Episode 14 July 22nd 2011

Coming to you fresh from the Highbrow! Lowbrow? studios, Jesse and Shaun bring another podcast comparing the Top Box Office Earner and the Best Picture Academy Award Winner of the same year. As always, we take a look at these films, the pinnacles of critical and mainstream success and figure out who was right that year: the masses (lowbrow) or the critics (highbrow). For this episode we feature the year 1990 with the films: Dances With Wolves (highbrow) and Home Alone (lowbrow).

Dances With Wolves, directing and starring Kevin Costner, tells the story of Lieutenant Dunbar who, abandoned mentally and physically by the military, begins to embrace the spiritual and honorable ways of his Indian neighbors. Jesse found this movie and it's length (181 minutes) tolerable, fast fowarding through certain sections, and he thought Costner fluctuated between strong and week (his diary readings being fairly wooden). Shaun managed to stay invested throughout the movie's length, finding Costner's journey from Lieutenant Dunbar to Dances with Wolves strangely compelling. Though this film felt slanted towards the Native American plight, it was a refreshing and daring change of pace in 1990, from films previous that had negative views of that culture. Even though this film is overly long and a little indulgent, it's better than most people remember it, an interesting epic that embraces the Native American world.

Home Alone, directed by Chris Colombus, features Macaulay Culkin in his most infamous role as Kevin McCallister. Young Kevin finds himself home alone after his parents forget to bring him to the airport. He has to fend off evil burglars Marv and Harry, but he's got more than few tricks up his sleeves for them. Shaun found the physical comedy unparalleled, the numerous physical stunts were both hilarious and complicated. Jesse thought Kevin was an unlikable jerk, saying that the movie was an 1hr 41 of an 8 year old mugging (though he was a big fan of Marv aka Daniel Stern). This movie is a classic movie that kids will probably enjoy since they are constantly getting the upper hand on the adults. Although this movie does have it's problems and Kevin gets more annoying as you get older, Home Alone is a classic kid's movie bound to rear it's head around Christmas time.

So which movie did Jesse and Shaun, the HBLB duo, prefer? The epically long saga of Kevin Costner in Dances with Wolves? Or Macaulay Culkin's defining film Home Alone? Tune in to the next episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? to hear our take.

Episode 13 July 10th, 2011

The movie reviewing continues on Highbrow! Lowbrow? with Jesse and Shaun comparing the Top Box Office Earner and the Best Picutre Academy Award Winner of the same year. Our aim? To see what side of the movie watching audience was more on point for that year: the masses or the critics. This time around we're reviewing the year 1953, featuring the films From Here ToEternity (Highbrow) and Peter Pan (Lowbrow).

From Here To Eternity, directed by Frank Zinnemann, features Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift as Sgt. Milton Warden and Pvt. Robert E. Lee Prewitt, respectively, two soldiers dealing with forbidden love on the war front. Jesse called this movie a fun epic, really enjoying the performances by both of the leads and the surprisingly strong performance of Frank Sinatra as Pvt. Angelo Maggio. Shaun enjoyed the film overall, but felt the romances lacking at moments and the infamous beach scene had lost some heat due to it's age. The film has some really interesting twist and turns that add exciting depth to the story. Despite it's unfortunate title, From Here To Eternity was a surprise, an epic that was compelling and fun, and not overly long or wearying.

Disney's Peter Pan, directed from Clyde Geronimi and adapted from the books of J.M. Barrie, is the classic story of the boy who never grows up, Peter Pan, as he whisks away Wendy to Neverland, a place of fantasy and adventure. Shaun thought this film had a lot of interesting underlying themes and messages, but didn't bring them together successfully. Jesse wasn't a fan of Peter Pan and his mischievous ways, and found Wendy annoying with all her rules and mothering. Though this is a Disney classic, there wasn't enough of those classic elements for example, the elaborate song and dance numbers, and there were some awkward moments, like the subtly racist song "What makes the Red Man Red?" This is a kid's movie through and through, really embodying this mischievous and playful sensibility throughout.

What was the preferred choice for the Highbrow! Lowbrow? duo? The epic war romance From Here To Eternity? Or the playful adventures of Peter Pan? Check out the next episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? to find out!

Episode 12 June 26th, 2011

Prepare yourselves for another introspective episode of Highbrow! Lowbrow? The podcast where Jesse and Shaun review the Top Box Office Earner and the Best Picture Academy Award Winner of the same year, trying to see who was right: the masses or the critics. This time around we review the movies of 1981 with Chariots of Fire representing the Highbrow and Raiders of the Lost Ark representing the Lowbrow.

Chariots of Fire, directed by Hugh Hudson, is the story of two Olympic runners in the 1924 games, Eric Lidell (Ian Charleson), a devout christian forced to choose between his religion and his passion, and Ben Cross (Harold Abrahams), a jew facing persecution and racism as he rises up in the ranks. Overall, both Jesse and Shaun found this movie well, boring. There lacked a main conflict to really keep our interest or at the least, it wasn't portrayed compellingly enough. This movie is the definition of the stuffy period piece, where it really distances you from the film with a world that is unrecognizable and unrelatable. Even though the opening song has been branded culturally in our brains, the rest of the tunes throughout the movie are ill fitting and utilize way too much synth. The cinematography is decent with some special moments, from the stronger slow motion scenes to the cinema verite as Harold cruises the different social clubs. Though this may be considered a classic, these two athlete's stories are probably better represented by a documentary that recounts the true story.

The Raiders of the Lost Ark, directed by Steven Spielberg, is an action classic featuring the dashing archaeologist and adventurer, Indiana Jones (Harrison Ford). Jones is on the hunt for the Ark of the Covenant, an artifact of biblical times, racing against Nazi's and rival treasure hunters to save the day. This film has been emblazoned upon the pop culture landscape, an indelible classic that everyone seemingly relates to. Although the story seem fairly simplistic, it's the character of Jones and the world he lives in that makes this series such a classic. Edgy but effacing, fantastical but real, Indiana is a hero that you can believe in with enough grit to make him relatable. The special effects still stand up for the most part save for certain technicolor pre cgi effects. What really sells Raiders and the series itself is the framework they establish, via the classic sound effects, the painted posters, the emblematic music and more, it really creates an exciting world you want to be a part of. Be sure and give this one another whirl on your DVD player or other media device if you haven't in a while, because it still remains an exciting action classic.

What choice did we end up siding with? The highbrow pick of Chariots of Fire or the lowbrow pick of Raiders of the Lost Ark? Join us on Highbrow! Lowbrow? to find out!

Up

A film filled with wonder and visual treats. Surprising how emotionally affecting these Pixar films can be. They've produced another masterful work.


Written 1/6/10

The Documentaries of Louis Malle: Phantom India

Haunting scenes of India in the late 1960's. Director Malle's camera does meander at times, but his searching lens(es) can have a hypnotic effect. Educational and insightful throughout.


Written 12/25/09

Episode 11 June 12th, 2011

Highbrow! Lowbrow? is back after a 5 month or so hiatus and ready to bring the podcasting fury. Jesse and Shaun are two movie loving dudes who review the Top Box Office Earner and the Best Picture Academy Award Winner of the same year, a podcast we call Highbrow! Lowbrow? Alright so now that we are all up to speed, let's talk about the year 1973 with it's highbrow and lowbrow options, The Sting and The Exorcist, respectively.

The Sting, directed by George Roy Hill, re-teams the charming duo Paul Newman and Robert Redford as a couple of con men, Henry and Johnny, trying to pull off the con of their lives on big fish Doyle Lonnegan, played by Robert Shaw. Featuring the ragtime music of Scott Joplin, the movie is told in a very unique and stylistic manner with segments broken up into episodes headed by title cards. Redford and Newman keep up their charming ways which is enhanced by the music and the elaborate schemes they come up with. Shaw makes Lonnegan big in presence, an intimidating figure no one would tangle with. Despite that, the movie suffered a little for never allowing the villain to gain the upper hand as Redford and Newman were constantly pulling the wool over everyone. At the end of the day, The Sting succeeds as light escapist fare featuring strong talent and strong music.

The Exorcist, directed by William Friedkin, is the story of a young girl, Regan (Linda Blair), who becomes possessed by a sinister entity. Her mother, Chris Macneil (Ellen Burstyn), enlist the help of Father Merrin (Max von Sydow) and Father Karras (Jason Miller) to purge the demon from her child. This movie is indelible in everyone's mind as the horror movie of our time due to the visceral images and dark subject matter. Everyone has their own personal recollection of this movie and how much it has affected. The story is surprisingly deeper than remembered with many subtle nuances and details that really tie the imagery to what's being said on screen. From the influences of religion to the spiritual meaning of it all, not everything is at seems as the story unfolds and we learn more behind the motivations of these characters. Jason Miller really shines in this film, he's the true hero of the story, but Max Von Sydow is strong as the head priest. Linda Blair must be admired not only for her talent, but her ability to endure the dark subject matter and the extensive special effects. Speaking of which, the specials effects and the makeup are still compelling after all these years, only occasionally showing their age. Though this movie is billed in the Lowbrow category (top box office earner) it definitely fit like the Highbrow Pick.

So which one did we end up choosing? Was it the fright classic with more depth than we were expecting, The Exorcist? Or was it the jaunty and fun romp featuring the ever charming duo of Redford/Newman, The Sting? Itune in and listen to find out.

Downhill Racer

This is a curious one. I wanted to like it more, but Redford's choice to play the lead character as a cold, unfeeling ogre left me feeling dazed. "Downhill Racer" has the make-up of a classic sports drama, but it's missing several essential elements. Namely: warmth, humility, and grace. View with caution.


Written 12/25/09

Z

Proving rampant corruption does exist in seemingly every corner of the world, "Z" profiles horrid political corruption in Greece. It's a bit strange that the screenplay is in French given the Greece setting, but I suppose we Americans do it all the time, populating films based in foreign locales with our North American actors. Well, here the French have a go at it. Without giving too much away: the assassination of a key figure in the film is not believably depicted. That pivotal scene did not convince me. This is an unfortunate flaw in what is otherwise a gripping, well-acted work.


Written 12/11/09

The French Connection

This film has a curious power. Perhaps most notably it contains an amazing car-chasing-a-train-sequence that is not to be missed. I do feel that the villains were poorly cast. But the "good guys" Gene Hackman and Roy Scheider sizzle enough to make up for their less than stellar counterparts.


Written 12/11/09

Cranes Are Flying

On paper, this reads like another drab WWII sob story, but it is so much more. The female lead, Tatyana Samojlova, is a remarkable presence. Always at the heart of the twisting narrative, she exudes grace and verisimilitude. The filmmaking is brash and always daring. One understands almost immediately upon beginning viewing why this film is so lauded. Its plaudits are earned.


Written 12/11/09

Away We Go

Why is this film so awful? Everything they splatter onscreen in "Away We Go" is pretentious beyond belief. I felt like every character was trying to lecture me. I don't need your malfunctioning instruction manuals!! Uggh - go back to screenwriting school. This film is horrendous. Who gave this the green light?


Written 11/10/09

Tyson

A humanizing portrait of a man many consider a beast. Filmmaker James Toback is distinctly pro-Tyson in his film editing, showing little of the man's lengthy fall from grace. But that is no matter: we already know the details of Tyson's life so well. The fascinating part of this documentary is listening to Tyson - an admittedly far-out dude - spin one nonsensical yarn after another. He wears damage on his frame, and we continue to watch him. The ring footage reminds us that he once was an incredible boxer, one of the greats of all time.


Written 11/10/09

Trouble the Water

Stark, shocking, hilarious, honest, brutal, poetic. Superlatives cease to be sufficient - this documentary is outstanding. "Trouble the Water" showcases some of the *real* footage of Hurricane Katrina, filmed by people who lived it and lived to tell the tale. The lead couple's story of redemption is breathtaking to behold.


Written 11/10/09

Sugar

"Sugar" is an understated gem of a movie. Where the filmmakers could have bludgeoned us viewers over the head, they instead always choose restraint. As a result we are blessed with a true-to-life tale of a quiet Dominican kid who loves baseball and longs to seek fame and fortune in the U.S. Major Leagues. His story is beautifully written, filmed, and acted.


Written 11/10/09

Opening Night

I found it impossible to care about Gena Rowland's character. The "issues" she faces as the stage factor she plays in "Opening Night" are egotistic and highfalutin. So you can't find the character you're trying to play, huh? Why don't you just quit the role? She bored me with her fish-like flopping around and incessant drinking. This circular saga didn't resonate with me. The film's length - 144 minutes! - certainly doesn't help.


Written 11/10/09

Paper Moon

Peter Bogdanovich had a vision for this film, and he executed it expertly. The casting is superb. The story veers into dark corners at times, but a winning human spirit triumphs. Fun to see a real life father-daughter act in parallel roles onscreen.


Written 11/10/09

The Baxter

Understated and subtle. Michael Showalter is a winning dweeb in the lead role. The humor doesn't bang you over the head, but guffaws will abound with perceptive viewers. The story hangs well together and - save a few ineffective scenes - is an affecting portrait of The Search for Love.


Written 11/10/09

Rudo y Cursi

I wanted to love this. I am a devoted fútbol fan and thus always interested in quality film depictions of the beautiful game. In that way, "Rudo y Cursi" is decent: the fútbol, though sparsely shown, is believable and enjoyable. But the dominant story of the two brothers is rather miserable, quickly becoming agonizing to watch. The viewer can tell from a million miles away what tragedies will eventually befall the two. The film is stylishly made and pretty to look at, but unfortunately the story is redundant and the two lead characters are not likable enough.


Written 9/8/09