Okay, so here is a movie that I think most people can agree upon as universally good. Even though I had seen it before, I was excited to see this one again.
Most of you have probably also seen this movie before, but for those of you who have not, here is a quick plot summary. Indiana Jones: Raiders of the Lost Ark follows the archaeologist Indiana Jones as he races against the Nazis to discover the ancient Ark of the Covenant, hidden in an ancient tomb just outside of Cairo.
This movie has everything you could want in an action film. There is plenty of humor and quotable dialogue, lots of satisfying plot twists, and action-packed fight scenes in the midst crowded markets and atop moving military vehicles. One of the villains is creepy, the other dashingly-devilish, and actress Karen Allen is charismatic and endearing as Harrison Ford's leading lady. There is nothing I can think of that would improve upon this film, and so I award it a well-deserved A+. If you haven't seen it yet, make it the very next on your list.
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Tuesday, January 7, 2014
Friday, January 3, 2014
Top 100 Challenge #67: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
Hello again, readers! My apologies for the long absence, but now that another semester is over at school, the countdown must go on!
Number 67 on the countdown, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," is a 1966 classic character study. It follows a bitter middle-aged couple as they verbally abuse each other and torment a young couple they invite to their home. The teasing and wordplay escalate throughout the night the foursome spend together until the older couple reaches a breaking point near morning.
As I mentioned, this film is considered to be a classic. However, my family and I did not enjoy this movie at all, and I have yet to find a single person who did. I strongly believe that, once upon a time, a single movie critic decided that the movie was good, and everyone else felt they had to agree simply to sound cultured. The movie is two hours long and lacking any action. This would be fine, if any of the characters were like-able. However, the older couple are both despicable in their own unique way. The wife is grating and boorish, the husband is spineless and abrasive. The younger couple are also annoying. The young wife is naive and a horrible drunk, and the her husband is a gold-digger. It was impossible to identify with these characters. However, the acting in this film was demanding, and there were a few moments which were intense and mildly interesting. Because of these moments, this film gets a C-. I am still not sure, however, why this film was on the countdown. This is one I would have to recommend skipping. Save time for #66 instead: Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Number 67 on the countdown, "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf," is a 1966 classic character study. It follows a bitter middle-aged couple as they verbally abuse each other and torment a young couple they invite to their home. The teasing and wordplay escalate throughout the night the foursome spend together until the older couple reaches a breaking point near morning.
As I mentioned, this film is considered to be a classic. However, my family and I did not enjoy this movie at all, and I have yet to find a single person who did. I strongly believe that, once upon a time, a single movie critic decided that the movie was good, and everyone else felt they had to agree simply to sound cultured. The movie is two hours long and lacking any action. This would be fine, if any of the characters were like-able. However, the older couple are both despicable in their own unique way. The wife is grating and boorish, the husband is spineless and abrasive. The younger couple are also annoying. The young wife is naive and a horrible drunk, and the her husband is a gold-digger. It was impossible to identify with these characters. However, the acting in this film was demanding, and there were a few moments which were intense and mildly interesting. Because of these moments, this film gets a C-. I am still not sure, however, why this film was on the countdown. This is one I would have to recommend skipping. Save time for #66 instead: Raiders of the Lost Ark.
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Top 100 Challenge #68: Unforgiven
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 :)
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 :)
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 :)
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Top 100 Challenge #71: Saving Private Ryan
This is another one all of you will recognize.
I saw this movie for the first time probably about two years ago at the urging of my younger brother, who is absolutely crazy about this movie. I'm not as completely in love with it as he still is, but I would still give this movie a grade of: A.
This movie is good every time you see it, and has certain scenes that just always keep their power: the storming of the beach, the stories about falling asleep in the old church, the final battle at the bridge. The characters are dynamic and varied, interesting to watch. The dialogue seems true to life, and depicts life as a soldier as it (probably) truly felt.
If there is one issue I have with this movie, it may be (and pardon the absolute girliness of it) that it's just too bloody.
Okay, I know it is trying to depict the grittiness of war; I know war was no picnic, and I find the cinematic blood and guts believable. But still, some of it seems a little overdone. Like the guy who blows himself to bits towards the end of the movie with a "sticky" bomb? Poof, and he's gone in nothing more than a spray of fake blood. Stuff like that, is a little unnecessary. That one, to me, didn't even look real.
But, overly-bloodiness aside, this is still a great movie, and it's one you can watch again and again without really getting tired of it. This one has earned its place as #71 on this list. Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
I saw this movie for the first time probably about two years ago at the urging of my younger brother, who is absolutely crazy about this movie. I'm not as completely in love with it as he still is, but I would still give this movie a grade of: A.
This movie is good every time you see it, and has certain scenes that just always keep their power: the storming of the beach, the stories about falling asleep in the old church, the final battle at the bridge. The characters are dynamic and varied, interesting to watch. The dialogue seems true to life, and depicts life as a soldier as it (probably) truly felt.
If there is one issue I have with this movie, it may be (and pardon the absolute girliness of it) that it's just too bloody.
Okay, I know it is trying to depict the grittiness of war; I know war was no picnic, and I find the cinematic blood and guts believable. But still, some of it seems a little overdone. Like the guy who blows himself to bits towards the end of the movie with a "sticky" bomb? Poof, and he's gone in nothing more than a spray of fake blood. Stuff like that, is a little unnecessary. That one, to me, didn't even look real.
But, overly-bloodiness aside, this is still a great movie, and it's one you can watch again and again without really getting tired of it. This one has earned its place as #71 on this list. Enjoy!
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Top 100 Challenge #72: The Shawshank Redemption
Now here is a movie on the top 100 that most people have probably heard of and already seen. And if you have, then I probably don't even have to tell you: it's obvious why this movie belongs on the top 100 list.
First of all, the movie has Morgan Freeman as one of the main characters. And his character is responsible for most of the movie's narration. That voice alone is enough to make the movie deserving of top 100 status.
Next, the movie's protagonist is one of my favorite kinds of hero: one who makes his way purely by his own intelligence and craftiness. In my personal opinion, these kinds of heroes are usually much more interesting than those who work by brute force or pure luck.
Third, the famous scene with the music in the courtyard. Again, that by itself could merit a spot on the top 100 list.
Finally and most importantly, this is a movie whose plot centers around the lives of prison inmates. Logically, they should be villains, and in most movies they would be. But this movie manages to make us care about them, want the best for them, and sympathize with them! That takes great writing and great acting, and is also the reason I would give this movie a grade of: A+.
Maybe I'm still too soft of a movie critic; we'll see as we continue to work our way up the list. However, for now, I believe this movie deserves to rank even higher than it does, and for anyone who hasn't seen it, you definitely should as soon as you get the change. You won't regret it!
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
First of all, the movie has Morgan Freeman as one of the main characters. And his character is responsible for most of the movie's narration. That voice alone is enough to make the movie deserving of top 100 status.
Next, the movie's protagonist is one of my favorite kinds of hero: one who makes his way purely by his own intelligence and craftiness. In my personal opinion, these kinds of heroes are usually much more interesting than those who work by brute force or pure luck.
Third, the famous scene with the music in the courtyard. Again, that by itself could merit a spot on the top 100 list.
Finally and most importantly, this is a movie whose plot centers around the lives of prison inmates. Logically, they should be villains, and in most movies they would be. But this movie manages to make us care about them, want the best for them, and sympathize with them! That takes great writing and great acting, and is also the reason I would give this movie a grade of: A+.
Maybe I'm still too soft of a movie critic; we'll see as we continue to work our way up the list. However, for now, I believe this movie deserves to rank even higher than it does, and for anyone who hasn't seen it, you definitely should as soon as you get the change. You won't regret it!
Sincerely,
Sarah :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)