Here was another good old-fashioned Western for the countdown, and a Clint Eastwood movie to boot! This was the first role I'd ever seen Clint in, and as the dark, gritty antihero of the film, he made quite an impression.
Now, before I saw the film, my dad (big fan of this movie) called it "the greatest Western ever made." To his credit, I haven't seen many Westerns, but I still don't think I enjoyed it as much as he does. I'm not entirely sure why. The characters are compelling. You have Morgan Freeman as the likable sidekick and old friend, Ned, who was probably my favorite character in the movie. Then you have Jaimz Woolvett as the young, arrogant and slightly annoying punk with something to prove. Clint Eastwood steals the show as the conflicted ex-criminal on the verge of slipping into old ways again. For a change of pace, the sheriff is actually the bad guy, and he plays bad pretty well. Beyond the main characters, this movie has everything a good Western needs: guns, horses, a brothel, plenty of whiskey and a revenge plot.
Maybe the revenge plot was my issue: maybe the grounds for revenge didn't seem good or plausible enough for me. Maybe it was just the pacing of the movie that seemed to drag at times. Or maybe it was just that Westerns will never really be my thing. Because of this, I can't award the movie any higher than A- in good conscience, however I did still enjoy it and for any issues I may have with the film's pacing, the shoot-up scene at the very end is not to be missed. If you haven't seen it, do at least once (even us girls). And if you DO like Westerns, you could very well agree with my father and end up thinking it is the best Western ever.
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Top 100 Challenge #69: Tootsie
Now for a film in direct opposition to the previous one...
Long before such train wrecks (I can only assume, since I didn't even watch) as "Norbit" or "Jack and Jill," Dustin Hoffman starred in a movie in which he played both a man and a women. And before the crass versions of this premise in the last ten years or so, he did it in a comedy called "Tootsie" with much more class and style.
I had seen and enjoyed Tootsie before. It is the story of a struggling actor named Michael Dorsey who can't seem to find any work--until he tries out for a soap opera as Dorothy Michaels. Hilarity ensues as he tries to navigate both lives--and various romantic entanglements--while keeping his double-identity a secret. The movie is not only funny, but charming. We care about the characters, and for such an odd premise the film is really relate-able.
This one gets an "A" from me--if you're ever looking for a good comedy where a man plays a woman, steer clear of the newer stuff. Go for Tootsie instead!
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Long before such train wrecks (I can only assume, since I didn't even watch) as "Norbit" or "Jack and Jill," Dustin Hoffman starred in a movie in which he played both a man and a women. And before the crass versions of this premise in the last ten years or so, he did it in a comedy called "Tootsie" with much more class and style.
I had seen and enjoyed Tootsie before. It is the story of a struggling actor named Michael Dorsey who can't seem to find any work--until he tries out for a soap opera as Dorothy Michaels. Hilarity ensues as he tries to navigate both lives--and various romantic entanglements--while keeping his double-identity a secret. The movie is not only funny, but charming. We care about the characters, and for such an odd premise the film is really relate-able.
This one gets an "A" from me--if you're ever looking for a good comedy where a man plays a woman, steer clear of the newer stuff. Go for Tootsie instead!
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Friday, August 2, 2013
Top 100 Challenge #70: A Clockwork Orange
It's a little bit harder to say how I feel about this one, readers. Here is a movie from the top 100 list that I had heard of, but never seen before. However, it is pretty well-known, so maybe some of you have seen it, and will know what I mean.
After consideration--a lot of consideration--I think I would award this movie a grade of: B-.
The opening half hour or so of this movie is just what the blurb on the back of the sleeve promises: it depicts the main character Alex and his friends committing all kinds of crimes, ranging from petty ones all the way up to murder. I guess what I had underestimated was just how large of a role the casual use of images exploiting females would play in these opening scenes. There were some settings, actions, and dialogue in this portion of the film that bordered on obscene.
Why then am I even giving it a B-? Because the movie got better as it went. I ended the movie unsure of how to feel, but upon further reflection, I realize that was the point. Throughout the film, we get to see many different sides of our narrator, Alex. When he IS being himself, he is a felon and it is terrible. When he is not acting like himself, he is pathetic, and viewers feel sorry for him. After much thought, I realized that this is probably the point the director is trying to make: there really is no right way to feel about Alex.
It took a lot of work to understand what the director was trying to do here, however, which is why, although I found the movie okay, I'm not so sure this one deserves to be on the top 100 list. Even if it does, it certainly doesn't beat some of the others we have seen, like Shawshank, Modern Times, or 12 Angry Men. However, as it is still considered a landmark piece of cinema, and has some interesting moments despite its disturbing ones, it may still be one to put on your "to-see" list--at least if you ever have extra time.
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
After consideration--a lot of consideration--I think I would award this movie a grade of: B-.
The opening half hour or so of this movie is just what the blurb on the back of the sleeve promises: it depicts the main character Alex and his friends committing all kinds of crimes, ranging from petty ones all the way up to murder. I guess what I had underestimated was just how large of a role the casual use of images exploiting females would play in these opening scenes. There were some settings, actions, and dialogue in this portion of the film that bordered on obscene.
Why then am I even giving it a B-? Because the movie got better as it went. I ended the movie unsure of how to feel, but upon further reflection, I realize that was the point. Throughout the film, we get to see many different sides of our narrator, Alex. When he IS being himself, he is a felon and it is terrible. When he is not acting like himself, he is pathetic, and viewers feel sorry for him. After much thought, I realized that this is probably the point the director is trying to make: there really is no right way to feel about Alex.
It took a lot of work to understand what the director was trying to do here, however, which is why, although I found the movie okay, I'm not so sure this one deserves to be on the top 100 list. Even if it does, it certainly doesn't beat some of the others we have seen, like Shawshank, Modern Times, or 12 Angry Men. However, as it is still considered a landmark piece of cinema, and has some interesting moments despite its disturbing ones, it may still be one to put on your "to-see" list--at least if you ever have extra time.
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)