No. 100: Ben Hur

I made it. I found 3 1/2 consecutive hours to get this project started, and, we're off to a grand start, with the 1959 epic film (no, really...it's an epic) "Ben Hur."
Let me begin by making a shameful confession. This is the first time, as far as I can remember (and I'm pretty sure I'd remember) watching this entire film at once.
I went in with a certain amount of fear and trepidation after getting Disc 1 and Disc 2 and thinking that frankly, if you can't fit it on one disc, it's just too dang long.
Other than the fact that my leg is cramping from being in one position for almost four hours, the film did make me re-think my initial assessment.
For one thing, the film made me miss the true epics. It reminded me that there are films that truly are epic, unlike most of the epic fails that have been churned out in the last few years.
It starts out showcasing a bit of the grandeur of the Roman Empire at its zenith, right at the birth of Christ. We then jump to the beginning of the command of Messala in Jerusalem. He and his old friend Judah Ben-Hur are overjoyed to be reunited, until they realize that as adults, Messala being a patriotic Roman and Judah being a loyal Jew means they can't be friends.
After Messala falsely accuses Judah of a crime and imprisons not only him, but his mother and sister, Ben-Hur vows vengeance.
By several miracles, he winds up not only surviving his slavery, but coming back to Jerusalem as a free man - with one thought in mind: find his family, and kill Messala.
I wish I could watch this the way it was meant to be seen, on a huge screen with the right film, etc. Still, on my old TV, it's impressive. The sets, the scenery, the costumes, the characters. It starts out a little slow, a little hard to relate to because it's so stylized and so different from how we relate to characters in modern films. But, it doesn't take long before it draws you in. I wanted to know what was going to happen. I felt invested. Was it hard to see what was coming next? No, not especially. It's still fun to watch it happen, though.
Most notable is, of course, the famed chariot race. Many smarter than I have expounded upon it, so let me just say, it is intense. There's no music. There's no dialogue. There's no extreme close-ups of the hero's or the villain's nose hairs or furrowed brows or sweaty palms to try to generate a response. You just watch this race take place and hope that someone makes it out alive. It doesn't matter that the stunts aren't as "sophisticated" as today's - when a driver got dumped out of his chariot and trampled, I cringed. Each time a driver went down, I leaned forward to make sure the ambulance crew got in and out with the injured person in time. It's a true action sequence. It's fantastic.
I also love the character of Esther. Unlike many female characters in films like these, she's neither a flailing damsel in distress nor a femme fatale. Esther is beautiful, chaste, composed, and incredibly strong, brave and faithful. Despite her constant goodness, she too recognizes her need to be redeemed - and embraces it.
But ultimately, this is a story about Jesus, not Judah Ben-Hur. Oh, sure, Jesus is only in a few scenes and we never actually see his face - but he determines the entire direction of the film. It is Jesus who brings Judah back to Jerusalem. Judah and his entire family are changed by Jesus and his gruesome death and life-giving words. William Wyler could have chose to make the film more directly about Jesus, but instead he gives us a character with which to relate, who is flawed and angry and, at times, a little selfish and stupid.
More than 50 years after its release, "Ben Hur" is still heralded as one of the best and "most inspirational" films of all time. It may be long, but maybe that's one of the things that makes it inspirational. Any film that can hold my attention for 3 1/2 hours deserves all the acclaim it can receive.

Next up: "Toy Story"

Cinematic Adventure

I have decided.

Since I don't seem to get to the theater much these days, and when I do the film has already been out for at least a month everywhere else (thanks, Ogallala), I am switching gears. Rather than write film reviews in a non-timely manner, both in terms of release dates and the time lapses in between blogs, I'm going on a quest. An adventure, if you will. A cinematic adventure.

Ok, it's not really that exciting, but, it is a project. I'm going to go through the American Film Institute's Top 100 films of all time*, and the plan is to write a review on each of the films as I go.

I'm doing this for two main reasons: One, my life is very boring right now and I need things to do besides work and organize my Netflix queue. Two, there are a great many landmark films that I have not seen, and, since I have this blog, I figure I should educate myself. I realize the list is by no means comprehensive, but, it's a starting point.

I'm estimating this will take me about a year to get through...although, the first film on the list is Ben Hur, and it's been sitting on my TV for more than a week as I attempt to figure out where I'm going to find four hours to dedicate to viewing it properly.

So, that's it. Join me if you like, and we can discuss as we go. Happy viewing!
1 CITIZEN KANE 1941
 2 THE GODFATHER 1972
 3 CASABLANCA 1942
 4 RAGING BULL 1980
 5 SINGIN' IN THE RAIN 1952
 6 GONE WITH THE WIND 1939
 7 LAWRENCE OF ARABIA 1962
 8 SCHINDLER'S LIST 1993
 9 VERTIGO 1958
 10 THE WIZARD OF OZ 1939
 11 CITY LIGHTS 1931
 12 THE SEARCHERS 1956
 13 STAR WARS 1977
 14 PSYCHO 1960
 15 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY 1968
 16 SUNSET BLVD. 1950
 17 THE GRADUATE 1967
 18 THE GENERAL 1927
 19 ON THE WATERFRONT 1954
 20 IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE 1946
 21 CHINATOWN 1974
 22 SOME LIKE IT HOT 1959
 23 THE GRAPES OF WRATH 1940
 24 E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL 1982
 25 TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD 1962
 26 MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON 1939
 27 HIGH NOON 1952
 28 ALL ABOUT EVE 1950
 29 DOUBLE INDEMNITY 1944
 30 APOCALYPSE NOW 1979
 31 THE MALTESE FALCON 1941
 32 THE GODFATHER PART II 1974
 33 ONE FLEW OVER THE CUCKOO'S NEST 1975
 34 SNOW WHITE AND THE SEVEN DWARFS 1937
 35 ANNIE HALL 1977
 36 THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI 1957
 37 THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES 1946
 38 THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE 1948
 39 DR. STRANGELOVE 1964
 40 THE SOUND OF MUSIC 1965
 41 KING KONG 1933
 42 BONNIE AND CLYDE 1967
 43 MIDNIGHT COWBOY 1969
 44 THE PHILADELPHIA STORY 1940
 45 SHANE 1953
 46 IT HAPPENED ONE NIGHT 1934
 47 A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE 1951
 48 REAR WINDOW 1954
 49 INTOLERANCE 1916
 50 THE LORD OF THE RINGS: THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING 2001
 51 WEST SIDE STORY 1961
 52 TAXI DRIVER 1976
 53 THE DEER HUNTER 1978
 54 M*A*S*H 1970
 55 NORTH BY NORTHWEST 1959
 56 JAWS 1975
 57 ROCKY 1976
 58 THE GOLD RUSH 1925
 59 NASHVILLE 1975
 60 DUCK SOUP 1933
 61 SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS 1941
 62 AMERICAN GRAFFITI 1973
 63 CABARET 1972
 64 NETWORK 1976
 65 THE AFRICAN QUEEN 1951
 66 RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK 1981
 67 WHO'S AFRAID OF VIRGINIA WOOLF? 1966
 68 UNFORGIVEN 1992
 69 TOOTSIE 1982
 70 A CLOCKWORK ORANGE 1971
 71 SAVING PRIVATE RYAN 1998
 72 THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION 1994
 73 BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID 1969
 74 THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS 1991
 75 IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT 1967
 76 FORREST GUMP 1994
 77 ALL THE PRESIDENT'S MEN 1976
 78 MODERN TIMES 1936
 79 THE WILD BUNCH 1969
 80 THE APARTMENT 1960
 81 SPARTACUS 1960
 82 SUNRISE 1927
 83 TITANIC 1997
 84 EASY RIDER 1969
 85 A NIGHT AT THE OPERA 1935
 86 PLATOON 1986
 87 12 ANGRY MEN 1957
 88 BRINGING UP BABY 1938
 89 THE SIXTH SENSE 1999
 90 SWING TIME 1936
 91 SOPHIE'S CHOICE 1982
 92 GOODFELLAS 1990
 93 THE FRENCH CONNECTION 1971
 94 PULP FICTION 1994
 95 THE LAST PICTURE SHOW 1971
 96 DO THE RIGHT THING 1989
 97 BLADE RUNNER 1982
 98 YANKEE DOODLE DANDY 1942
 99 TOY STORY 1995
100 BEN-HUR 1959

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 2

I think I'm the last person in the world to see the final Harry Potter film, so, there's probably little use in reviewing it. But, I will anyway.
Ten years after a very young Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, and Emma Watson brought J.K. Rowling's best-selling wizard characters to life, they join up for the final film. It picks up almost immediately where "Deathly Hallows: Part 1" left off, as Harry, Ron, and Hermione try to find the last of the horcruxes and finish off the villainous Voldemort.
It's a dark film, in tone and light. Even during the day scenes, the characters are always somber (for good reason), the sun is never really bright, and there's a sense of impending doom.
I think this is a good movie. I'm just not sure it's great. The first two-thirds of the film goes by incredibly quickly. Then the final act begins, and despite the action, seems to drag in places. It's different than many "blockbusters" in that it separates big action and special effects sequences with slower moments rather than piling all the action in at the end (or having nothing but action to counteract the lack of a plot). Some work, some don't.
There's little dialogue between the main trio. They discuss what to do, but not at length. I suppose after seven books and seven films, the producers figured there has been enough character development.
One of the biggest challenges in adapting the Harry Potter books to film has been, and remains in this final film, not necessarily the special effects (although that did trip up a few of the films), but the characters. Rowling created a world rich with bright, interesting characters who have much more to do than exist just to play a part in the story of the Boy Who Lived. Due to time constraints and a desire to focus on the fighting, the films rarely capture the depth of any of the Harry Potter characters - not even the main trio. (Voldemort is an exception - the films do an excellent job of making him creepy and pure evil.)
Even the battle scenes, which in the book focus on specific people, are more about the special effects and blasts of light from myriad wands as Hogwarts is under siege. There's a scene that shows the casualties of the wizards' war, people whom many Harry Potter fans have grown attached. The film barely lets you know who died. One key character in particular, I would not have realized who it was without the book as background. The medium is the message, I suppose.
But, no matter. The film looks fantastic. From the dragon to the trolls to the fiery spell that overwhelms the room of requirement, the special effects are superb - and they actually serve a purpose beyond being impressive. There's always a sense of what could have been different or better with films adapted from beloved books, but, all in all, the final chapter of the Harry Potter saga does its best to wrap up one of the world's biggest and most beloved franchises of recent years.

Fast Five

Who knew that a simple little film about street racing would spawn a franchise? Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Brian O'Connor (Paul Walker) are back in the fifth - yes, fifth - installment of the "Fast and the Furious" films.
The film picks up right where the last one left off, with O'Connor and Mia Toretto (Jordana Brewster) busting Dom out of prison. Well, he's not technically in prison yet. He's on a bus. And, naturally, the way to get someone off a bus is to make the bus flip over several times on a remote desert road.
It seems like there are better ways to get someone off a bus, but, I've never been had to bust my brother out of irons.
Now, because of the bold escape, Dom and co. are fugitives. They find themselves in South America, looking for a way to disappear forever. Naturally, a way presents itself, but, first they have to cross the most powerful criminal in Rio de Janero, and outsmart the FBI's best team of special agents who have been sent in to take them home. Such feats require a team, and suddenly, the all-stars from the last four movies are assembled in one spot. The film then becomes a heist movie, reminiscent of 'Oceans 11' or 'The Italian Job.'
The franchise was built on the concept of illegal street racing, and the notion that Dom is the best there's ever been, anywhere. This film references those things, but doesn't dwell on them. In many ways, it pays homage to the first film - an original team member returns, and the two street racing scenes deliberately recall O'Connor's initiation into the Toretto team.
But, in many ways, these are not the same characters from that film. It feels like something is missing. (Letty, for one.) Whether it is Diesel's coloring, the director's vision, or the script's limitations, "Fast Five"'s Dom is less "like gravity" than he is in the other films, particularly the first. Mia, who is actually rather annoying in the first film, suddenly is the anchor that holds the family together - a role traditionally held by Dom. There's no more waffling from O'Connor, as he has fully given himself over to the life of a fugitive, largely because it is the only way he would have a life with Mia. The filmmakers also give O'Connor fewer and fewer lines with each passing film, focusing instead on his driving and fighting skills. Probably wise.
And, with Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) playing a rather unlikeable FBI agent who delivers some amazingly bad lines ("You know I like my dessert first," in reference to good news/bad news), it's easy to stay on the fugitives' sides even when they're not technically the "good guys."
The camera work seems to reinforce the "fast" notion, with constant motion and figures moving impossibly fast as they run and jump and pummel each other. Some of the things people escape from are ludicrous, and bullets seem to know they can only touch secondary characters.
If you only liked the first one because of all the engine-revving in between fight scenes, then this might not be for you. But, if you like the characters and some unlikely action scenarios, you'll probably like the film. (After all, where else will you get to see The Rock and Vin Diesel duke it out?)

Clash of the Titans

For more than 2,000 years, there has been a fascination with the pantheon of gods that dominated ancient Grecian culture. Why? Too complex for one blog entry.
Needless to say, there have been multiple book and film adaptations of Greek myths, from Disney's "Hercules" to the most recent blockbuster, "Clash of the Titans." (There will be another coming out this year about the third of the most famous demi-god trio, Theseus.)
It's like Arthur, Robin Hood, and other legends that have lived on. Each generation brings forth its own version, and that version says as much about the current culture as anything.
So, what does "Clash of the Titans" say about 2010 Hollywood?
First, it hits on that weird little thing inside each of us, even someone who has starred in one of the most gut-wrenching films ever made about the holocaust, that would love to say, "RELEASE THE KRAKEN!" for legitimate reasons.
Second, it says that even though we don't have the attention span for more than two lines at a time of very easy to understand dialogue, we do however want to watch a 15-minute chase scene where you really can't see what's going on, but, it's a miracle of modern technology and CGI, so, we should just be amazed.
Third, it says that for whatever reason, we like Zeus (here played by Liam Neeson). Modern film adaptations, even ones that acknowledge the mythological stories detailing how Zeus was not above raping the occasional woman, still have the god-with-the-lightning bolt coming out smelling like a daisy of a deity.
Even is this film when he's allowing his brother, Hades (Ralph Fiennes), to systematically destroy mankind for its "defiance," he's still kinda likeable. Hades, on the other hand, is creeptastic. Hades is always creeptastic, though. As inconsistent as Greek myths are in the telling and re-tellings, one thing remains the same: no one really likes Hades.
Ok, so, ready made bad guy. Brother Zeus lets the bad guy play for a while because he's mad at the humans. But oh, wait, Hades isn't really trying to avenge the gods. After how many millenia, you'd think the creators of the present world would see more of this coming, but, you know. They're only gods.
So, enter Perseus. He's the illegitimate son of Zeus. That makes him a demi-god.
But, he's raised as a fisherman who loves his family. He doesn't long for adventure or the chance to be a hero, he just loves his family.
It is love of his family that later drives him to join with the warriors of Argos to defeat the Kraken and stick it to the gods.
See, here's the thing: all of the fighting undertaken in Greek mythology had a point. Maybe it was Hercules' tests to atone for shedding innocent blood, maybe it was Theseus quest to prove himself worthy, maybe it was Perseus seeking to rescue Andromeda...there was a purpose.
In 2010, however, blockbuster films like to have stuff happen just to happen. There's a contingent of warriors that are systematically destroyed in various and sundry ways, mostly I think just to show off what a stud Perseus is in comparison. Though, it's not really a fair comparison when you consider the whole Zeus factor...which pops up often through the film.
It's an interesting contradiction: a man driven to say, "hey, screw you gods!" ...but the only way he can accomplish it is with a little divine intervention. (Spoiler alert!) He eschews a life on Olympus, so he can live with his magically resuscitated lover and his Pegasus. Ok, really? I'd give up Olympus, too.
Anyway.
The film has some fantastic visuals, like Hades and the Kraken. Some are effective, and some drag on too long, like the montage of vast landscapes to showcase the epic journey Perseus undertakes...and completes in less than four days. Sorry, but if it happens in less than two weeks, it's not an 'epic' journey. It also has some interesting re-inventing of plotlines and characters (apparently giant scorpions sound rather like camels. who knew?).
It has the obligatory voice over to explain what's happening to people who have never read 'The Iliad' or 'The Odyssey.' And, as previously mentioned, a ridiculously long "chase" scene toward the end where a lot of stuff gets destroyed and I got bored.
And, despite the title, there are no Titans that clash. Only people and gods. And neither side really "wins." Figure that one out. It could be a metaphor for...no, never mind. I wouldn't look for too much of that. Just admire the CGI and move on.

Reel Life, Retro: Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas

Prior to the computer animation, 3-D-obsessed society we currently inhabit, Dreamworks was already starting to get animated in its quest to de-throne the Disney dynasty. "Prince of Egypt," Dreamworks' second, and in some ways best, foray into the world of feature-film animation, has since been forgotten with monster hits (pun intended) like "Kung Fu Panda," "Megamind," and, of course, the Shrek franchise.
But, despite the popular and critical accolades of "The Prince of Egypt" (Roger Ebert described it as one of the best-looking animated films ever made), only a handful of traditionally-animated films have followed from Dreamworks (or Disney, for that matter).
Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is one of them. It's immediately discernible as a Dreamworks animated, with the characters' styles looking eerily similar to Miguel and Tulio from "The Road to El Dorado." And, like other Dreamworks animations, Sinbad ditches the traditional fairy tale template and goes for characters who are sassy, silly, and sometimes somewhat lewd. You have Sinbad (Brad Pitt), the mythical sailor, who is a rogue and a pirate, but of course, not a bad guy. You have his first mate, Kale, and the ever-loyal crew of pirates. Pirates aren't loyal, you say? They are to Sinbad...mostly
The hero meets his old friend, Prince Proteus (Ralph Fiennes). He tries to steal the Book of Peace from Proteus, only to be foiled by a large sea monster sent by the goddess of chaos Eris (Michelle Pfeiffer), who also wants the book.
Eris convinces Sinbad to steal the book for her. But, then, she steals it herself and frames him for the crime. When Proteus offers his life instead of Sinbad's for the necessary execution, Proteus' fiance, Marina (Catherine Zeta-Jones) sets out to make sure Sinbad recovers the book instead of running away and letting Proteus die in his place.
He doesn't want her on his boat. She doesn't like him, much, either. The crew loves her, more, though, so Sinbad puts up with it.
Sometimes the characters are unique. Spike, Sinbad's dog, has more personality than most of the crew members, except for one exceptionally creepy fellow named Rat. Marina, though not incredibly original, is fiesty and likeable. Sinbad is supposed to be conflicted and sympathetic, but, as tends to happen with the Hollywood hotly pursued, having Pitt's recognizable voice was distracting at times. (Rewatching the film now, the same happened with Kale when my sisters discussed, "who is that?" "oh! it's that 'you're in good hands' insurance guy.")
They travel through extreme conditions to recover the book. Along the way, fantastic obstacles and a little humor keep the imagination going. The conventions of it are fairly predictable, you've seen the story before: two people who can't stand each other are forced to spend time together and realize they have some things in common.
The end is a little anti-climactic; one would expect more from a goddess. Then again, all it took was a few inches of careless on Thetis' part to lead to the downfall of Achilles.

Tangled

I'm a little bitter. After years of waiting for Disney to add Rapunzel to its traditionally-animated classic fairy tale collection, out comes a 3-D, in-your-face version of the story, with an "edgy" name, "Tangled."
As per usual, Disney takes what it wants from the fairy tale and throws the rest out the window. For one thing, God forbid we have a man rescue a woman in a 21st century tale. Matter of fact, we'd better re-write the entire story just to make sure that it's the girl who must continually rescue the man. Some of it works. Some of it is suspect and forced. Being familiar with the Grimm tale, I'm curious about the reasoning behind some changes.
It's futile to discuss what now can never be, so, the facts are these:
1. Magic flower that heals and restores youth.
2. Evil witch wants youth all to herself.
3. Flower's powers get transmitted to princess.
4. Witch steals princess, locks her in tower, king and queen grow very sad.
This is all explained quickly at the beginning, as fairy tale movies often do.
Then, the movie gets down to business of showing us the grown-up(ish) Rapunzel, her "mother," and how she longs to see the world.
She employs the help of a rogue, Flynn Rider, to fulfill that dream. But, peril awaits as the two encounter natural and supernatural obstacles to their journey.
Despite preconceived notions, I did enjoy the film.
There are the typical Disney sidekicks, Maximus and Pascal. Since both are animals in a human-dominated film, neither speaks. However, both are sassy and expressive. Maximus holds most of the film's best moments, although, just once, I'd like for a Disney animator to put the effort into drawing a horse that doesn't look so...boxy (the Mulan, Home on the Range, Tangled steeds all share the same exaggerated, graceless features).
The main characters have their moments, too. There's a sequence in which Rapunzel can't decide whether she's happy or sad that she's left behind her tower, and therefore, her mother. It's fairly accurate for the mood shifts of most teenage girls. Flynn isn't quite as cookie cutter as the early Disney princes, and does more than show up at the end to be charming and handsome.
Does it hold the same magic and awe as say, "Sleeping Beauty," "Beauty and the Beast" or "The Little Mermaid"? Um, no.
For one thing, in "Sleeping Beauty," the sad king and queen who lost their baby princess had actual lines. The father, King Stephen, is actually an entertaining and sympathetic character.
Disney must not have had the budget to pay for actual voice actors on top of the animation, because Rapunzel's parents never say a peep. They don't even sigh upon her disappearance.
No matter. With computer animation they don't need to speak, they can just emote. But, oh wait, hand-drawn characters can too. And, they can do it without looking so...shiny.
Oh, and there's singing. Here's the film's biggest downfall. It's not necessarily Mandy Moore's fault; a singer can only do so much with what he or she is given. But Disney should know better. Heck, Alan Menken should know better. You can't follow "The Little Mermaid," "Aladdin," and "Pocahontas" with the bland musical messes that awkwardly pop into three or four scenes of this film.
And whatever happened to legitimate animated villains? Villains who are actual characters? Maleficent, Ursula, Lady Tremaine - they all make Mother Gothel seem pretty tame.
In an attempt to be modern and to reinvent the fairy tale for modern sensibilities, the "Tangled" crew may have gotten a bit carried away, and put a little too much blah into what isn't supposed to be a normal tale about normal people.
It's a fairy tale, and fairy tales operate on a different playing field. They're not about quests discover yourself, at least not through dialogue. They're about good and evil, dark and light, natural and supernatural, magic and mortal.
They don't necessarily sell happy endings, though that's what Disney traffics in. (But, happy endings are more satisfactory after the defeat of a gruesome, fearsome villain.)
As for this ending? Part of me wants to say Wilhelm and Jacob had it better, but, who's to say a story that has lasted over 200 years is better than this?