Movie Stats:
Released 1959 (USA)
American, in English (minor translated French)
Director - Michael Gordon
Stars - Doris Day, Rock Hudson, Tony Randall
Plot Summary:
When independent, career-oriented Jan Morrow (Day) shares a party line with womanizer Brad Allen (Hudson), hijinks and romance ensue. Randall co-stars as Jonathan Forbes, Brad’s best friend/Jan’s would-be husband.
Warnings:
Attempted sexual assault; minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
Look, this is a movie that hasn’t aged well. There’s a lot of stuff that’s cringe-inducing to a modern audience, such as the gross gender stereotyping, the misogyny, the homophobia, the blasé attitude toward sexual assault, and alcoholism played for laughs. I greatly dislike films where men misrepresent themselves in order to get what they want from women. I dislike it even more when the woman forgives the man the second marriage is on the table. So there’s a lot about this movie that’s annoying/offensive to me, and I think that many others would feel the same way.
Good Stuff:
If I ignore all of the above, it’s quite fun & funny.
I can’t stress enough how much I loved the costuming & set design. This film is gorgeous. It almost didn’t matter what happened during it; I could’ve looked at it forever.
There was an exchange between Brad & Jonathan that I appreciated, where Jonathan is insisting that Brad will want to settle down & marry one day and Brad keeps asking him to explain why. I liked that Brad kept pushing it, no matter what Jonathan said, trying to get to the heart of why we, as a society, insist upon marriage. I thought it was clever. I wish Jan had been allowed a similar conversation.
About the Performance:
This is the first film of Day’s I’ve seen all the way through. I thought she was great. Very charismatic. Her character was lot stronger, more independent, and much less man-crazy, than I was expecting. Day seems to have done a lot of romantic comedies, like almost exclusively. I’m not convinced that a person who only worked in one genre deserves a place on a “best actor” list, or at least not this high on that list, but I’m willing to be wrong about that. I’d like to see more of her films.
Other performances of Day’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
This film irritated pretty much every feminist bone in my body, and yet I enjoyed it anyway. There’s something very charming about it. I want to hate it but I don’t. Of course, you always have to give movies a little leeway for being of their time. So I’m giving it that leeway. Do I think it’s a cinematic masterpiece? No. But it’s fun, cute, and, ultimately, good-hearted.
I give it 3.25 stars.
Friday, October 27, 2017
Wednesday, October 25, 2017
Music Love: "Let's Groove" by Earth, Wind & Fire
There are few bands whose music fills me with as much joy as Earth, Wind & Fire. Their songs are simply just fun. They make me want to get up and dance. Actually, I usually start dancing in my seat when they come up on shuffle. I love how this song, after the opening chorus, commands you to do so:
Let this groove get you to move
It's alright (alright) alright
Let this groove set in your shoes
So stand up (alright) alright
They want you to have as much fun as they're having. And really, can you go wrong with a video like this? All the sparkles & rainbows & novel (at the time) music video tricks. When I was younger, I would've thought this was lame. Now I think two things: these people were probably on a lot of drugs & they were having a damn good time.
The older I get, the more I can appreciate having a damn good time.
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #40 - Jodie Foster: "Inside Man" (2006)
Movie Stats:
Released 2006 (Netherlands)
American, in English (minor, translated Albanian)
Director - Spike Lee
Stars - Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster
Plot Summary:
When a crew of thieves, led by Dalton Russell (Owen), takes over a bank, negotiator Keith Frazier (Washington) works to free the hostages. Foster co-stars as Madeleine White, the woman hired to protect the bank owner’s interests.
Warnings:
Heavy blue language, including racial slurs & rude gestures; violence; minor gore; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
I find the story really unsatisfying. There’s no true ending and no real explanation of why the thieves did what they did or how they got their information. I also feel that the Madeleine White storyline is superfluous. All she does is say that she does things.
Character development is poor for everyone but Keith Frazier. I thought it was particularly bad at developing the thieves. You never even learn most of their real names, let alone their motivations.
All the different storytelling methods are disorienting. First, it’s a straightforward, linear story. Suddenly, it jumps to future interviews with bank hostages. Then, there are flashbacks. I didn’t like it.
Good Stuff:
I enjoyed the underlying mystery (What are the thieves truly after?) and the chess-like game of strategy that unfolds between Dalton and Frazier.
The acting is pretty solid.
It’s got some humor. My favorite exchange is when (I can’t find the exact quote) Frazier makes a throwaway comment about getting a $5 hand job & Captain John Darius (a very understated Willem Dafoe) responds, “$5?” in an interested tone. That made me laugh out loud.
About the Performance:
I had a difficult time choosing a movie for Foster. I’ve already reviewed what are arguably her three biggest roles. I should have reviewed her performance in The Accused, one of her two Best Actress wins (The Silence of the Lambs is the other). After reading what it was about, however, I took a hard pass on it because it sounded like a film that would really piss me off.
Anyway, after looking thoroughly through her filmography and vetoing several films because they either didn’t interest me or I’ve seen & don’t like them, I decided on this one. It was the wrong choice. I had seen it before & remembered not being too thrilled about it. I liked it even less than I remembered. But that’s not the problem. Foster simply isn’t in this film much. Her character has little to do, to the point that I wondered why she was even in it.
That being said, I think she’s an amazing actress who definitely deserves a spot on this list.
Other performances of Foster’s I’ve reviewed: Contact; The Silence of the Lambs; Taxi Driver.
The Verdict:
Yeah, I don’t care for this film. I saw it in the theater when it came out. I recalled feeling “meh” about it but thought maybe a second viewing would give me more favorable feelings. It didn’t. I’m genuinely shocked to find it has such a high rating online. I think the story is a hot mess. The character development is so bad that I literally don’t care about anyone. Keith Frazier is a weirdly unlikable character. I can’t quite put my finger on why I don’t like him, but I found it difficult to rally behind him. I do think that it has a good mystery to it, and I like the tension it creates, but overall I don’t connect with it.
I give it 2.75 stars.
Released 2006 (Netherlands)
American, in English (minor, translated Albanian)
Director - Spike Lee
Stars - Denzel Washington, Clive Owen, Jodie Foster
Plot Summary:
When a crew of thieves, led by Dalton Russell (Owen), takes over a bank, negotiator Keith Frazier (Washington) works to free the hostages. Foster co-stars as Madeleine White, the woman hired to protect the bank owner’s interests.
Warnings:
Heavy blue language, including racial slurs & rude gestures; violence; minor gore; implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
I find the story really unsatisfying. There’s no true ending and no real explanation of why the thieves did what they did or how they got their information. I also feel that the Madeleine White storyline is superfluous. All she does is say that she does things.
Character development is poor for everyone but Keith Frazier. I thought it was particularly bad at developing the thieves. You never even learn most of their real names, let alone their motivations.
All the different storytelling methods are disorienting. First, it’s a straightforward, linear story. Suddenly, it jumps to future interviews with bank hostages. Then, there are flashbacks. I didn’t like it.
Good Stuff:
I enjoyed the underlying mystery (What are the thieves truly after?) and the chess-like game of strategy that unfolds between Dalton and Frazier.
The acting is pretty solid.
It’s got some humor. My favorite exchange is when (I can’t find the exact quote) Frazier makes a throwaway comment about getting a $5 hand job & Captain John Darius (a very understated Willem Dafoe) responds, “$5?” in an interested tone. That made me laugh out loud.
About the Performance:
I had a difficult time choosing a movie for Foster. I’ve already reviewed what are arguably her three biggest roles. I should have reviewed her performance in The Accused, one of her two Best Actress wins (The Silence of the Lambs is the other). After reading what it was about, however, I took a hard pass on it because it sounded like a film that would really piss me off.
Anyway, after looking thoroughly through her filmography and vetoing several films because they either didn’t interest me or I’ve seen & don’t like them, I decided on this one. It was the wrong choice. I had seen it before & remembered not being too thrilled about it. I liked it even less than I remembered. But that’s not the problem. Foster simply isn’t in this film much. Her character has little to do, to the point that I wondered why she was even in it.
That being said, I think she’s an amazing actress who definitely deserves a spot on this list.
Other performances of Foster’s I’ve reviewed: Contact; The Silence of the Lambs; Taxi Driver.
The Verdict:
Yeah, I don’t care for this film. I saw it in the theater when it came out. I recalled feeling “meh” about it but thought maybe a second viewing would give me more favorable feelings. It didn’t. I’m genuinely shocked to find it has such a high rating online. I think the story is a hot mess. The character development is so bad that I literally don’t care about anyone. Keith Frazier is a weirdly unlikable character. I can’t quite put my finger on why I don’t like him, but I found it difficult to rally behind him. I do think that it has a good mystery to it, and I like the tension it creates, but overall I don’t connect with it.
I give it 2.75 stars.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #41 - Ginger Rogers: "Kitty Foyle" (1940)
Movie Stats:
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Sam Wood
Stars - Ginger Rogers, Dennis Morgan, James Craig
Plot Summary:
Kitty Foyle (Rogers) is at a crossroads, trying to decide between two men: the love of her life, Wyn Strafford (Morgan), who can’t offer her marriage, and the man who wants to marry her, Mark Eisen (Craig).
Warnings:
None.
Bad Stuff:
The misogyny is both rampant and awful.
The storytelling isn’t great, and not just because of all the flashbacks. For example, it never explains how Kitty & Mark end up together after she initially tells him she can’t continue to see him.
[SPOILER-y]
I don’t really care for Kitty. She says she’s deeply in love with Wyn, but then she keeps deciding that they can’t be together because of their class differences without giving him a chance to prove that it can work. And the movie wants me to be against him because of this, but I’m like, “Give the guy a chance already.”
[SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
I felt that it more realistically portrays a “class difference” relationship in that he’s wealthy and she’s middle class, rather than going for the extreme of wealthy/abject poverty. Also, I was impressed to hear someone in a film from 1940 say that fairytales give women unrealistic expectations of relationships.
If I ignore the cringe-inducing “drunken Irishman” stereotyping, I really liked Kitty’s dad, Tom Foyle (Ernest Cossart). He’s a good father.
I appreciated how strong Kitty is.
About the Performance:
I never saw a single Rogers film before this. I’m so unfamiliar with her work that I honestly thought she only did musicals/dancing. Anyway, I’m glad to finally see one of her films. I can’t say that I was wowed by her acting skills, but I didn’t think she was bad either. I did find her compelling. I would like to see more of her work in order to get a better feel for her abilities.
Other performances of Rogers’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
It’s okay. The misogyny and stereotyping made me very uncomfortable. I know these things can be prominent in older films, but it seemed more prominent in this than other older movies I’ve seen recently. However, I did like that Kitty is a strong woman and I liked that it addresses lots of interesting issues, some of which rarely see the silver screen. Ultimately, I feel that it was pleasant enough to watch one time around, but that I’ll soon forget all about it.
I give it 3.25 stars.
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Sam Wood
Stars - Ginger Rogers, Dennis Morgan, James Craig
Plot Summary:
Kitty Foyle (Rogers) is at a crossroads, trying to decide between two men: the love of her life, Wyn Strafford (Morgan), who can’t offer her marriage, and the man who wants to marry her, Mark Eisen (Craig).
Warnings:
None.
Bad Stuff:
The misogyny is both rampant and awful.
The storytelling isn’t great, and not just because of all the flashbacks. For example, it never explains how Kitty & Mark end up together after she initially tells him she can’t continue to see him.
[SPOILER-y]
I don’t really care for Kitty. She says she’s deeply in love with Wyn, but then she keeps deciding that they can’t be together because of their class differences without giving him a chance to prove that it can work. And the movie wants me to be against him because of this, but I’m like, “Give the guy a chance already.”
[SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
I felt that it more realistically portrays a “class difference” relationship in that he’s wealthy and she’s middle class, rather than going for the extreme of wealthy/abject poverty. Also, I was impressed to hear someone in a film from 1940 say that fairytales give women unrealistic expectations of relationships.
If I ignore the cringe-inducing “drunken Irishman” stereotyping, I really liked Kitty’s dad, Tom Foyle (Ernest Cossart). He’s a good father.
I appreciated how strong Kitty is.
About the Performance:
I never saw a single Rogers film before this. I’m so unfamiliar with her work that I honestly thought she only did musicals/dancing. Anyway, I’m glad to finally see one of her films. I can’t say that I was wowed by her acting skills, but I didn’t think she was bad either. I did find her compelling. I would like to see more of her work in order to get a better feel for her abilities.
Other performances of Rogers’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
It’s okay. The misogyny and stereotyping made me very uncomfortable. I know these things can be prominent in older films, but it seemed more prominent in this than other older movies I’ve seen recently. However, I did like that Kitty is a strong woman and I liked that it addresses lots of interesting issues, some of which rarely see the silver screen. Ultimately, I feel that it was pleasant enough to watch one time around, but that I’ll soon forget all about it.
I give it 3.25 stars.
Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Woodland Enchantress Cross Stitch, Progress Report 6
Time for the quarterly update on my cross stitch project!
Here's a reminder of what it will look like when I'm done:
Here's what it looked like during my last update in July 2017:
And here's what it looks like now:
This represents 23.75 hours of work spread out over 11 days, my most ever! I discovered, once I got to know the ropes better, that I could take my cross stitch into work when I had day shifts and get in a handful of good hours on it. Now, those hours are somewhat approximate because I do get interrupted often with phone calls. But I did the best I could with keeping track.
As you'll notice, on the left hand side & lower corner, I've reached the edge. That means I'm getting close to done with this quadrant of the pattern! I've been feeling pretty good about how much work I got done this quarter. Then I remember I've been working on it for over a year & still haven't finished even one section. Still a long ways to go!
Here's a reminder of what it will look like when I'm done:
Here's what it looked like during my last update in July 2017:
And here's what it looks like now:
This represents 23.75 hours of work spread out over 11 days, my most ever! I discovered, once I got to know the ropes better, that I could take my cross stitch into work when I had day shifts and get in a handful of good hours on it. Now, those hours are somewhat approximate because I do get interrupted often with phone calls. But I did the best I could with keeping track.
As you'll notice, on the left hand side & lower corner, I've reached the edge. That means I'm getting close to done with this quadrant of the pattern! I've been feeling pretty good about how much work I got done this quarter. Then I remember I've been working on it for over a year & still haven't finished even one section. Still a long ways to go!
Monday, October 16, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #42 - Ava Gardner: "The Killers" (1946)
Movie Stats:
Released 1946 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Richard Siodmak
Stars - Edmond O’Brien, Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner
Plot Summary:
After small town gas station attendant Ole “Swede” Anderson (Lancaster) is murdered by a pair of hired killers, insurance investigator Jim Reardon (O’Brien) is hired to determine if his policy should be paid out. In the process, he discovers that Anderson’s history is inextricably entwined with that of femme fatale Kitty Collins (Gardner).
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
I didn’t much care for the format, telling the key part of the story through flashbacks.
Do insurance investigators really get all up in people’s business like that? Basically acting like police officers? I doubt they do now or ever did. It was a bit of poetic license for which I couldn’t suspend my disbelief.
I hated the characters of “the killers.” They were so weirdly aggressive and condescending, especially for a pair of hired thugs. Fortunately, their time in the film is brief.
Good Stuff:
I’m typically not impressed with the acting in film noir (I feel that good acting isn’t the focus of this genre; it’s more about the story) but I thought a lot of it was very good here, especially from secondary characters.
I liked the story. It’s a good mystery, intricate without being confusing and with a satisfying amount of twists & turns. Of course, the original author is Hemingway, so no surprise about that really.
I liked the score. It’s quintessential film noir.
About the Performance:
I don’t think I picked the right film for Gardner. She wasn’t in this a whole lot. I largely felt lukewarm about her, mostly because I didn’t see enough of her. It wasn’t until the final scene that I felt like I got a good look at her acting chops, and then I really liked what I saw. If I ever forget the intricacies of this film, what I’ll remember are her final words and the way she said them. So I think that says something about her abilities. I’d like to see more of her work.
Other performances of Gardner’s I’ve reviewed: On the Beach.
The Verdict:
I’m not always big on film noir. Oftentimes, I feel that these films try too hard to be mysterious or that they have too many plot twists, so it turns into an endless parade of “dun dun DUN!!!” moments, to the detriment of the story. But this is a pretty good entry to the genre. It’s a satisfying mystery. There are a reasonable amount of plot twists. I never felt confused. Plus, it has a lot of interesting characters, most of whom are secondary. Maybe it wasn’t the best film for showcasing Gardner’s talents, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1946 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Richard Siodmak
Stars - Edmond O’Brien, Burt Lancaster, Ava Gardner
Plot Summary:
After small town gas station attendant Ole “Swede” Anderson (Lancaster) is murdered by a pair of hired killers, insurance investigator Jim Reardon (O’Brien) is hired to determine if his policy should be paid out. In the process, he discovers that Anderson’s history is inextricably entwined with that of femme fatale Kitty Collins (Gardner).
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
I didn’t much care for the format, telling the key part of the story through flashbacks.
Do insurance investigators really get all up in people’s business like that? Basically acting like police officers? I doubt they do now or ever did. It was a bit of poetic license for which I couldn’t suspend my disbelief.
I hated the characters of “the killers.” They were so weirdly aggressive and condescending, especially for a pair of hired thugs. Fortunately, their time in the film is brief.
Good Stuff:
I’m typically not impressed with the acting in film noir (I feel that good acting isn’t the focus of this genre; it’s more about the story) but I thought a lot of it was very good here, especially from secondary characters.
I liked the story. It’s a good mystery, intricate without being confusing and with a satisfying amount of twists & turns. Of course, the original author is Hemingway, so no surprise about that really.
I liked the score. It’s quintessential film noir.
About the Performance:
I don’t think I picked the right film for Gardner. She wasn’t in this a whole lot. I largely felt lukewarm about her, mostly because I didn’t see enough of her. It wasn’t until the final scene that I felt like I got a good look at her acting chops, and then I really liked what I saw. If I ever forget the intricacies of this film, what I’ll remember are her final words and the way she said them. So I think that says something about her abilities. I’d like to see more of her work.
Other performances of Gardner’s I’ve reviewed: On the Beach.
The Verdict:
I’m not always big on film noir. Oftentimes, I feel that these films try too hard to be mysterious or that they have too many plot twists, so it turns into an endless parade of “dun dun DUN!!!” moments, to the detriment of the story. But this is a pretty good entry to the genre. It’s a satisfying mystery. There are a reasonable amount of plot twists. I never felt confused. Plus, it has a lot of interesting characters, most of whom are secondary. Maybe it wasn’t the best film for showcasing Gardner’s talents, but I enjoyed it nonetheless.
I give it 4 stars.
Friday, October 13, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #43 - Grace Kelly: "The Country Girl" (1954)
Movie Stats:
Released 1954 (USA)
American, in English
Director - George Seaton
Stars - Bing Crosby, Grace Kelly, William Holden
Plot Summary:
Director Bernie Dodd (Holden) hires alcoholic, over-the-hill actor Frank Elgin (Crosby) as the lead in his latest play, but quickly clashes with Frank’s wife, Georgie (Kelly), whom he believes is the source of Frank’s problems.
Warnings:
None.
Bad Stuff:
[SPOILER]
I really hate that the story went with the old “I now realize I was a total dick to you because I was secretly in love with you all along” trope between Bernie and Georgie. Barf.
[SPOILER]
I didn’t find the final conversation between Bernie, Frank, and Georgie even remotely believable.
I could’ve done without the casual misogyny and homophobia. (Don’t take my son to the hair salon with you, he’ll turn gay, hardy-har-har!)
Good Stuff:
The acting is out of this world. All three leads are fantastic. Holden made me hate Bernie for being such a self-righteous prick. Crosby made me fume at what a manipulative liar Frank is. And Kelly made me feel very, very sorry for Georgie.
I applaud it for being such an unflinching look at addiction & how poisonous it is to everyone who comes in contact with it.
I love the music/soundtrack. I was pleased that Crosby did so much singing. Partway through, my husband wandered in and opined, “You know, he was a good actor, they didn’t need to make him sing in every movie” and I was like, “Shut your mouth! I want to hear the man sing!”
About the Performance:
I like Grace Kelly. I was a little worried about the fact that she was supposed to be “plain” in this. Kelly was a very beautiful woman. I didn’t think they could truly dim her light, but the make-up and costuming departments got it right. It wasn’t about making her look “ugly,” it was about making her look like a beautiful woman who’s been beaten down by life. They achieved that. I expected good things from her in this. I wasn’t disappointed. In fact, she exceeded my expectations. I thought she was magnetic.
Side note: Why were her male co-stars always so much older than her? In Rear Window, James Stewart was 21 years her senior. In this, Bing Crosby was 23 years older. And in High Noon, Gary Cooper was 28 years her senior. I checked a couple of her other films and this seems to have just been a trend in casting with her. Kind of weird.
Other performances of Kelly’s I’ve reviewed: Rear Window; High Noon.
The Verdict:
I liked this film a lot. It makes you uncomfortable in the best kind of way. For a large portion of the film, I seethed with hatred for both Bernie and Frank. Some of the vitriol that spews out of Bernie’s mouth will make you want to tear your hair out. It all serves a purpose, though. Bernie doesn’t quite get the comeuppance he so rightly deserves, but the unpleasantness gives way to an ending that’s satisfactory and makes sense. I really admired the film for tackling such a difficult subject in such a straightforward manner and for the excellent acting it showcased.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1954 (USA)
American, in English
Director - George Seaton
Stars - Bing Crosby, Grace Kelly, William Holden
Plot Summary:
Director Bernie Dodd (Holden) hires alcoholic, over-the-hill actor Frank Elgin (Crosby) as the lead in his latest play, but quickly clashes with Frank’s wife, Georgie (Kelly), whom he believes is the source of Frank’s problems.
Warnings:
None.
Bad Stuff:
[SPOILER]
I really hate that the story went with the old “I now realize I was a total dick to you because I was secretly in love with you all along” trope between Bernie and Georgie. Barf.
[SPOILER]
I didn’t find the final conversation between Bernie, Frank, and Georgie even remotely believable.
I could’ve done without the casual misogyny and homophobia. (Don’t take my son to the hair salon with you, he’ll turn gay, hardy-har-har!)
Good Stuff:
The acting is out of this world. All three leads are fantastic. Holden made me hate Bernie for being such a self-righteous prick. Crosby made me fume at what a manipulative liar Frank is. And Kelly made me feel very, very sorry for Georgie.
I applaud it for being such an unflinching look at addiction & how poisonous it is to everyone who comes in contact with it.
I love the music/soundtrack. I was pleased that Crosby did so much singing. Partway through, my husband wandered in and opined, “You know, he was a good actor, they didn’t need to make him sing in every movie” and I was like, “Shut your mouth! I want to hear the man sing!”
About the Performance:
I like Grace Kelly. I was a little worried about the fact that she was supposed to be “plain” in this. Kelly was a very beautiful woman. I didn’t think they could truly dim her light, but the make-up and costuming departments got it right. It wasn’t about making her look “ugly,” it was about making her look like a beautiful woman who’s been beaten down by life. They achieved that. I expected good things from her in this. I wasn’t disappointed. In fact, she exceeded my expectations. I thought she was magnetic.
Side note: Why were her male co-stars always so much older than her? In Rear Window, James Stewart was 21 years her senior. In this, Bing Crosby was 23 years older. And in High Noon, Gary Cooper was 28 years her senior. I checked a couple of her other films and this seems to have just been a trend in casting with her. Kind of weird.
Other performances of Kelly’s I’ve reviewed: Rear Window; High Noon.
The Verdict:
I liked this film a lot. It makes you uncomfortable in the best kind of way. For a large portion of the film, I seethed with hatred for both Bernie and Frank. Some of the vitriol that spews out of Bernie’s mouth will make you want to tear your hair out. It all serves a purpose, though. Bernie doesn’t quite get the comeuppance he so rightly deserves, but the unpleasantness gives way to an ending that’s satisfactory and makes sense. I really admired the film for tackling such a difficult subject in such a straightforward manner and for the excellent acting it showcased.
I give it 4 stars.
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Up with Geography: Dominican Republic
Country Name:
Dominican Republic
Capital:
Santo Domingo
Continent:
None - it's an island; closest continent is South America.
Maps:
Neighbors:
It shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti; Puerto Rico, which is a U.S. Territory, is to the east.
Water Borders:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea
Total Area:
18,704 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Santo Domingo, Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo Oeste, San Pedro de Macoris, La Romana
Famous Geographical Point:
Cordillera Central (“Central Mountain Range”)
Famous Person:
Jose Gabriel García, writer, publisher, politician & co-founder of the Dominican Republic's first cultural society
Book Set In/About:
In the Time of the Butterflies by Julia Alvarez
A fictionalized account of four sisters who were some of the leading opponents of General Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic's brutal dictator from the 1930s to the 1960s.
Movie Set In/About:
"La Lucha de Ana (Anna's Struggle)" (2012), directed by Bladimir Abud
When Anna's son is murdered, the humble flower seller fights against the system to get justice.
Headline of the Day:
"Dominican Republic Deports Thousands of Haitians in September" on telesurtv.net.
Dominican Republic
Capital:
Santo Domingo
Continent:
None - it's an island; closest continent is South America.
Maps:
 |
| Island of Hispaniola, featuring both Haiti & Dominican Republic. |
 |
| A close-up of Dominican Republic & its neighbor. |
Neighbors:
It shares the island of Hispaniola with Haiti; Puerto Rico, which is a U.S. Territory, is to the east.
Water Borders:
Atlantic Ocean, Caribbean Sea
Total Area:
18,704 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Santo Domingo, Santiago de los Caballeros, Santo Domingo Oeste, San Pedro de Macoris, La Romana
Famous Geographical Point:
Cordillera Central (“Central Mountain Range”)
Famous Person:
Jose Gabriel García, writer, publisher, politician & co-founder of the Dominican Republic's first cultural society
Book Set In/About:
In the Time of the Butterflies by Julia Alvarez
A fictionalized account of four sisters who were some of the leading opponents of General Rafael Trujillo, Dominican Republic's brutal dictator from the 1930s to the 1960s.
Movie Set In/About:
"La Lucha de Ana (Anna's Struggle)" (2012), directed by Bladimir Abud
When Anna's son is murdered, the humble flower seller fights against the system to get justice.
Headline of the Day:
"Dominican Republic Deports Thousands of Haitians in September" on telesurtv.net.
Monday, October 9, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #44 - Marilyn Monroe: "The Misfits" (1961)
Movie Stats:
Released 1961 (USA)
American, in English
Director - John Huston
Stars - Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Eli Wallach, Montgomery Clift
Plot Summary:
After getting a divorce, beautiful but troubled Roslyn Taber (Monroe) falls in with aging cowboy Gay Langland (Gable) and his friends Guido (Wallach) & Perce Howland (Clift).
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
There’s something about the relationship between Roslyn and Gay that’s just kind of icky to me, and it’s not the age difference. I feel like he takes advantage of her (not sexually) when she’s emotionally vulnerable. It makes it difficult to root for them as a couple.
It’s not exactly thrilling.
Petty complaint: Roslyn is living in an unfinished house without electricity in the middle of the desert and yet her eye make-up is perfect at all times. Super distracting.
Good Stuff:
I absolutely loved Thelma Ritter (as Roslyn’s friend Isabelle Steers). I wish she was in the movie more.
I rather enjoyed that all of the main characters are really messed up people. It was refreshing. It wasn’t about one person’s issues, it was about how everyone comes with their own baggage, no matter how they appear on the surface.
The cinematography is breathtaking.
About the Performance:
I’m not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I think she was beautiful, but I’ve always felt that she was one-note and I absolutely loathe her wide-eyed innocent act & breathy little girl voice. I certainly wouldn’t put her on my own Top 50 list. However, I do think what she presented here was more nuanced than her usual performances. She definitely grew in my estimation. I thought she did a great job, even though I didn’t always understand her character’s motivations.
Other performances of Monroe’s I’ve reviewed: Some Like It Hot; All About Eve.
The Verdict:
I think there’s a lot that’s good in this film. It’s beautiful to look at, and the acting is excellent from everyone. I liked that, on the surface, it’s a western, but that underneath there’s a lot more to it. It’s an interesting exploration of how each of us has our own demons that we deal with (or not). Its biggest failing is in character development. Most of the time, I simply didn’t understand why any of them was doing anything that they did. Also, I found it a bit on the boring side. Overall, I thought it was just okay.
I give it 3 stars.
Released 1961 (USA)
American, in English
Director - John Huston
Stars - Marilyn Monroe, Clark Gable, Eli Wallach, Montgomery Clift
Plot Summary:
After getting a divorce, beautiful but troubled Roslyn Taber (Monroe) falls in with aging cowboy Gay Langland (Gable) and his friends Guido (Wallach) & Perce Howland (Clift).
Warnings:
Violence; minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
There’s something about the relationship between Roslyn and Gay that’s just kind of icky to me, and it’s not the age difference. I feel like he takes advantage of her (not sexually) when she’s emotionally vulnerable. It makes it difficult to root for them as a couple.
It’s not exactly thrilling.
Petty complaint: Roslyn is living in an unfinished house without electricity in the middle of the desert and yet her eye make-up is perfect at all times. Super distracting.
Good Stuff:
I absolutely loved Thelma Ritter (as Roslyn’s friend Isabelle Steers). I wish she was in the movie more.
I rather enjoyed that all of the main characters are really messed up people. It was refreshing. It wasn’t about one person’s issues, it was about how everyone comes with their own baggage, no matter how they appear on the surface.
The cinematography is breathtaking.
About the Performance:
I’m not a big fan of Marilyn Monroe as an actress. I think she was beautiful, but I’ve always felt that she was one-note and I absolutely loathe her wide-eyed innocent act & breathy little girl voice. I certainly wouldn’t put her on my own Top 50 list. However, I do think what she presented here was more nuanced than her usual performances. She definitely grew in my estimation. I thought she did a great job, even though I didn’t always understand her character’s motivations.
Other performances of Monroe’s I’ve reviewed: Some Like It Hot; All About Eve.
The Verdict:
I think there’s a lot that’s good in this film. It’s beautiful to look at, and the acting is excellent from everyone. I liked that, on the surface, it’s a western, but that underneath there’s a lot more to it. It’s an interesting exploration of how each of us has our own demons that we deal with (or not). Its biggest failing is in character development. Most of the time, I simply didn’t understand why any of them was doing anything that they did. Also, I found it a bit on the boring side. Overall, I thought it was just okay.
I give it 3 stars.
Friday, October 6, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #45 - Sally Field: "Norma Rae" (1979)
Movie Stats:
Released 1979 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Martin Ritt
Stars - Sally Field, Ron Leibman, Beau Bridges
Plot Summary:
Based on a true story. When labor organizer Reuben (Leibman) shows up to unionize the textile factory in which Norma Rae (Field) works, she eventually decides to take up the cause. Bridges co-stars as Sonny, Norma Rae’s love interest.
Warnings:
Minor blue language; minor violence; very minor gore; heavily implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
Boring.
It takes too long to get going. You know that Norma Rae is going to get involved in unionizing but the film is practically halfway over before that happens.
I know it was part of the point, but I hated the numerous scenes in the factory where I had to listen to characters shout at each other over the noise of the machines.
Good Stuff:
I really liked the character of Sonny. He was interesting and complex and this may sound strange, but I enjoyed his speech pattern.
[SPOILER-y]
I’m glad that the relationship between Norma Rae and Sonny didn’t “go there,” even though they had chemistry. It’s always good to see a male-female friendship and it’s nice when movies avoid falling into cliches.
[SPOILER]
Another strong female role where the romantic relationship is secondary! I approve.
About the Performance:
Sally Field was very good, very believable. I liked that her character was tough, so used to men telling her what she should or shouldn’t do as a woman that she did whatever she wanted without giving their opinions a second thought. At the same time, you could see the cracks in her facade when she faced situations with which she was unfamiliar. Field portrayed that quite well. I think her Oscar win was deserved.
Other performances of Field’s I’ve reviewed: Forrest Gump.
The Verdict:
Mostly, I thought it was dull. It does a good job of showing the situation at the factory, explaining both why many would want to organize and also why they would be afraid to. It’s also good at showcasing the nasty tactics that some employers go to in order to prevent unionizing. Additionally, it did well at portraying the low-key sexism that many women face on an all-too-frequent basis. I enjoyed the characters of Norma Rae and Sonny and their interactions with each other. But I was bored. There’s something about the way they filmed movies in the 1970s that just doesn’t connect with me. I think it’s a pacing issue. They’re often so slow in the beginning that by time they get to the point, I’m already checked out.
I give it 3 stars.
Released 1979 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Martin Ritt
Stars - Sally Field, Ron Leibman, Beau Bridges
Plot Summary:
Based on a true story. When labor organizer Reuben (Leibman) shows up to unionize the textile factory in which Norma Rae (Field) works, she eventually decides to take up the cause. Bridges co-stars as Sonny, Norma Rae’s love interest.
Warnings:
Minor blue language; minor violence; very minor gore; heavily implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
Boring.
It takes too long to get going. You know that Norma Rae is going to get involved in unionizing but the film is practically halfway over before that happens.
I know it was part of the point, but I hated the numerous scenes in the factory where I had to listen to characters shout at each other over the noise of the machines.
Good Stuff:
I really liked the character of Sonny. He was interesting and complex and this may sound strange, but I enjoyed his speech pattern.
[SPOILER-y]
I’m glad that the relationship between Norma Rae and Sonny didn’t “go there,” even though they had chemistry. It’s always good to see a male-female friendship and it’s nice when movies avoid falling into cliches.
[SPOILER]
Another strong female role where the romantic relationship is secondary! I approve.
About the Performance:
Sally Field was very good, very believable. I liked that her character was tough, so used to men telling her what she should or shouldn’t do as a woman that she did whatever she wanted without giving their opinions a second thought. At the same time, you could see the cracks in her facade when she faced situations with which she was unfamiliar. Field portrayed that quite well. I think her Oscar win was deserved.
Other performances of Field’s I’ve reviewed: Forrest Gump.
The Verdict:
Mostly, I thought it was dull. It does a good job of showing the situation at the factory, explaining both why many would want to organize and also why they would be afraid to. It’s also good at showcasing the nasty tactics that some employers go to in order to prevent unionizing. Additionally, it did well at portraying the low-key sexism that many women face on an all-too-frequent basis. I enjoyed the characters of Norma Rae and Sonny and their interactions with each other. But I was bored. There’s something about the way they filmed movies in the 1970s that just doesn’t connect with me. I think it’s a pacing issue. They’re often so slow in the beginning that by time they get to the point, I’m already checked out.
I give it 3 stars.
Wednesday, October 4, 2017
Up with U.S. Geography: Missouri
State Name:
Missouri
Capital:
Jefferson City
Date of Entry:
August 10, 1821
Maps:
Neighbors:
Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska
Water Borders:
Missouri River, Mississippi River
Total Area:
69,704 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, Independence, Columbia
Famous Geographical Point:
Lake of the Ozarks
State Nickname:
The Show-Me State. While the origin isn't entirely clear, it's typically attributed to a speech by Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, a speech intended to indicate that Missourians are neither naive nor gullible.
Famous Person:
T.S. Eliot, poet (one of my personal favorites)
Book Set In/About:
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
This novel of a young boy growing up on the Mississippi River is set in a fictional town based on Twain's own childhood home of Hannibal, MO.
Move Set In/About:
"Winter's Bone" (2010), directed by Debra Granik
Set in the Ozarks, a teenaged girl goes on a dangerous mission to find her missing father in an attempt to save herself and her younger siblings from eviction.
Headline of the Day:
"Hyperloop One Route Proposed for Missouri Cities" on nbcnews.com.
Missouri
Capital:
Jefferson City
Date of Entry:
August 10, 1821
Maps:
 |
| Map of USA. Missouri outlined in dark ink & with name written on it. |
 |
| A close-up of Missouri & its neighbors. |
Neighbors:
Iowa, Illinois, Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska
Water Borders:
Missouri River, Mississippi River
Total Area:
69,704 square miles
Five Largest Cities:
Kansas City, St. Louis, Springfield, Independence, Columbia
Famous Geographical Point:
Lake of the Ozarks
State Nickname:
The Show-Me State. While the origin isn't entirely clear, it's typically attributed to a speech by Congressman Willard Duncan Vandiver, a speech intended to indicate that Missourians are neither naive nor gullible.
Famous Person:
T.S. Eliot, poet (one of my personal favorites)
Book Set In/About:
The Adventures of Tom Sawyer by Mark Twain
This novel of a young boy growing up on the Mississippi River is set in a fictional town based on Twain's own childhood home of Hannibal, MO.
Move Set In/About:
"Winter's Bone" (2010), directed by Debra Granik
Set in the Ozarks, a teenaged girl goes on a dangerous mission to find her missing father in an attempt to save herself and her younger siblings from eviction.
Headline of the Day:
"Hyperloop One Route Proposed for Missouri Cities" on nbcnews.com.
Monday, October 2, 2017
Top 50 Actresses, #46 - Reese Witherspoon: "Legally Blonde" (2001)
Movie Stats:
Released 2001 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Luketic
Stars - Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Coolidge, Victor Garber, Luke Wilson
Plot Summary:
When Elle Woods (Witherspoon) is dumped by her boyfriend at the exact moment she expects a proposal, she follows him to Harvard Law to win him back. Coolidge co-stars as Elle’s manicurist BFF Paulette; Garber as Callahan, the professor who gives Elle a shot on a murder case; and Wilson as Emmett, Callahan’s associate/Elle’s new love interest.
Warnings:
Mild blue language; very minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s improbable in every way imaginable.
The stereotyping, especially of gay people, is seriously cringe inducing.
Some of the dialogue leaves much to be desired.
Good Stuff:
I love the message. On the surface, it seems like a cliche romance film. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover that in reality it’s about being kind to people and believing in one’s self.
It’s got a great heart.
It’s fun and funny.
About the Performance:
So, I originally planned to review Witherspoon’s performance in “Walk the Line,” which she won an Oscar for. While I do like that film, I wasn’t in the mood for it. I’ve always felt that that film is more about Johnny Cash, and Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of him, than it is about June Carter, and Witherspoon’s portrayal of her. I wasn’t a fan of her win, not because she wasn’t good, but because I thought it was more of a supporting role. Ultimately, I chose to switch films.
Do I think Witherspoon is amazing in it? Not exactly. I do think she has great comedic timing. Also, she imbues Elle with a lot of likability. Her bubbly, excessively cheerful character could be annoying. Instead, she’s endearing. That’s not easy to pull off. I do think she’s a good actress. I probably could’ve picked a better film to showcase that, but sometimes you just want to watch something fun.
Other performances of Witherspoon’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
Listen, this is a very silly film. Practically nothing that happens in it could ever happen in real life. But this isn’t the kind of film that you watch expecting realism, Oscar-winning performances, or great storytelling. This is the kind of film you watch to be entertained and to make you feel good. I’ve always loved it for its message. Elle thinks that she needs a man to make her happy. What she discovers is strength and happiness inside of herself. I also love that she starts out the film as a confident person. This isn’t some sad sack character that learns to love herself. What she learns is to love different things about herself. Maybe that’s a bit after school special-ish, but I think it’s sweet. We could all stand to get to know, and love, the different facets of ourselves. It may be silly but it’s also fun as all get out.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 2001 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Robert Luketic
Stars - Reese Witherspoon, Jennifer Coolidge, Victor Garber, Luke Wilson
Plot Summary:
When Elle Woods (Witherspoon) is dumped by her boyfriend at the exact moment she expects a proposal, she follows him to Harvard Law to win him back. Coolidge co-stars as Elle’s manicurist BFF Paulette; Garber as Callahan, the professor who gives Elle a shot on a murder case; and Wilson as Emmett, Callahan’s associate/Elle’s new love interest.
Warnings:
Mild blue language; very minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s improbable in every way imaginable.
The stereotyping, especially of gay people, is seriously cringe inducing.
Some of the dialogue leaves much to be desired.
Good Stuff:
I love the message. On the surface, it seems like a cliche romance film. You don’t have to dig very deep to discover that in reality it’s about being kind to people and believing in one’s self.
It’s got a great heart.
It’s fun and funny.
About the Performance:
So, I originally planned to review Witherspoon’s performance in “Walk the Line,” which she won an Oscar for. While I do like that film, I wasn’t in the mood for it. I’ve always felt that that film is more about Johnny Cash, and Joaquin Phoenix’s portrayal of him, than it is about June Carter, and Witherspoon’s portrayal of her. I wasn’t a fan of her win, not because she wasn’t good, but because I thought it was more of a supporting role. Ultimately, I chose to switch films.
Do I think Witherspoon is amazing in it? Not exactly. I do think she has great comedic timing. Also, she imbues Elle with a lot of likability. Her bubbly, excessively cheerful character could be annoying. Instead, she’s endearing. That’s not easy to pull off. I do think she’s a good actress. I probably could’ve picked a better film to showcase that, but sometimes you just want to watch something fun.
Other performances of Witherspoon’s I’ve reviewed: none.
The Verdict:
Listen, this is a very silly film. Practically nothing that happens in it could ever happen in real life. But this isn’t the kind of film that you watch expecting realism, Oscar-winning performances, or great storytelling. This is the kind of film you watch to be entertained and to make you feel good. I’ve always loved it for its message. Elle thinks that she needs a man to make her happy. What she discovers is strength and happiness inside of herself. I also love that she starts out the film as a confident person. This isn’t some sad sack character that learns to love herself. What she learns is to love different things about herself. Maybe that’s a bit after school special-ish, but I think it’s sweet. We could all stand to get to know, and love, the different facets of ourselves. It may be silly but it’s also fun as all get out.
I give it 4 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)