Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Friday, December 26, 2008
1900 (Novecento) - Michael
1900 (Novecento)
315 minutes to tell 45 years of history. That's about x500 speed. But rather than showing the Italian countryside in super fast motion, we're treated to semi-random episodes in the lives of two men. Olmo, the bastard peasant, fated to become a hard-line communist, and Alfredo, the privileged son of the padrone, fated to be, kind of a jerk, I guess? Frankly, neither of the main characters make a whole lot of sense.
Robert De Niro's Alfredo definitely gets the short end of the making-sense stick. As a child, he hates his father, spending time with the peasants, and his outcast gay uncle. He marries some crazy broad. Then, the instant his father dies and he becomes the padrone, he becomes a carbon copy of his father. He spends the spends the rest of the movie tacitly supporting, and impotently opposing the fascists gaining power across the country.
Gérard Depardieu's Olmo is a bit more sympathetic, if not much more understandable. He tends to disappear for long stretches that don't involve him, but when he is on camera, his dialog sounds like something out of The Communist Manifesto. His hatred for landowners obviously conflicts with his friendship with Alfredo, in an surprisingly uninteresting and inconsistent way.
The character to watch out for is Donald Sutherland's Atilla, evil incarnate in a black shirt. From headbutting a cat to death, to dashing a child's brains out against a wall (after possibly raping him?), to shooting a score of whistling peasants, to suffering from male pattern baldness, he's practically a comic book villain.
Overall, the movie was vastly more pro-Communist than I think I've ever seen. I've always felt that America is a little more sympathetic to Fascists than Communists, so the foreign-ness of the film was exaggerated beyond even the language barrier. There's quite a bit of strangeness throughout, from a bizarre cocaine party, to a bit of a fecal obsession throughout. I wouldn't really recommend this movie, excepting extreme interest in Italy in the early 20th century, and even then, it's a bit of a stretch. Save yourself 5 hours, and read the Wikipedia article. By the very end of the movie is awful, and even less coherent than the rest.
By the Numbers:
Running Time: 315 minutes
Time Elapsed in Movie: 45 years, 3 months, 25 days
Number of Sessions We Needed to Watch This Movie: 3
Number of Obvious Messages: 1 (Fascism bad!)
Number of Faults Indicated in Communism: 0
Number of Penises Shown: More than I care to remember
Number of Main Characters who don't Speak Great Italian: 3
Chance that a Berlinghieri padrone Will Die in the Cow Shed: 66%
Chance that Donald Sutherland Will Kill You: Higher than you think
Rating (without alcohol): 2 stars
Rating (with alcohol): 2 stars
Rating (if I studied film): 3 1/2 stars
315 minutes to tell 45 years of history. That's about x500 speed. But rather than showing the Italian countryside in super fast motion, we're treated to semi-random episodes in the lives of two men. Olmo, the bastard peasant, fated to become a hard-line communist, and Alfredo, the privileged son of the padrone, fated to be, kind of a jerk, I guess? Frankly, neither of the main characters make a whole lot of sense.
Robert De Niro's Alfredo definitely gets the short end of the making-sense stick. As a child, he hates his father, spending time with the peasants, and his outcast gay uncle. He marries some crazy broad. Then, the instant his father dies and he becomes the padrone, he becomes a carbon copy of his father. He spends the spends the rest of the movie tacitly supporting, and impotently opposing the fascists gaining power across the country.
Gérard Depardieu's Olmo is a bit more sympathetic, if not much more understandable. He tends to disappear for long stretches that don't involve him, but when he is on camera, his dialog sounds like something out of The Communist Manifesto. His hatred for landowners obviously conflicts with his friendship with Alfredo, in an surprisingly uninteresting and inconsistent way.
The character to watch out for is Donald Sutherland's Atilla, evil incarnate in a black shirt. From headbutting a cat to death, to dashing a child's brains out against a wall (after possibly raping him?), to shooting a score of whistling peasants, to suffering from male pattern baldness, he's practically a comic book villain.
Overall, the movie was vastly more pro-Communist than I think I've ever seen. I've always felt that America is a little more sympathetic to Fascists than Communists, so the foreign-ness of the film was exaggerated beyond even the language barrier. There's quite a bit of strangeness throughout, from a bizarre cocaine party, to a bit of a fecal obsession throughout. I wouldn't really recommend this movie, excepting extreme interest in Italy in the early 20th century, and even then, it's a bit of a stretch. Save yourself 5 hours, and read the Wikipedia article. By the very end of the movie is awful, and even less coherent than the rest.
By the Numbers:
Running Time: 315 minutes
Time Elapsed in Movie: 45 years, 3 months, 25 days
Number of Sessions We Needed to Watch This Movie: 3
Number of Obvious Messages: 1 (Fascism bad!)
Number of Faults Indicated in Communism: 0
Number of Penises Shown: More than I care to remember
Number of Main Characters who don't Speak Great Italian: 3
Chance that a Berlinghieri padrone Will Die in the Cow Shed: 66%
Chance that Donald Sutherland Will Kill You: Higher than you think
Rating (without alcohol): 2 stars
Rating (with alcohol): 2 stars
Rating (if I studied film): 3 1/2 stars
Monday, December 22, 2008
12 Angry Men - Brandy
12 Angry Men
My first thought while popping this movie into the dvd player was "Wasn't this based on a play?" Which it was. Which gets me thinking two ways: Huzzah for plays being meaningful to the masses and Was it adapted well? Adapting something from the stage to film is difficult and vice versa. Besides one cheesy stage moment where every character has to take a meaningful pose looking away from a bigot going on a rant, it did well.
So let's get going! Some judge is rambling about reasonable doubt and I'm on my first glass of Cabernet from a Black Box. Next thing we know, we're stuck in a jury room for an hour and a half, and in black and white no less. The claustrophobia of this room and the tightly packed men of various anger inside is wonderfully done and easy to envision on stage as well as on film. I've seen horror movies that never achieved this wonderful degree of panic and tightness in a space.
Even before I can sit back and let the soothing waves of wine and testosterone wash over me, the feminist inside me shouts "Hey, we had suffrage in the 20s, shouldn't this should be An Angry Assortment of 12 Men and Women?" I guess this was the 50s and if we had some woman on the jury she might have been moaning about the laundry piling up or how scary violence is or worrying about the roast or whatever zombie-induced stereo-type women were supposed to be. Feminist rant over.
All in all, I really liked this movie. I had previously seen the Veronica Mars tribute episode "One Angry Veronica" so that actually gave a surprisingly accurate plotline for this movie. Both start with one juror not convinced of guilt who slowly work on the others with clear (sometimes sassy) logic. Have one guy obsessed with sports in each, have one bigot rant about poor people and ultimately have a big ole happy ending. 12 Angry Men was clearly better, despite Kristin Bell being much hotter than Henry Fonda.
Take Aways:
- If a fellow juror tells you about how his teenage son let him down, that juror is gonna be a dick about it later to unrelated teenage boys
- Old people are damn dirty liars
- The only woman mentioned in this movie is a damn dirty liar
- Every bigot has long rehearsed monologues explaining his viewpoint memorized and is itching to throw that out
- Heat makes men angrier
- Guys with glasses are always geeky or very logical
- A Jury of average Americans will always have a lot of lazy idiots
- The Jury parts of courtrooms are generally not as interesting as watching Horatio Caine put on his sunglasses
- Don't trust whitey
Rating (without alcohol): 4 Stars
Rating (with alcohol): 4 Stars
-Brandy
My first thought while popping this movie into the dvd player was "Wasn't this based on a play?" Which it was. Which gets me thinking two ways: Huzzah for plays being meaningful to the masses and Was it adapted well? Adapting something from the stage to film is difficult and vice versa. Besides one cheesy stage moment where every character has to take a meaningful pose looking away from a bigot going on a rant, it did well.
So let's get going! Some judge is rambling about reasonable doubt and I'm on my first glass of Cabernet from a Black Box. Next thing we know, we're stuck in a jury room for an hour and a half, and in black and white no less. The claustrophobia of this room and the tightly packed men of various anger inside is wonderfully done and easy to envision on stage as well as on film. I've seen horror movies that never achieved this wonderful degree of panic and tightness in a space.
Even before I can sit back and let the soothing waves of wine and testosterone wash over me, the feminist inside me shouts "Hey, we had suffrage in the 20s, shouldn't this should be An Angry Assortment of 12 Men and Women?" I guess this was the 50s and if we had some woman on the jury she might have been moaning about the laundry piling up or how scary violence is or worrying about the roast or whatever zombie-induced stereo-type women were supposed to be. Feminist rant over.
All in all, I really liked this movie. I had previously seen the Veronica Mars tribute episode "One Angry Veronica" so that actually gave a surprisingly accurate plotline for this movie. Both start with one juror not convinced of guilt who slowly work on the others with clear (sometimes sassy) logic. Have one guy obsessed with sports in each, have one bigot rant about poor people and ultimately have a big ole happy ending. 12 Angry Men was clearly better, despite Kristin Bell being much hotter than Henry Fonda.
Take Aways:
- If a fellow juror tells you about how his teenage son let him down, that juror is gonna be a dick about it later to unrelated teenage boys
- Old people are damn dirty liars
- The only woman mentioned in this movie is a damn dirty liar
- Every bigot has long rehearsed monologues explaining his viewpoint memorized and is itching to throw that out
- Heat makes men angrier
- Guys with glasses are always geeky or very logical
- A Jury of average Americans will always have a lot of lazy idiots
- The Jury parts of courtrooms are generally not as interesting as watching Horatio Caine put on his sunglasses
- Don't trust whitey
Rating (without alcohol): 4 Stars
Rating (with alcohol): 4 Stars
-Brandy
12 Angry Men - Michael
12 Angry Men
We begin our adventure with a classic movie from 1957. This is one of those movies you should feel guilty for not seeing, even if you weren't old enough to serve on a jury in '57. Excepting a brief introduction, the whole movie takes place in one room (and accompanying bathroom). It seems like the Mens room got a little crowded a few times, but no one thought to use the Womens room, despite the fact that, as the title of the movie hints, it sits empty the whole time.
Evidence has come a long way from this to CSI. Apparently you can just ask for the murder knife, get your fingerprints all over it, and stab it into a table. Really, the movie felt a lot more like a mystery show that your average Law & Order courtroom. The defense lawyer was sleeping on the job, and the investigators were either incompetent, or out for blood. Within a few mintues of discussion at deliberation, they completely discredit the one piece of evidence and two witnesses that made up the case.
What are the takeaways from this movie? Reasonable doubt is a tricky thing. The oldest man in a room is the wisest. There will always be backroom deals, even if that room is a bathroom. It only takes one persistent man to topple a house of cards. The fact that our justice system ultimately hinges on 12 people with their own lives, hopes and fears (and ballgame tickets) is both a triumph and a terror. If you're on trial for murder, try to get Henry Fonda on your jury.
By the Numbers:
# of Truly Angry Men: 3
# of Sometimes Irritated Men: 8
# of Unflappably Cool Men: 1
# of Lying Witnesses to (Almost) Send a Boy to the Chair: 2
# of Women: 0
# of Revelations That Should Have Happened Well Before Trial: 5
# of Bigoted Hate Speeches About Poor People: 1
# of People Who Are Sent To the Kids Table After Their Hate Speech: 1
# of Times To Punch Your Father To Become A Real Man: 1
Chance A Guilty Man Was Released To Kill Again: 30%
Chance Of "Oceans 12"-like Sequel Numbering: 13%
Chance That the Defence Lawyer Was Technically Dead: 85%
Chance That Someone Like Juror 8 Will Stick Up For You: 0.01%
Rating (without alcohol): 4 Stars
Rating (with alcohol): 4 1/2 Stars
- Michael
We begin our adventure with a classic movie from 1957. This is one of those movies you should feel guilty for not seeing, even if you weren't old enough to serve on a jury in '57. Excepting a brief introduction, the whole movie takes place in one room (and accompanying bathroom). It seems like the Mens room got a little crowded a few times, but no one thought to use the Womens room, despite the fact that, as the title of the movie hints, it sits empty the whole time.
Evidence has come a long way from this to CSI. Apparently you can just ask for the murder knife, get your fingerprints all over it, and stab it into a table. Really, the movie felt a lot more like a mystery show that your average Law & Order courtroom. The defense lawyer was sleeping on the job, and the investigators were either incompetent, or out for blood. Within a few mintues of discussion at deliberation, they completely discredit the one piece of evidence and two witnesses that made up the case.
What are the takeaways from this movie? Reasonable doubt is a tricky thing. The oldest man in a room is the wisest. There will always be backroom deals, even if that room is a bathroom. It only takes one persistent man to topple a house of cards. The fact that our justice system ultimately hinges on 12 people with their own lives, hopes and fears (and ballgame tickets) is both a triumph and a terror. If you're on trial for murder, try to get Henry Fonda on your jury.
By the Numbers:
# of Truly Angry Men: 3
# of Sometimes Irritated Men: 8
# of Unflappably Cool Men: 1
# of Lying Witnesses to (Almost) Send a Boy to the Chair: 2
# of Women: 0
# of Revelations That Should Have Happened Well Before Trial: 5
# of Bigoted Hate Speeches About Poor People: 1
# of People Who Are Sent To the Kids Table After Their Hate Speech: 1
# of Times To Punch Your Father To Become A Real Man: 1
Chance A Guilty Man Was Released To Kill Again: 30%
Chance Of "Oceans 12"-like Sequel Numbering: 13%
Chance That the Defence Lawyer Was Technically Dead: 85%
Chance That Someone Like Juror 8 Will Stick Up For You: 0.01%
Rating (without alcohol): 4 Stars
Rating (with alcohol): 4 1/2 Stars
- Michael
Saturday, December 20, 2008
Welcome!
Welcome to 1001 Inebriated Nights, where good movies meet not-so-good wine. Take one copy of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, add Netflix, and plenty of cheap drinks, and this is what you get. We’ll be providing impressions, summaries, and aimless, rambling reviews of the movies we watch. Rather than give a lot of info about Brandy and I up front, we’ll just let embarrassing personal details slip out in the following posts. So, with a long list, and a distinct lack of taste in both cinema and beverages, we begin…
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)