200 Movies, 1 Woman, 1 Blog

The Last Days, 1998, USA

I signed up for Netflix solely to watch this film, which is pretty significant. I’ve long wanted to watch this documentary about the Holocaust, because Steven Spielberg produced it.

The documentary looks at the experiences of several Hungarian Holocaust survivors. Hungarian Jews weren’t taken to the concentration camps until the last year of the war when it became clear that the Nazis were going to lose the war. Instead of focusing their resources on fighting the war, the Nazis attacked the Hungarian Jews and murdered them or sent them to the concentration camps.

The interviews with the survivors were so interesting. They spoke candidly about their lives before the Holocaust, and about how they survived in the concentration camps. Many of the subjects journeyed back to Europe in order to find some sort of closure. One visited the town she grew up in and discovered her childhood home. These journeys added another layer to the film. The horrific atrocities of the Holocaust are fairly well known, but we often forget about what the survivors experienced after they were liberated. Many never returned home, and many lost their entire families.

It was not an easy documentary to watch. There are photos and video from the concentration camps, and it was just awful to watch. But this footage was necessary, because it shows what the Holocaust was. Humanity needs to see this footage. As I was watching it, I thought about the fact that these people were someone’s son or daughter. These people were loved, and they were treated as if they were vermin. It was very difficult to think about. We must never forget that this happened, and we can never let this happen again.

I did have one minor beef: the film was in a letterbox format. I’m assuming it was in letterbox format because it’s an older film and it isn’t one that necessarily needs to be converted back to a widescreen format. Or, it’s possible that it was filmed in that format. It was just a bit odd to watch a letterbox film on my widescreen TV.

Watch this documentary. Hearing the stories of these survivors was such a privilege. It saddens me to think that, in a few years, there won’t be any more Holocaust survivors left. It’s important to hear these stories; to get them on film or paper, before it’s too late.

War Horse, 2011, USA

This was one of the 2011 films I was most excited to see and it didn’t disappoint one bit. Steven Spielberg has crafted a gorgeous film – probably his best since A.I. (in my opinion!).

Albert (Jeremy Irvine) becomes the owner of a young colt after his drunken father (Peter Mullan) purchases him at an auction. Albert trains the horse, named Joey, and teaches him how to plow, even though he is a thoroughbred and not a farm horse. When World War I starts, Albert’s father sells Joey in order to make some extra money, which breaks Albert’s heart. Albert swears that he will find Joey again, and heads to the front line in order to do so. As a cavalry mount, Joey has a rough time of it and changes hands numerous times through the war.

The film was beautifully shot. Janusz Kaminski is an amazing cinematographer. He framed gorgeous shots of the European countryside and shots that reminded the audience of the sheer devastation of war. The music was beautiful, as well. John Williams’ score is likely my favourite of the year, and I’m sure he has a good shot at getting an Oscar for it. I’ll be upset if he doesn’t win the Oscar, in fact. The main theme (heard from 3:31 onwards) used throughout the film was so powerful that it drove me to tears every single time. Beautiful music adds power to a movie, and Williams’ score was perfect. The music, the cinematography and the sweeping, touching story created an immensely powerful and memorable film. It had an amazing, timeless feel to it. Spielberg created a movie that feels like it could have been made 50 years ago.

Both fronts are shown throughout the film, and I really appreciated how the characters were written. There was only one “villain” in the movie, and he wasn’t involved in the war. Every character was human, and, as one poignant scene showed us, they could be friends…if their countries weren’t at war with one another. They were simply human beings fighting for their country.

After seeing it, my mom and I were talking about how most of the actors weren’t very well known. I recognized several of them, but after looking at the cast list, I realized that I am familiar with a good number of them; I just didn’t recognize them. Tom Hiddleston has a small but powerful role in the film, as does David Kross.

The film was based on a play that is currently on Broadway and the play itself was based on a book. I’m very eager to see the play. According to Wikipedia, it is starting in Toronto this year! I may have to plan a weekend trip to see the play, which is said to be extraordinarily good. I’m curious to see the puppet used onstage and its effect on the story.

The Adventures of Tintin: The Secret of the Unicorn, 2011, USA/New Zealand

I’ve been familiar with Tintin for a number of years, because I saw a few episodes of the TV show as a child.  I’ve never read any of the comics, however.  I was excited for the film, especially since Steven Spielberg directed it.

The movie was a lot of fun.  Jamie Bell plays Tintin, a young reporter who gets into adventures all over the world in search of his stories.  Tintin gets kidnapped after purchasing a model of the Unicorn; a ship that sank 300 years earlier.  The man behind his kidnapping is Sakharine (Daniel Craig), who is eager to get his hands on all three model ships as each ship hides a clue to the hidden treasure.  After escaping confinement, Tintin meets Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis), captain of the ship he’s on, and the key to the entire mystery of the Unicorn.

I was long concerned with the technology used to create the film.  Motion capture films such as this one can lead to a “dead eye” effect that I find very unsettling.  This movie, and Avatar are proof that the technology is getting better and better.  I’m very fond of the original animation style of the TV show, but I did appreciate the visual effects of the film.  They worked better than a live action adaptation would have.

However, I could have done without the 3D.  I saw the IMAX version of the film, and while it looked great on the big screen, the 3D didn’t blow me away. I think it would have been better in 2D as opposed to 3D.

I have to wonder if the two planned sequels will be made.  This movie was quite the risk.  The Tintin comics are far more popular overseas than they are in North America, so the domestic box office is likely to be smaller than the overseas box office.  As studios tend to strongly favour domestic totals over international totals, this will figure into their decision to finance the sequels.  It has made just over $17 000 000 in North America so far, which doesn’t seem like a whole lot of money – especially since it’s been playing for close to a week.

Personally, I’m hoping the sequels are made.  I really appreciated Spielberg’s take on the story, and I thought it was a really fun, and intelligent family movie. It was a joy to watch, and I recommend seeing it in theatres. If you’re not familiar with Tintin – go in blind. It’ll be a fun surprise!

One more thing to point out: I loved the opening credits.  They were delightful, and likely the most memorable of the year.  An “unofficial” version of the opening credits was created by an artist several months ago, and apparently the artist was hired to work on Spielberg’s next film!

One of my least favourite film making techniques is the use of motion capture to create a computer animated film. Some examples of these sorts of films would be The Polar Express, A Christmas Carol and The Adventures of Tintin, which is being released this winter.

The problem with this technique is that it creates hollow looking characters. They suffer from “dead eye“, which is creepy at worst and rather ugly at best. It’s bizarre to see an animated Tom Hanks on screen looking closer to a zombie than a living, breathing human. The art of animating real people can look amazing (see: A Scanner Darkly), but motion capturing a real person and then computer animating them does not work.

Zombie Tom Hanks! RUN!!!!

Computer animation has come so far, and it is possible to create extraordinary, textured animation using computers. It pains me to know that filmmakers are resorting to creating “almost lifelike” characters by attempting to blend animation and live action. Why create a weak hybrid of the two? Why not use computer animation instead? Or stick with live action?

I’m genuinely worried about The Adventures of Tintin. I was really looking forward to the film, but the trailer had me cringing. I’m hoping I can look past the visuals and enjoy the story. It would be difficult to do this film as a live action film, because Tintin is so recognizable. Doing the film as a traditional 2D animated film could have worked, though. The television series matched the animated style of the comic book series. Why mess with a good thing? On one hand, I understand that Steven Spielberg wanted to put his own “stamp” on the series. And he would certainly want to take advantage of modern technology. I imagine this is why this film making style was used.

It’s not quite fair of me to judge the look of the film based on one minute of footage, so I’m going to hold my final thoughts until I actually see it. I am hoping I end up eating my words and loving the way it looks. I trust Spielberg, and I’m hoping he delivers two excellent films this winter.

I know I haven’t been watching many films lately, but it’s been because I’ve been so swamped with school. I’m going to definitely try to watch at least one this weekend! I really need to, as my PVR is growing more full by the day!

I hadn’t even heard of this movie before today, but I’m really excited to see it after watching the trailer.

Very moving and well done trailer. I imagine it’ll have a good shot at Best Picture at the Oscars. Steven Spielberg is the best director working today, so I always get excited when I hear he has a new movie coming out.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind, 1977, USA

As I started this movie, my brother returned home with several of his friends. They came to the basement with a few boxes of pizza and asked me what I was watching. I told them and they said they hadn’t heard of it. I told them it was from 1977, and they said that “that explains why; it’s old!”. My heart hurts.

I may not have seen this movie before tonight but I’d certainly heard of it. As far as I’m concerned, Steven Spielberg is a legend and I’ve heard of most, if not all of his movies, even if I haven’t seen them. But I get the feeling that these boys aren’t exactly into movies the way I am.

As my title states, this movie is about aliens. Not the evil kind, but the mysterious kind. Roy (Richard Dreyfuss) is out working late one night when he sees several bright air crafts in the sky. They’re clearly alien air crafts. He witnesses this along with numerous other people, including young Barry (Cary Guffey). Everyone who sees the air crafts begin drawing the same mountain. This is very frightening to Roy’s family and Jillian (Melinda Dillon), Barry’s mother.

I saw the version of the movie with the original ending. I was happy about that as I watched the alternate ending in the deleted scenes section of the DVD and I disliked it. It felt awkward and unnatural. The original ending was far better. If you get a choice between watching it with the original ending or the alternate ending, choose the original.

While the movie is technically a science fiction movie, I definitely see it as more of a movie about transformation. Roy changes quite a bit over the course of the movie and follows his dreams. I saw the air crafts as being the event that caused Roy’s change. In that way, it didn’t quite matter if it was aliens or a car accident, etc. The movie was about Ray.

I really enjoyed the movie. It wasn’t quite what I expected (for some reason I was expecting a road trip movie in search of aliens), but I liked it. Dreyfuss was awesome. The special effects really impressed me too. Before CGI became prevalent it seemed like filmmakers were able to do a lot with very little. Nowadays I think there’s too much CGI in many movies. It can be very distracting. Especially if it doesn’t look realistic.

Saving Private Ryan, 1998, USA

Recommended by: Amanda

Let me start off an entry about a tragic and sad movie with a funny little story. When I was eight, for some bizarre reason, I really wanted to see this movie. I don’t know what it was about it. Maybe it was the title – the fact that it alludes to saving someone. My dad told me what the movie was about, and it sounded like the most amazing thing on the planet. I begged him to let me see it. Obviously he said no. He told me I wouldn’t like it, because it was long and I’d find it boring. I’m pretty sure I badgered him about it for a few years, before giving up on it.

Then, by the time I was 16 or so, the fact that I hadn’t seen it was embarrassing. People were asking me why I never watched it. I think I even sat down once to watch it on Remembrance Day, when it was on television, only to change my mind and do something else. Then, this past summer, Amanda wanted me to come over and watch it one week, but I was working full time and we were unable to find a time that worked for both of us. So, after my instructor, Melanie was kind enough to loan me her copy of the movie, I decided that enough was enough: I was going to watch it…today. So I did.

Was it worth the 12 year wait? I think it was. I’d heard about how amazing the first half hour was, and it really blew me away. I actually found it to be very difficult to watch. The brutality and dangers of war are accurately depicted in that sequence, and in every other sequence in the film. War is not fun. The blood and gore are all realistic looking, and as a squeamish person, I had to look away more than a few times. The movie was so realistic, that many former soldiers were traumatized upon seeing the movie, according to IMDB trivia.

The movie (as the title states) is about the rescue of Private James Ryan (Matt Damon). After his three brothers are killed in the war, he is ordered home, and Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) leads a team of men ordered to find him. The men on the team include a sniper (Barry Pepper), a medic (Giovanni Ribisi) and a young translator (Jeremy Davies), a naive man who has never seen combat. The cast is huge, however, and I recognized so many actors – many of whom only appear in bit parts. I’m not going to reveal all of them, so that anyone who hasn’t seen the movie will have the same little surprises I had.

I loved the chemistry between the actors. They really looked and felt like soldiers fighting in World War II. Tom Hanks is a huge star, and very recognizable, but he really got into the role. His role in this movie is very different from most of his that I’ve seen. He tends to play very friendly, warm characters, and in this movie he was very gruff and strict. He was amazing, though. I was impressed with all of the actors, but I also want to draw attention to Davies. He appeared on Lost and I enjoyed his work on the show, so I was already very familiar with him. He played a complex and very different character, and I really appreciated his performance. At first, he seems more like comic relief, but gradually we see that he’s simply a young man who is unfamiliar with warfare, and terribly naive about the horrors of it. He was a joy to watch.

At almost three hours in length, I’m not sure if this would be a movie I’d necessarily watch again, but it was a rewarding experience and I highly recommend it. And, yes, it absolutely deserved the Best Picture Oscar over Shakespeare in Love.