain more than the battles of everyday life in American Beauty? Is there more meaning to the Force or a floating plastic bag? Listen to our 5th Episode to find out.
After attending a movie at the Cinemark Theater in Hayward, CA I decided to email the manager (or perhaps just some automated email drone receptor in corporate nowheresville...) about my experience. Here is what I wrote:
Hello -
On Sunday evening I attended a showing of "The Social Network" with my wife at the Cinemark Theatre in Hayward, CA. The accommodations were excellent - comfortable seats, great picture, great sound. I only wish you wouldn't have blasted us with the terribly loud advertisements prior to the film.
I understand that economic realities may now force your hand and require you to screen ads before a movie. As much as I despise this (I remember when movie theaters were a commercial-free haven; it was wonderful) I can accept it. However, I'm disturbed at how loud the volume of said ads was. The ads were so loud that it was impossible to carry on a conversation. I am emailing to request that you turn down the volume of the advertisements in deference to your audience's comfort. They - and I - will thank you.
The halls of the Hayward Cinemark theater are adorned with all kinds of classic movie posters. The decor is very cool. I wonder whether the theatre has considered screening any of these classic films? I know that there many steps involved in this - obtaining a decent print of the film, advertising & promotion, scheduling - but I think a classic movie showing once or twice each month could be quite successful in Hayward if curated well. I know I'd love to see "Casablanca" or "Rebel Without a Cause" on the big screen.
The Paramount Theatre in Oakland has a regular series of classic movie showings that is much-beloved and well attended. Here's a link to their schedule.
Here is our fourth episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? a bi-weekly podcast looking at the top box office earner and the Best Picture Academy Award Winner of the same year. This episode we watched the films of 2007, with No Country For Old Men representing the highbrow and Spiderman 3 representing the lowbrow.
No Country For Old Men, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen, is a tale about Llewelyn (Josh Brolin) a man on the run from the villainous Anton Chigurh (Javier Bardem) after taking loot from a bloody shootout. Tommy Lee Jones plays Sheriff Bell, looking for answers in an increasingly violent world. This movie continues the trend of excellent Coen Brother offerings, chock full of relatable characters and an engaging story. Some may even call this a perfect movie with nary a weak moment. Even the slower portions of the film serve as a welcome respite from the brutal goings on.
Spiderman 3,directed by Sam Raimi, is the third installment of the Spiderman series. Peter Parker (Tobey Maguire) has to confront villains galore, from Green Goblin (James Franco) to Sandman (Thomas Haden-Church) to Venom (Topher Grace), all the while dealing with his own dark side and the whims of his lady-friend Mary Jane (Kirsten Dunst). Like all the other Spiderman films, this one is filled with intense action, an uplifting score and vibrant special effects. However, the cast and crew show a little wear and tear, at times looking as if they are just going through motions.
How did these two movies compare to each other? Was the excitement and fun of Spiderman 3 enough to stand up to the pitch-perfect tone of No Country For Old Men? Check out the latest episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? to see.
![Exit Through the Gift Shop [Blu-ray]](http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B004FK40J8&tag=jesmic-20)
![Steamboat Bill, Jr. [Ultimate 2-Disc Edition]](http://ws.amazon.com/widgets/q?MarketPlace=US&ServiceVersion=20070822&ID=AsinImage&WS=1&Format=_SL160_&ASIN=B003H221MI&tag=jesmic-20)
