Time to Change a Bit

Ok well as many bloggers know, it takes a lot of effort to write a review and well you dont get paid for it. what im trying to say is writing a 3 paragraph dissertation on every film i see is a waste of my time. so unless i think a film is 'worth' 3P's i will write one. the others will just be points of the film i enjoyed.

"Magnolia" (1999)

I know its in spanish but i like the poster. i will translate: Frank- he wants to convince Earl- he wants time Stanley- he wants a friend Claudia- she wants to change Linda- she wants help Donnie- he wants to give everything Jimmy- he wants to be forgiven Jim- he wants love

It's not going to stop, so just give up. this really is one of the greatest films of our time. Another film that explores a subject with deep thought. human emotion. this review will sound much akin to that of my earlier review of "The Sweet Hereafter". that is because they both intamitly explore the human mind and what happened in our childhood that lead us to the point in which we are today. this film forces us to feel; like "Requiem for a Dream". it's epic length makes it even more emotionally brutal. we sit down and forced to see lives of real people. i can tell you that this has happened to everyone in the world. one day in which we and our families and friends have that one god-awful day. and most of us may not even know much of what else happens. like Linda Partridge had no idea what Stanley Spector was going through. we are all dealing with our own inner conflicts so we are blinded from everything else. we need help and some characters in the film are helpers, while others need help. we see this everyday. it is a mad world out there, and this film shows that it's really not. those who are considered 'mad' just need some help, some more than others. but we all need help each other if we are going to survive on this earth. again this film shows the importance of that. by the curtain call of the film, not everything is fixed and not everything is resolved. but that's just life right? we see a series of interconnected characters dealing with conflicts on a day that they may never forget or one that they will learn from or forget; it might just be a reagular day. but we all have these days, maybe not to this extent or maybe even worse. i have met people very much like these people. this is a very important subject and film. but instead of giving a sermon about all of this, PTA inserted into this one film.

The plot is quite complex. the setting is one rainy day in California, yes it rain though most of the film which i think is vital to the movement. let's start with the character the director, P.T. Anderson, started with. Melora Walters plays Claudia. a dog-tired drug addict who picks up guys on a regular basis goes home and usually never sees them again. her father is Jimmy played by Philip Baker Hall. they are definatly estranged and you can probably guess why. he is the host for a long running game show called 'What Do Kids Know?'. he also has cancer. which he has not told his wife Rose (Melinda Dillon) about. he has cheated on her many times. the head of the game show is also dying of cancer but he is in his final moments. this is Jason Robards in his last film role as Earl Partridge. his nurse is Philip Seymour Hoffman playing Phil. Earl's wife is played verociously by the trophy-wife-on-outside-bitch-on-inside type, Julianne Moore who is an addict and is lost in confusion and anger and expresses it in the harshest and most explicit terms possible. reminds me of Sharon Stone's only good performnce in Scorsese's "Casino". Earl also has a son, Frank with his first wife, Lily. he is played by Tom Cruise in one of the greatest performances of our time. he has never and will never do something as good. Frank, well, his profession is to tell men how to get inside of a woman's pants. he is misogynistic and sexist, but for reasons we will discover throught the film. Stanley Spector plays a genious 12yearold contestant on the game show who is emotionally abused by his father (Michael Bowen) who knows that his son can score some money. i realate him to Howard Beale from "Network" (one of the main inspirations on the film); his talents are exploited for money. Stanley has much more potential in life thn this, and he knows it. William H. Macy plays Donnie who won a bunch of many on the game show in the late 60's. his parents took the money as well. he know works a shitty job as head salesman at some electronics store. he is fired but he needs money for his braces. yes, his teeth are fine, but he is in love with a male-bartender who has braces as well. this is one of the most deeply sadening sections of the film. i take that back, they all are really. John C. Reily plays Jim Kurring who is a nice police officer, devoted to God and doesent curse; one of the few characters. he is the laughing stock throughout the station. he is called to check out a disturbence- this is Claudia. we have now made the circle. below i have posted a charct to help you a bit. we filnd everything there is to know about the characters because of the way it's presented. through interviews or convertions etc. amazingly crafted. the end of the film is one of the most amazing feats i have ever seen. it's like seeing the traking shot of Orson Welles' "Touch of Evil" for the first time. all of the emotions from the day come down. So now then.

This is not an easy film. it is very raw. but why not be. i think if it was not raw it would feel uncomfortable. i think we can get closer to a film if is is more forthright and candid. many, including my mother, could not stomach it. the acting from everyone including extras was nothing short of astonishing. Moore should have won the Oscar. she was so fierce. it was a disturbing performance. Macy was the same way i felt. lost and deeply depressed. both of their characters were in search for one brief touch of happiness (not the movie). it is a disturbing search though. Robards has this incredible and moving speech toward the middle about regret. this was an excellent note for Robards to end on. Hoffman was trying to help him and Linda in all of this mess. Jeremy Blackman who played Stanley was brilliant. he was very deep and i could feel his characters need to escape from the clutches of his father. Bowen was excellent as well. Hall was beatiful and executed it expertly. Reily is one of those actors who can whip out an incredible performance: this is absolutly one of those. Walters was very powerful and i would have liked to see her career progress some more. now Cruise is NOT my favorite actor. all of his performances are about the same. this is the only good one. he is exceptionally moving and powerful. every scene including one of his last scenes with his father, generates enough energy to keep the film from being a bore. this is a 3 hour film. it feels like two shakes of a lambs tail. this is because of th performances. there is not one dull scene because everything is constantly progressing and we see people real people, dealing with what most of us have to deal with. so the helpers were Reily and Hoffman. the innocent was Blackman. Cruise, Robards, Moore, Walters, Macy all needed help. it's not even for a reason... the screeplay is without doubt one of the greatset ever and should have won the Osacar although nominated. Anderson decided to brilliantly screen "Network" and "Ordinary People" to the crew before filming. this really comes through. in "Network", there is not dull moment. they are so true and smart and tht keeps our attention. very few films can explore psychology as deftly as this one. this film shoud have swept the Oscars but was only nominated for three. the height of emotion is off the charts. it may have seemed absurd and improbable but you have to look beyond. something like this 40 years ago never would have been thought possible.  But it Did Happen.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
2000	Nominated	Oscar	Best Actor in a Supporting Role Tom Cruise
			Best Music, Original Song Aimee Mann For the song "Save Me".
			Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen Paul Thomas Anderson

"The Sweet Hereafter" (1997)

One of the most powerful images in film history but I won't tell you why...

Beyond the surface of things. we dont look there much. we dont get to see a world in which subtly happens in our lives. it has never been dissected. this is beyond filmmaking. it is a life. what happens? we see people and human nature, intuition, motivation and WHY shit happens. intead of lackadaisically saying shit happens it explains it to us. this film does not ask or present questions but answers them. it does not preach a message, but makes us think. these are not film-qualities. these are ways in whic humans think, which makes it so hard to watch. we dont have to ask why. everything is answered. or is it? what is behind our lies? it shows us that. why do we do the things we do? it shows us that as well. this is a one of a kind expirience. kids should see it. forget the nudity and language because that's not what it is about. revenge and vengence; lies and deception. i think each individual person could pick something different up from the film so this is obviously from my standpoint. i'm not sure what more you could get out of the film but then again, i'm not everyone. the film is not ominous or ambiguous. there is no twist or scare. but the way in which it moves is heart-wrenching. i dont know if i have seen a more human film. "American Beauty","In the Bedroom" and "To Kill a Mockingbird" come very close though. i love films about people, and what they do. to me we are the most fascinating things on earth. their could be more fascinating things on other planets but that is another tirade. seeing films about people is an escape. now if you saw "Sex in the City" or "Fool's Gold", you escape but not to a real place. "The Sweet Hereafter" is a place. we can go anywhere within it. it's just a matter of what mind you are in.

The plot is almost unesscesary. its a distraction- a damn good distraction but there's more to everything. we see a small cozy church-goin town where no one is a stranger. yes, like in any town, there is lying. one woman is cheating on her husband with another man whose wife died. yes they are all rather religious except the Ottos who adopted their Indian son Bear. they are looked at as the town freaks but are definatly not mistreated; that would be going against thier religion. there is the young girl having the inscestious relationship with her father. she aspires to be a singer but the forthcoming storm will change her life; and everyone else's. a tradgic school bus accident, and many chidren are killed. those in the front of the bus, were severly injured, but lived to tell the tale. the driver of the bus has had this job for years. everyone knows and trusts her. the girl who wanted to become a singer lost the use of her legs and the driver broke her neck. this is a devestating loss, but an opportunity for laywer Mitchell Stevens (Ian Holm). he is a tourtered, divorced man whose daughter is a drug addict wh has been in and out of rehab many times. she calls often for money which she gets, and spends it on drugs. he sells himself to about everyone in the town except for those who have lied, and dont want to have those lies uncovered. one man might have even caused the accident by not checking the bus correctly. he is also the one having the affair. he DEFINATLY does not want anything to do with the lawyer. this town has been a pretty clean one. well, i should say they seemed clean on the surface and to each other. but nobody was ever brave enough to do anything. well, now is the chance for some of them; to get back at those who they hate. now this plot may seem predictable, which it's not, or elemetry. but looking beyond is key. you dont have to be a psychologist to get it. you have to have blood pumping through your veins.

Now i can see how some would not get it and accuse it of nothing happening. but that person would have to be pretty flat. this is not a blase film; children may not get it, not yet. but that is no excuse to avoid it. it is a cinematic, modern-day masterpeice. i dont think much out of the 90's can get any deeper than this. the fim is about people. we lie. not one human being ever to live the earth has has ever not lied. it is human nature; a defense mechanism. we also lie to avenge or get revenge. this happens multiple times; it's just the backdrop is the plot line. we laern "fear is contagious" and when we get scared or angry, we will do anything to cause pain to those who caused us this anger or fear. again, this happens. for me it took a first viewing to notice this. it is not hard. Humans are the most fascinating organisms and what better organism to play a human than other humans. Ian Holm gives a harrowing performance as the grieving father trying to make some more money. he does NOT get attached to the town or people. he acts like he cares for them but that is really bullshit. it's part of his job. another lie. what we will do for money. that's what makes the film human. i feel close to the film because it's what we see everyday. now if this were made in the 40's or 50's this film would be considered a revelation. greater than "Casablanca" or "Citizen Kane". but now, no. it was a greaatly missed sleeper. underrated not by critics, who loved it, but audience. on RT (critics) it has a 100%. on metacritic (again, critics) a 90/100 (which is very good) but on IMDb, which is controlled by the people, a 7.8/10. i dont know where it went with the people. even the AMPAS didnt get it. it was nominated for two Oscars though. everyone should see it before they die. it will feel surreal to be watching something so human. The lies and deceit hidden beneath the surface of this film is enough to overflow our government; and it doesn't even take place in the US.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1998	Nominated	Oscar	Best Director Atom Egoyan
			Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium Atom Egoyan

"Do the Right Thing" (1989)

The bright and colorful side of racism. this is a dark film, but unlike Cint Eastwood films, the film uses strong and vibrant imagery; like Hitchcock. we see a real movie, about real people. the modern-day masterpeice "Crash" explored racism as well but that was a bit more explicit. this film explores the whole damn thing in that it shows us how it all starts. it is one hot day in Brooklyn, and things are about to get hotter. we know that much but how do we get there is what we are shown. that's what makes it so insightful. we all, or most of us, know this world. we see it in our schools, workplaces, homes. and maybe not racism but biases, bigotry, prejudices and so on. i see it in high school. no, msybe it is not as bad as it was in D.W. Griffith's silent masterpeice "The Birth of a Nation" but it is still pretty horrible. the characters are colorful and some warm. it is iin New York but were not introduced to the whole state; just this one tight section or blacks, a family of Italians and Koreans. it seems that not many problems have occured before, but it is still a heated town; even in the winter. but it's not like the writer/director is biased; in fact he's not at all. we see an equal side of the people as opposed to one side more thn the other. we can't side with anyone. i'm Italian but let me be the first to tell you i was not always siding with the Italians. so that's the way it's set up. some walked out in disbelief, others shocked, others prejudice broken, others begun new prejudices. yes i read some reviews that said that this film made "[them] hate black people". but it's all about descision making, which does not exactly include us doing the right thing.

There really is no main character. Spike Lee, the writer/director, plays Mookie. and this character is not presented as the righteous doing median between everyone who gives a sililoquy at the end about how racism is bad and we should all love each other (aka Marvin Gaye). that is what i thought the character would be but i was wrong. Sal (Danny Aiello) is the long time Italian pizzaria owner. he and his two sons(Richard Edson and John Turturro) run it together. Mookie is the delivery man for them. Sal is not just accepted by everyone but cared for. those people "grew up" on his pizza. Mookie has a hispanic girlfriend (Rosie Perez), Tina and a son with her. Like Fellini's vibrant masterpeice "Amarcord" of 1973, there are many interesting charcters. the drunk called 'Da Mayor', the white guy, the Koreans, the crazy ass guy trying to start trouble, the mentally disasbled guy, the wise old widow, the radio guy, the boom-box (Public Enemy) guy and so on. each character is vital to the ebb and flow of the film. nobody is unnecesary which is an interesting approach. Everyone has known everyone forever. things are about to change. it is an extremely hot day. but nevertheless, a normal one. pizzas are made and delivered, fire hydrants are opened, ice cream trucks come, racist comments are made, race is disscussed but this is all normal. but it's about to heat up a little more. something happens. someone gets angry. no they get pissed off. and then the conclusion. we know it's coming, it's all about presentaion though. people get tired and say things they may not mean; or maybe they do. but that's not the point. these things happen everyday- in one for or another.

This is an extremely well-done film. one of the best of the 80's which sometimes doesn't say much. in my opinion, and a lot of others, the 80's was the worst decade for film EVER. it is real and truthful. it is not predictable. again we know what's going to happen, but how. it starts at the beginning. the film "Crash" just jumped right into the racism. here, we rewind and see how it all goes down. then the ending is more understandable. if we just saw the ending, we would come out racist. The performances were powerful. Aiello was the best and got the Oscar nomination. i could feel for the character, not his race, but character. he was bold, and seemed righteous and good at descision making. Turturro's character was extremy racist and there are many disturbing scenes with him talking to his father. his father loves the people because he watched the kids grow up and has known everyone. but his sonis sick of it all. we see this and the other side of things which really evens everything out. the cinematography was beautiful and i loved the long takes and traking shots. it was sucha colorful film, and that's what i take from it. Lee was talented in about every aspect of the film. writer, director, actor all fabulous. Everyone was just so natural. it was belivable. the screenplay was nominated for the Academy Award and on WGA's 101 Best Screenplay list at #93. it made the film. it was a perfect screenply: funny, tradgic. dangerous, current and insightful. the actors did not over-intellectualize about their characters so nothing was contrived. that is one of the best things about the film. we learn how far our actions and what we say go and what people will do after years of prejudice. most of them did the things they did because they've always wanted to; and now's unfortunatly their chance.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1990	Nominated	Oscar	Best Actor in a Supporting Role Danny Aiello
			Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen Spike Lee

"Annie Hall' (1977)

La-di-da. oh what a wonderful film. Woody Allen is one of my favorite filmmakers. his films are just so damn good. it is because he loves movies. he doesn't just make them. he gets the art of film. he exercises everything possible when making film. this is one of the greatest comedies ever made and most of his films are considered the same level of comedy. nobody could write like him. his way of writing can only be accomplished by those who are truly unhappy in their own skin, germaphobic, claustrophobic, hypochondriacs, Jewish, a New Yorker and all the other idiocincricies that Allen posseses. he brings something out in actors that i find interesting. he "hire[s] talented people and let[s] them do their work" and does not "overdirect...because [actors] like being overdirected...they like to intellectualize the whole process of creating a chracter." this was all taken from a book called "Moviemakers' Master Class" in which Allen is interviewed in. this just shows his talent, or lack of it? he lets his actors do what they are hired to do and what does that tell us? that he is one of the most knowledgable directors of our time. i can tell, because i've seen so many of his films, that Diane Keaton and Mia Farrow have all about the same performance in each one of his films because it is natural to them. so when we see Farrow in "Alice" and "Purple Rose of Cairo", she is about the same person because that's who Farrow is by nature. Allen does this on purpose to create the natural flow that other directors strive to reach but overdirect; thus making them bad directors. this is a masterpiece for it's warmth and human intellegence. we are not exposed to fake people put on screen aka 'Reality Television' like 'Jersey Shore' but real humans ''with blood still pumping through their veins". now this is not a chick flick either. it is too intellegent and the finale of the film show us what life is all about: love.

Woody Allen's character is Alvy Singer. we learn much about his distorted childhood and past marriges and relestionships. he is not exactly a content man. he is a stand-up comedian and writes material for other comedians. he is good at his job. his friend Rob (Tony Roberts) invites him to go play tennis with his girlfriend and another woman named Annie Hall. Yes Diane Keaton plays the ditsy Annie Hall. if all of the dumb blonds were replaced with Annie Halls, the world would be a mch more interesting place. yes obviously, Annie and Alvy go in and out of relationships with each other. they share memorable stories of their childhoods, take trips to the Hamptons, try smoking pot and cocaine and other wonderful expiriences. yes naturally they break up but with the same naturality (if that's a word) get back together again. this is not a chick flick or even a romantic comedy. it is a rcohmiacnktfilcickomedy. but even beter. the ending, which i shall not spoil, is real. it is loving and human. and just beautiful. Allen does not seem like the kind of person that makes a beautiful film but he does. it is full of raw emotion which most of his films contain. no it is not necesarily dramatic but more refined. there are so many scenes of ingenuity. the cartoon sequence, talking into camera, talking to strangers on the sides of the roads, the ghost of Annie Hall, conversing through split screen have very rarely if not at all been used before this. now Kaufman, Jonze and Gondry use some of these techniques in their films which makes them some of the greatest directors of our time. it is because of Allen's visionary style and reach for surrealism that we have that type of flmmaking today.

As in every Allen film, the performances are relaxed and yet intricate. it is so incredibly difficult to have the two in a performance. but he can do it. Allen was actually nominated in the Best Actor catagory for the first and only time because after he kept acting in other films, people noticed his performances were all exactly identical. this is because Allen is playing himself in his films, which is why they are so realistic and unbearably comical. Keaton won the Oscar and had a career of many more nominatins and excellent performnces. now she is a more versitle actress and if you look at her Oscar nominated performnce in "Reds" she is very different. she is much more intellegent and her presence is just so much stronger. in this film, i think she is being more of herself because if you watch her Oscar speech, it's as if Annie Hall walked up on the Kodak stage and accepted the award in Keaton's behalf. Keaton is such a character. The screenplay was another one named on the WGA's 101 Greatest Screenplays placing at #6. deserving: absolutly. it is so smart for a screenplay. so unique. and the techniques are revolutionary for it's time and i've already mentioned what filmmakers it inspired. this is an almagamation of excellent aspects of cinematic technique. the end is bittersweet feeling and give us time to reflect on the film but also our relatinships with people. The last lines are so true to us humans- we just need the eggs.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1978	Won	Oscar	Best Actress in a Leading Role Diane Keaton
			Best Director Woody Allen Woody Allen was not present at the awards ceremony. Co-presenter King Vidor accepted the award on his behalf.
			Best Picture Charles H. Joffe
			Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen Woody Allen Marshall Brickman Woody Allen was not present at the awards ceremony.
	Nominated	Oscar	Best Actor in a Leading Role Woody Allen

"American Beauty" (1999)

Obsession, passion, desire, curiosity, loneliness. the quest to feel. look closer. there are many things in life that are found beynd the surface of things. we have to look closer. this film challenges us to do so. not just in the film but in life. there are some things that are hidden deep within the human perona that we rarely get to see in cinema. this give us a chance. if i were to show a five year old, not that i would, they would be able to pick up much deeper and richer aspects of the film than adults would be able to. this is becuse there minds have not been sabatoged by life and expirience. they are able to look beyond and understand the deep meaning of life; they just don't know how to express it. we can't express it because we are overwhelmed with the severity and importance of the film. it's indescribable. i'm even having trouble doing so. im not really sure what happened in the film and i've seen it four times. yes i know the story but what actually happened. it gave me a feeling like at the end of Sofia Coppola's quiet masterpeice "Lost in Translation". it seems that nothing happened, but more happened in both of these films than in the 3.5 hours of "Ben-Hur" of 1959 not that it is a bad film. it just explored humans. this film takes a few times, like 'Translation', to really understand. the writer of the film Alan Ball has really not done much after this or to this extent i should say. it is something Bergman would have done because he gets the subject. in fact Bergman called this film and "Magnolia" modern-day masterpeices.

We have Lester Burnham (Kevin Spacey). he is a deeply depressed and bored suburban man who's job as an advertising executive sucks and he has no life. his wife, Carolyn (Annette Bening) is a phony and a fake. she is a real-estate consultant she is a rude and belittleing woman who in public seems sweet and caring; but we can all tell that's bullshit. there marriage was once something but now is nothing. they sleep on opposite sides of the bed, they hardly talk to each other on a human level and if they do talk to each other, it goes into a huge agressive argument. there is not one scene of intamacy throughout the whole film. she is having an affair with the sexy, succesful real-estate competition who in turn make her feel succesful just for seeing him. their daughter, Jane (Thora Birch) is descent-looking, and bored out of her mind as well. she is a cheerleader, minus the cheer. she just goes through the motions. she's a bit of a goth. her friend Angela (Mena Suvari) is the gorgeous but slutty type who Lester falls in love with immeadiatly in an ingenious little cheerleading scene towards the beginning of the film. she takes to him as well. she loves attention but we learn later that she is not as expirienced as she positions herself to be. the new neighbors, the Fitts, are another case of sheer bordom. the father was in the marine core and takes tumultious pride out of it. his wife is a distant woman who is so out of it, you could call her name and she woudn't respond. their son is a drug dealer; and makes a lot for what he does. he becomes obsessed with Jane and often records her from his porch or bedroom window. Angela taunts him and makes much fun of him but Jane finds something in him. at first she is creeped out as any human being would be, but she likes it. he is not ordinary and not full of shit like everyone around her. she feels alive again. there is our obssesion all over the place. everyone has a desire to break out of thier phony lives and feel something again. and if you notice, other than Mr. Fitts, no one really does anything about it. for example, Lester doesn't beat Carolyn up when he finds out about the affair. everyone is to focused on their new way of life. trying to find beauty again; and most of them are so incredibly close to that one brief touch of venus.

For some, this is a depressing and harsh film to watch. i find it rather comforting to know that someone out there is still thinking about people. something current i mean. i am still trying to find what the film is really and truly about. Kevin Spacey's performance was one of the greatest of all tme. he ws perfect. i hear Leaster Burnham i think Kevin Spacey. that's how he embodied or became the character. he was a super-hero. fearless and brave. every scene with him in it was a scene of power and beauty. at the beginning he could have been called weak but his strength came once he had something to work for again; just like a super-hero. Annette Beniing should have won the Oscar over Hilary Swank in "Boys Don't Cry". Swank was very good but Bening was astounding. she had it. the mantras and the self-motivational talks and the self-detriment were all so realisticaly constructed. she was brutally cruel to everyone around her, herself included. she was so cold, and so good at being cold. everyone else was good. Chris Cooper who had an exellent Oscar winning performance in "Adaptation" was fantastic in this as well. he had a beautiful scene towards the end that was shocking but just shows how much he needed someone. the film won an Oscar for the screenplay as it should have. it is one of the greatest of all time. the cinematography to one might be simple but they are so detailed. they are done so deftly by an expert-Conrad L. Hall who won the Oscar. the shots were so vibrant and filled with, yes, beauty. again an aging Ingmar Bergman saw this and "Magnolia" and loved them both. that is what i'll be doing- an aging director still watching modern-day films. whenn i first saw it i  really did not get it. i needed a second viewing, like i did for 1942's "Casablanca"; i just didnt get it. Then i noticed, in a way, this is a children's film. We are challenged to do something we should already do. Just focus on all the beauty in life, and let it overwhelm and inundate you. Look Closer.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
2000	Won	Oscar	Best Actor in a Leading Role Kevin Spacey
			Best Cinematography Conrad L. Hall
			Best Director Sam Mendes
			Best Picture Bruce Cohen Dan Jinks
			Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen Alan Ball
	Nominated	Oscar	Best Actress in a Leading Role Annette Bening
			Best Editing Tariq Anwar Christopher Greenbury
			Best Music, Original Score Thomas Newman

New List on IMDb

These are some great films you can stream intstantly on Netflix:

http://www.imdb.com/list/roQiqiO-9Is/

"It Happened One Night" (1934)

Believe you me, this is one hell of a picture. and im not talking about the photo above but the movie. it is witty and smart and brought something new to the table. something not violent or cruel. this is definatl not film-noir. real ligitimate humor. it is devilishly funny. something that if you saw in the 30's you would almost be ashamed to crack up in the theater. something the old folks would have scorned at for it's frankness. something the younger ones would have gotten rosy-cheeked over and turned quickly to their friends in laughter. to people my age, there is nothing funny at all; like "Some Like It Hot" from 1959-no laughs just stares and that is one of the few films that really make me crack up. but they just don't get it. i would have loved to been alive when films like these came out. the real good ones. the characters are so comical but realistic. they are not lackadaisacal but truly real characters who would behave that way in real life. that was why it was so shocking. the films at that point were supposed to be an escape (as they are now) but not a realistic reflection on what happens in life. yes it was hilarious but i thing some looked passed that for it's time. the comedy is so new and this is what todays writers of comedy should look back to. some do, but others need to. there is animocity between the characters that makes it so funny. the awkwardness between the two main characters and battle of the sexes made the film uncomfortable for some. and what the people must have said. thank GOD the MPAA was not around then because we may have never seen the film. even now it would be something the MPAA would idiotically and moronically give an 'R-rating: for strong, crude, explicit sexual humor and dialogue including innuedo, strong references with immplied graphic violence and sex and unsimulated drinking and smoking' (godhelpus).

Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert) is a rich and spoiled daughter of an aristocrat married the famous, hot-shot aviator that her father opposes heavily. the marriage is not consummated so she jumps off the yacht and swims back to shore. she buys a ticket for New York to get back to her husband and hops on the bus. thus beginning the search for Miss Andrews. on her way, she meets the good-looking Peter Warne (Clark Gable). he is a reporter who is currently out of work who recognizes her from a newspaper photo. thus begins the fun. they embark on many adventures and eventually, yes, fall in love. theytravel across rural country and go from hotels with 'wall of Jericho', hitchhike, beatings and and fights. But then, Ellie wonders, did Peter abandon me for the money? yes, the question will be answered after the break. i love the film. it is just adorably funny. it is one of the few good chick flicks next to "Roman Holiday" of 1953. yes i did predict the ending correctly but for that time I wouldn't have. it is because most films are like this today. but this was where it all began. this film was the first to win all 5 main catagories in the Academy Awards. rightfully so of course. Frank Capr is obviously one of the greatest writers/directors of all time and im glad he won the Oscar for this one. it is a fun one.

The performances are excellent as well. Colbert really shocked me with what she was doing in many of the scenes. she was so composed and all right with it that many women at that time wouldn't have done. the screenplay was one of the greatest of all time. the dialougue was gold. it made the film feel of a grander scale thanit actually was. it's just a love story but there is so much adventure which keeps us hooked. the awkward feeling in the hotel scene are iconic. it is what we would call today LOL. everything is. i bought the film without having seen it first just because i knew i would love it, and i did. it's just one of those pictures that can be seen over and over again. there is really not much more to say.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1935	Won	Oscar	Best Actor in a Leading Role Clark Gable In 1996, Steven Spielberg anonymously purchased Clark Gable's Oscar to protect it from further commercial exploitation, gave it back to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, commenting that he could think of "no better sanctuary for Gable's only Oscar than the Motion Picture Academy".
			Best Actress in a Leading Role Claudette Colbert Claudette Colbert was so convinced that she would lose the Oscar to write-in nominee Bette Davis that she didn't attended the ceremony orignally. She was summoned from a train station to pick up her Academy Award.
			Best Director Frank Capra
			Best Picture (Columbia).
			Best Writing, Adaptation Robert Riskin

"Rachel Getting Married" (2008)

Now a lot of people did not like this film. i have not read too many bad reviews so im not sure what they find in it that is so awful. this is another one of my favorite of the decade. i have very rarely ever felt so close to a film before. i did with Fellini's "Amarcord' of 1973 and "Moonstruck" of 1987 but not to many others that i can remember. the film invites us into a family. it is a rather broken and scarred family but they do the absolute best they can to hold on. this is what is so natural about the film. many called it extremly depressing and boring but i found it incredibly moving. it is unconventional and breaks rules which makes it awkward at first, but lingers on in our heads for a long time after. this really, compared to some of the other films i watch, is quite a comforting film. i find it very operatic like "Magnolia", funny and sarcastic like "Annie Hall" and sad like "Terms of Endearment". it has all of those qualities and that for some reason is warmth to me. i feel like i know this family. my family, including extended, is about like this. dramatic- but when problems occur, we are always able to mend them and come out of them stronger. this film is an adventure but takes place in one setting which truly is excellent filmmaking. the acting is incredibly organic and if you look at every performance, they are so real and as they should be. probably because some of the actors are not acting at all. there is not a faulty performance situated within this film. i love this film for its welcoming feel.

Rachel, although i thought it was, is not Anne Hathaway. her character is Kym who is definatly not getting married. in fact she's just getting out of rehab for her sisters wedding. yes her sister is Rachel played wonderfully by Rosmarie DeWitt. she is kind and accepting of her wild and quirky sister- sometimes. it gets rocky between the two of them sometimes in many scenes of argumants that are so naturally structured, it's almost surreal. the sisters' mother and father are divorced and the father remarried. the mother did too. they have a younger brother, but that is another story to be told. the soon-to-be-husband is Sidney who is shy, but he is such a warm and lovable character, just looking at him will make you tear up. the mother of the girls is played in an astonishing comeback (not for long) performance from Debra Winger who commanded the screen in a defining performance in her career. the father of the girls is played by Bill Irwin, another lovable character who has many wonderful scenes as well. there is so much to the plot that words can't describe because they are so textured and layerd. critics loved it but audiences did not. maybe it was because Hathaway was in it and they were expecting a chick-flick. i don't know. i thought it was just so well written and the way in which it moved was so nouveau and just different. i loved it. it was like improv-music they way everything just happened. it really is a masterpeice as i sit here writting this review, i can just feel the film's naturalistic style seeping through the DVD cover.

The film was nominated for one measly Oscar for Hathaways performance which was absolutly worth it. she was so painful, alive, awkward, funny and deep inside a beautiful person. Hathawy went through a huge transformation, phisically. Like Charlize Theron (but not that much) in "Monster". the hair and maybe some weight loss. the screenplay should have been nominated written by the daughter of the legend Sidney Lumet, who the husband-to-be was named after. it was so ligitamitly funny and sarcastic. DeWitt hould have been nominated for her indescribably excellent performance. Winger should have been nominated and maybe even won because she has not before and is such a wonderful actress. Irwin could have been niminated for his loving and moving performance. Best Director for the legendary Jonathan Demme. and finally Best Picture category: absolutly. this is really an astonishing acheivment for everyone in part of the film. the cinematography was criticized by some for being too 'home video like' and im sorry but that is really what made the film. it makes it more realistic and familial. it did not work for "Public Enemies" but worked perfectly for this. this is one of the most important and human films of the decade and should be not seen but expirienced by all. i love this film and i cant say much more. it is food for the soul and teaches us much about family and what it means. i am moved to what is said in the trailer for the film. "This IS NOT your family. but it IS your family."

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
2009	Nominated	Oscar	Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role Anne Hathaway

"Amarcord" (1973)

When I begin writing films, where do i begin. what will happen in the future- no. what happened recently- unless it's groundbreaking material, no. why not start at the beginning. i would use people i knew, like Frederico Fellini, the director of the film, did. the main character of the film was a friend of his. he made a film about what he saw around him. the people. that is what made the film a success: it's familial warmth. i can absolutly believe that there were people and towns exactly like this one but all over the world. when i can feel a films' warmth and i can feel a character's pain. i know that it is a great work of art. this is what i will strive for when i make my films. bringing the audience in by using relatable characters. if you saw the recent blockbuster "The Other Guys", you cannot realate because the characters are so absurd. that's not the only one. everyone makes a big deal about a stupid movie called "The Hangover". uh yeah drunk people as relatable characters- great message right? my point is i could feel the characters. Fellini has invited us to take a look into his past which is not self-centered but brilliant. there are very few films that make me feel comfortable, like im at home and this is one. there is so much insight and maybe i love it so much because im Italian. maybe it's biast. now some people hate Fellini because, and this is something someone actually said, 'too many clowns'. well Fellini, i love your clowns.

There really isnt that much of a story. the film is unique that way. there is no exposition, rising action, climax, falling action and the denouement. it is told almost in vignettes of the same period of time. we are introduced to a family with a hot-headed father, a kind and caring but dramatic mother, our protagonist Titta who is a trickster "but with a heart ('The Player' [1992])." there is the villiage beauty, the blind accordian player, the stout tobacconist, the town idiot, the aristocrat, the crazy-ass uncle, the other uncle who's good at dancing, the Fascists, the grandfather, the crazy-ass teachers, the dwarf nun, the prostitute, the SS Rex, the Lawyer, the Prince and all the young rambunkshus schoolboys. stories are told, things happen, people die, others learn, get married, pranks are pulled, and crazy men climb trees all in the course of a year. it is all so effortless for Fellini. he just 'breathes' the film out. he thinks it and there it is. that is what makes his films the astonishing feats they are. they are so visually exubrant and exotic even his B&Ws. the film is also terriblyfunny. there are many scenes that, if you were actually there, should have been taken seriously. like the scene during confession which is really supposed to be a serious matter but the way in which it is presented makes it rather comical. i think Titta's father was hilarious as well. his tirades and how furious he would get with Titta was rather funny. the pranks pulled by the schoolboys were quite original and were probably actually used then. the scene where Gradisca, the town beauty, try out different positions for meeting the Prince (in which she uses none of). the people were so natural which made them so comedic. this and "La Strada" of 1954 are my two favorite Fellini's so far.

The performances were right on target. they were just real and you can't tamper with that. there is nothing better than a realistic picture. you can't change what actually happened but im not saying that EVERYTHING that happened in the film actually happened. im sure Fellini stretched or condensed some things but as long as it works. Another intresting aspect of the film is the fact that it's stationary. we are in the same town for the entire film. another way we as an audience are invited into the action. Pedro Almodovar must love this film because his style is very similar. the colors. they use that electric red in their films; Almodovar uses it in about every shot. that warmth is unforgettable and classic. is you compare this to Clint Eastwood's masterpeice "Mystic River" in 2003 you will see a huge color pallet difference which controls the mood completly. without the striking colors, the film would go flat. Hitchcock is another one with color although many of his films use dark material. look at "Vertigo", "North by Northwest" and "Rear Window". both dark film, "Vertigo" is definatly darker, but the colors are bright. every filmmaker uses a bit of their childhood in at least one of their films. it may not be as direct as "Amarcord" but it is absolutly there. The title means I Remember in Italian and it is quite evident to what he is refering to: innocence.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1976	Nominated	Oscar	Best Director Federico Fellini
			Best Writing, Original Screenplay Federico Fellini Tonino Guerra
1975	Won	Oscar	Best Foreign Language Film Italy

"The Graduate" (1967)

This is an incredibly unique picture. It is unpredictable and au courant. it is funny, sad, awkward, human, painful and different; the makings of a great picture. It is a comedy, but a serious one. there is no slapstick humor or fast-talking, punch-line comedic actors. this is not a one-trick-pony type of film. it uses humans as it's scource of comedy which had not been used before. it is easy to say that Dustin Hoffman is one of the greatest actors of all time and this is the first film to explore and show his talents. This is a strange topic and i could see how many people might not like it. it makes you feel uncomfortable at times because Hoffman's character is so painfully awkward. and we want to reach out to him and shake him and say "what the hell are you doing" and how to fix his life. that's the tactic that is so expertly utilized. we learn a lot about human inhibitions and what the other side of the human persona is like which we sometimes don't want to see. that is why some audiences didn't like it- because it was such a strange comedy. that is what i love about it.

So we have our recently graduated Ben Braddock. everyone has HUGE expectations from him; especially his parents. we see, most explicitly, at the party thrown for him, that he doesn't have big expectations for himself. Hi parents at his party are trying to literally sell their son as if he was a buisness deal. his father even bought him a new convertable that was really another sign of pushing him away. the party consists of people that are much older than him (in which some try to get him intrested in their own buisnesses). one woman is the Braddock's long time friend and neighbors who have known Ben his whole life. These are the infamous Robinson's who you probably have heard many references to. Mrs. Robinson, Anne Bancroft, is a bit younger thyan her huband who is not present. she is seductive and has that sensual look in her eye. as we see from the party, Ben is quite the intravert and although the party is for him, he goes in and out and talks to about no one. they all ask about his plans but since he has none, he just ducks out. Mrs. Robinson has Ben drive her home and insists on him coming in. this is the famous scene in which Mrs. Robinson "tries to seduce [him]". she fails but tries many times. Then Mr. Robinson comes in and after a brief awkward talk Ben gets out. Then Ben instigates the affair and they have several hook-ups in a hotel; these are other incredibly painful but comic scenes. Ben's father is also pushing him to go to graduate school but he does not seem interested and then his parents become frustrated with him. there is so much more to the story including Ben's relastionship with Mrs. Robinson's daughter Elaine played by Katherine Ross. this is such a well designed and devised film.

Anne Bancroft's performance is astounding and i think she should have won the Oscar but Kathrine Hepburn was great in "Guess Who's Coming Home for Dinner?" but she would have gotten two others. she was so gorgeous in the film and played the part with such command. her presence was so grand and yet quirky almost like Audrey Hepburn in "Roman Holiday" in 1953. Hoffman is as i've said amazing and had an amazing career to follow in films such as "Kramer vs. Kramer" in 1979 and "Tootsie" in 1982. this is what launced his career and continued the director's Mike Nichols. Nichols is obviously one of the most unique and visually adept directors of all time. the cinematography, especially in the 'scuba scene' is revolutionary. it is no "Gone with the Wind" (but that was 1939) but how it used many POV shots to show how Hoffman felt and some long-takes to symbolize Hoffman's boredom was ingenious. this is a great teen flick but you have to be the right kind of teen to '"get it". you have to really, to quote one of my favorites "To Kill a Mockingbird" of 1962, "climb inside of his skin and walk around in it."

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1968	Won	Oscar	Best Director Mike Nichols
	Nominated	Oscar	Best Actor in a Leading Role Dustin Hoffman
			Best Actress in a Leading Role Anne Bancroft
			Best Actress in a Supporting Role Katharine Ross
			Best Cinematography Robert Surtees
			Best Picture Lawrence Turman
			Best Writing, Screenplay Based on Material from Another Medium Calder Willingham Buck Henry

"The Wild Bunch" (1969)

This is one loud, fast, fun ride of a picture. it starts out full-throttle and ends that way. i still enjoy Leone's work better but this is one of the greatest American westerns ever. yes the ultra-violence was ultra violent and something out of the mind of Tarantino. Roger Ebert made a huge deal out of the film. he loved it to death and even put it on his 'Great Movies' list. i would think that he wouldn't because of it's violence but he defended it saying it was just realistic which it absolutely is. just from the first scene, which is the same for most westerns, we get that this will be a violent film. horses, women, children flying eveywhere during this big time shoot out must have been disturbing for 1969 but isn't much now. i did enjoy the film but i wouldn't spend any money on it. i thought it was wonderfully shot, acted, and designed but i did not feel for the characters. maybe they were not developed enough. we get to know plenty about the main character of William Holden but thats about it. i enjoyed the action sequeunces and there was a great train robbery scene. Was it the best action picture i ever saw, no- but it was a good one.

The film opens up with a botched bank robbery. the town that they robbed was left massacred and what they got out of the bags were metal washers; they had been set-up. The leader is Pike (Holden). this was supposed to be their last big hit before retiring or for some going elsewhere. but now they need one more big score. The men who set him up was one of Pike's old collegues, Thorton, and he and some other redneck idiots are out to track the gang down. this is teqnically parole for Thorton. who was caught and sentanced to jail. One of the members of the gang, Angel, is a Mexican who takes them to his village. he learns his father was hanged and girlfriend was taken by General Mapache who works for the Government. they go there to trade horses and Angel sees his old girlfriend and shoots her when he sees her with Mapache. then Mapache and his gang notice the men and their rough approach and take a liking to them. They are hired by Mapache and his German military advisors to steal a US arms shipment for him, which they agree to for a price of ten thousand dollars. Angel insists that they allow him to take one case of rifles to his village to protect them from Mapache which is agreed upon. And there you have it. the train robbery scene is incredibly intense and what makes it so is the little use of special effects. it reminded me of the movie "Unstoppable" which came out in 2010. the film is just one big adrenaline rush but since it uses so much CGI its not really believable. this sequence is all the more tense. the slow motion shots were incredibly well done. people would jump off the train and it would show it in slow motion. this was one of the very first times it had been used to this extent.

The acting was good too especially the performance of Ernest Borgnine who played the second-hand man to Holden's character. Holden was decent but his greatest performance was of course in "Network" but he was also great in "Sunset Blvd." the sound editing was excellent and im suprised it was not even nominated for the Oscar. the shoot out scenes were so well editied. i think where the film failed was again character development. we knew all about Pike's background and his start but i would have liked to have gotten into the other characters more. we knew quite a bit about Angel as well but what about Borgnine's character. what about the brothers and how did they meet. how about Sykes? when we get to know a character, the more tragic the ending is. then we are brought closer into the film. other than that aspect we have a good action picture. noisy and fast which was a new way of filmmaking for the 60's which, unfortunatly is the only aspect today's blockbusters take from old cinema.

Academy Awards, USA
Year	Result	Award	Category/Recipient(s)
1970	Nominated	Oscar	Best Music, Original Score for a Motion Picture (not a Musical) Jerry Fielding
			Best Writing, Story and Screenplay Based on Material Not Previously Published or Produced Walon Green (screenplay/story) Roy N. Sickner (story) Sam Peckinpah (screenplay)