No Country For Old Men (Updated Review)

No Country For Old Men was the very first winner I watched when starting this project in October of 2011, 2 and a half years ago. I felt I gave it an unfair review and have watched since then. My initial review complained that the DVD box had claimed this was to be an action packed thriller. I'd like to clarify that I am remembering this wrongly and that it mentioned psychological thriller. So many of my comments and indeed my attitude going into was affected by this. So I felt a second watch (and sometime soon, a third) was needed.

This Coen's Brothers film is incredibly tense and masterfully filmed. The action is fantastic and is filled with moments to keep you on the edge of your seat. However, it's not a typical thriller. This one is very contemplative and intuitive. There's a lot of symbolism going on here. The balance between action and calmer moments is almost perfect. However, my only complaint about the film is that we have a very sudden change with about 10 minutes left. It's abrupt and doesn't seem to fit the rest of the film. It feels almost like a false ending, a trick, but never turns out to be.

However, as anyone will tell you, the acting is pitch perfect in this film. Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and especially Javier Bardem. Bardem is beyond incredible in this film and his win is extremely deserving. Did he really even have much competition that year?

Either way, this is a solid film, though it definitely isn't a film for everyone. It's a little slow moving, but is never boring. However, slow movies aren't exactly the fair for the general audience these days, it seems, between all the superhero films.

Anyway, I just thought I'd give a quick update of status and ranking, and give some updated comments to better reflect how I now feel about this film (my comments 2.5 years ago were a little unfair.) I still stand that the cinematography was gorgeous, the acting impressive, the directing good, but wanted to update my personal thoughts on it.

Acting- 9.5/10 

Directing- 8.5/10 
Screenplay- 8/10 

Visuals- 9/10 

Music- 7.5/10 

Emotional Connection- 7/10 

Entertainment- 8/10 

Rewatchability- 7/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 8/10 

Overall Package- 8.5/10       

Total: 81/100

Platoon

Platoon, 1986
Directed by Oliver Stone
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 4

In case you were wondering, this is my 85th Best Picture review! Aka, I only have one more to watch after this! How exciting is that? Anyway, I'm not exactly sure why Platoon got left this long. It just got lost in the shuffle of war films that have won and I've tried to space them out as best I can. However, here we go with my 2nd last BP review!

Chris Taylor has given up college and volunteered to fight in Vietnam. However, upon arrival, war isn't quite what he expected it to be. He's pretty much non-essential and inexperienced, meaning the others within his platoon tend to look down on him because he doesn't know how things work and hasn't felt the effects of the war like they have. Two of Chris's non-commissioned officers take opposite sides against each other after an illegal killing in a village raid. The men within the platoon seem to take sides and soon they are almost all-out fighting each other and Chris finds himself struggling against what's right and what's wrong and for his own survival.

Platoon reminded me of The Hurt Locker in several ways. The layout of the film is quite similar. We have a new officer who doesn't quite fit in with the pre-existing platoon, and it's just about experiences that happen to them and the psychosis behind it. Both are very much about the psychology of the soldiers in the war.

I didn't really feel one way or the other about Platoon. Oliver Stone himself is a vet from Vietnam and used a lot of personal experiences to make the film. The film did feel authentic and I did enjoy the anti-war message. It was quite stronger (stronger than The Hurt Locker had). It's strengths lied in it's realness behind the people. No one ever really felt fake, and while maybe some of the characters had been exaggerated a little bit for film, they still felt like the kind of people you would find in the army.

However, while I know this was realistic (most likely), it got very tiring watching a film about misogynistic and macho manly men in the army. A lot of weed smoking, beer drinking, chest pounding, sex jokes, and the like. The film made a point of showing that it was often the "bottom of society" who ended up in the war, and I suppose this type of personality would fit the stereotype, but it got very tiring to watch. I know Stone made a point of showing the flip side, that when it came down to it, it was a bit of a mask or a shield and in the end they were all broken. But it was still quite tiring to hear their jokes and watch them think so highly of themselves. I understand the point, but it was still not overly enjoyable.

The film did have very strong messages. And they were only shoved in your face a little bit, as opposed to a lot, which I did appreciate. The voice-over narrative given by Charlie Sheen that are posed as letters to his grandmothers are a little hokey, but do provide insight to the film that it doesn't visually show, or if it does, it doesn't really explain. And while again, we aren't seeing the side of the war from any Vietnamese people, I was happy that characters did try to cry out that "they're people too!" I know I've mentioned I know virtually nothing about the Vietnam war (though this film was a tweak more informative than the Deer Hunter, but that's not saying much really). However, the war to me seems very frustrating and stands for everything I hate about war (yep, I'm a pacifist). But I felt we had a good balance of characters. We had the bad kinds, who did illegal killings and beat up random Vietnamese people with no good reason, and we had the other characters who tried to put a stop to it. The characters trying to put a stop to it never felt overly preachy or do-good, they were balanced out by their misogyny. The head to head of Tom Berenger (as Sgt. Barnes) and Willem Dafoe (as Sgt. Elias Grodin), the bad vs good, is where the film did some great work. Dafoe was a kinder and more cooperative NCO, but still tough and someone to listen to. Berenger, on the other hand, was ill-tempered and intolerant. Both were fantastic in their portrayals, especially Dafoe, who was quite tragic in the end.

I know this review is rather rambling, but I'm just not sure what I made of it. I did enjoy what it had to say, but it was so heavy-handed and kept most of it's characters at a distance that it was sort of hard to really connect with them. Conversely, the Hurt Locker got us into the main 3 characters heads quite indepthly which was one of the strengths of that film, and also would've work wonders here. However, this was not the case. I think being held at a bit of a distance from the characters I'm supposed to care about and I'm watching so much about is minorly frustrating. Platoon was on the verge of being really great, but I felt it was also just a few steps back from that point.

Acting- 8.5/10 

Directing- 8.5/10 
Screenplay- 7.5/10 

Visuals- 8.5/10 

Music- 7.5/10 

Emotional Connection- 7/10 

Entertainment- 7.5/10 

Rewatchability- 7/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 7.5/10 

Overall Package- 8/10       

Total: 77.5/100

The Silence of the Lambs

The Silence of the Lambs, 1991
Directed by Jonathan Demme
Nominate for 7 Oscars, Won 5
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Lead Actor, Best Lead Actress, Best Adapted Screenplay

The Silence of the Lambs is a movie that was hyped up for its gore and horror. It's a film I heard described by middle school friends as the film that kept them up all night at sleepovers, and when mentioning I had to watch to for this project, everyone always seems to be like "oh boy, have fun...that movie is scary!" So this is kind of why it's the 3rd last film I've watched. People hyped it up and made me think I was going to be terrified by this film. Part of that was the fact that I like to go in without too much knowledge of what the film was actually about. I had no idea that it was more of a crime/mystery film rather than a straight-up horror. I really should've known better, I suppose.

Clarice Starling is a young FBI agent, and still a student, who is asked to help with the case of Buffalo Bill, a man who kidnaps women and skins them. She is asked by her boss to enlist the help of Hannibal Lecter, a man who is also a psychopath, but was also a brilliant and respected psychologist. Hannibal doesn't plan it easy though. He doesn't talk much to anyone but seems to take a liking to Clarice. However, things get more complicated and the countdown is on when Buffalo Bill kidnaps a Senator's daughter, and Clarice must gain Lecter's confidence if they want his help.

Admittedly the film was sometimes graphic. But it was never overly graphic or unnecessarily. Most of the gore is seen at a distant or is seen in FBI crime evidence photographs (whatever those are called). Every so often we do come in closer, but it's never really gratuitous, which I did very much appreciate.

 The back and forth between Clarice and Hannibal are the films most interesting parts, as you know they are both brilliant but both are willing to play games to get what they want. Both are driven and focused, but in different ways. Jodie Foster as Clarice was so fantastic. She was so nuanced and precise and really encapsulated all of Clarice. She lets emotions through the cracks but expertly never fully reveals herself until near the end. Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, was absolute perfection as Hannibal Lecter. While his role may have been someone tarnished since 1991 with the amount of copycat characters, Hopkins delivered this role to absolute perfection. He was quiet and reserved but you could always seem something going on behind his eyes. So much of his acting came from the eyes and from expressions. In fact, pretty much everyone involved gave some good performances here. Often, when you have hostages with small roles, they aren't the best performances but even Brooke Smith as Catherine Martin put out some solid work with her limited material.

The film was very tautly filmed and had the perfect level of intensity and edge of your seat action. A favourite scene was the very end, right before the FBI are about to raid the house. If you've seen the film, you know exactly what scene I mean. This was expertly edited and was such a fantastic moment in the film that it leaves your heart beating really fast for a moment, especially when you realize exactly what has just happened. The ending of the film in its entirety is especially heart-pounding.

Overall, I didn't find this movie scary. Books like these, or similar, are the ones I love to read. The weirder the crimes the more interesting it is, even though it's all pretty creepy and gross. However, while movies that are like this aren't necessarily up my alley, this one was very well done, well filmed and was just really good. The acting was spot on, the story was incredibly interesting and perplexing and the back and forth between Clarice and Hannibal made it all the better. While this film wasn't perfect, it was definitely quite a thrill and was expertly made.

Acting- 9.5/10 

Directing- 9/10 
Screenplay- 8.5/10 

Visuals- 7.5/10 

Music- 7.5/10 

Emotional Connection- 8/10 

Entertainment- 8/10 

Rewatchability- 7/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 8/10 

Overall Package- 8/10       

Total: 81/100

Around the World in 80 Days

Around the World In 80 Days, 1956
Directed by Michael Anderson
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 5
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography (Colour), Best Film Editing, Best Music (Scoring of a Dramatic or Comedy Picture)

Around the World in 80 Days is a story in which I'm quite certain would definitely work better as a novel. Indeed, it is adapted from the novel written by Jules Verne, and I'm sure it's quite a delightful novel. And while the film adaption is certainly an ambitious one, I'm not sure it was overall a very good film.

The story is quite simple. Phileas Fogg, an upper class English gentleman takes on a bet from some friends that, using all the new technology and advancements of the world, he can travel around the world in 80 days. And of course, the film is about his time traveling, trying to make the deadline and going on some grand adventures in between. However, the film is three hours in length, and the plot is as described above. Stretching this out over 3 hours is quite bloated and unnecessary but is done anyway.

The main thing this film had going for it was it's cinematography, which was definitely a well deserved win. The film takes us around the world, and it's in the moments that it's showing off the landscape of our new location is when it hits it's best. We get high up views when in the hot air balloon, and almost GoPro type views of cameras sitting atop trains.

However, this is the best we get from the film, by far. The character are very caricature, and there are tons of racial stereotypes and whitewashing within. The Americans are shown as cowboys and we then have savage native Americans attacking the train with bow and arrow. All the Spanish do is dance and bull fight and the Indians are riding on elephants and about to sacrifice one of their princesses. And said Indian Princess is played by a white woman- Shirley MacLaine.

The movie wasn't wholly uninteresting though. While it didn't have more of a plot than the title expresses, Phileas and his valet (and later on adding in the Indian Princess) do get into all sorts of trouble while travelling. The train they're on reaches the "end of the line" a little too early, they haven't constructed the whole line yet. Not to mention, there is a robbery of the Bank of England mentioned at the beginning of the film and Phileas is the main suspect, so the police are after him, though he is unaware. So we also have a police chase going on. My favourite part of the film was their landing in Spain and having an extended scene of the Spanish people dancing. They were very talented dancers and it was very fun to watch. However, there extended "ethnic" scenes came along a little too often and stayed a little too long.

Overall, the film is not overly terrible. It has some fun little moments but is by far too long and definitely overstays its welcome, especially with the racial stereotypes (though they aren't as bad as some other films and probably can point the finger toward the source material). However, the acting is not overly interesting and the main characters seem too caricature to be really bothered with getting to know. Had the film been an hour or so shorter (or even 45 minutes shorter) the film would've moved along at a better pace and would've been more fun. However, thus is not the case.

Acting- 6/10 

Directing- 6/10 
Screenplay- 6/10 

Visuals- 9/10 

Music- 8.5/10 

Emotional Connection- 5/10 

Entertainment- 6/10 

Rewatchability- 3/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 6/10 

Overall Package- 6/10       

Total: 61.5/100

Women In Film: My Favourite Female Character

So John over at Hitchcock's World is doing another great Blogathon and I thought I'd participate. The topic was Women In Film, and to write about a good, strong, female character that we love. Below are the rules laid out: 

1. The female character in question should have qualities that make her strong. That doesn't necessarily mean better than the guys, just well-written; we're trying to promote equality here, not reverse misogyny.
2. Unlike my previous blogathon, I'm going to be a bit stricter here and say that each entry should only focus on one character. However, if you like you can write multiple entries examining different characters.
3. If you can, do try to find less obvious choices. There are a few that I can expect are likely to get picked: Ellen Ripley, Sarah Connor, etc. If you decide to write about any the "obvious" choices, I encourage you to at least try and find something new to say about them.
4. You are allowed to pick characters from any film from genre or time period you like.

I definitely had a few people in mind before picking my choice. Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly from The Devil Wears Prada immediately came to mind. Others like Katniss (too obvious a choice), Hermione Grainger (I love her, but movie-Hermione is not nearly as great as book-Hermione) and Elizabeth Bennett from Pride and Prejudice (I think I write about that movie too much). And as I recently did a similar post about my favourite films starring women, I selected a different one off the list, one I hope is not nearly as obvious. I chose Jenny Mellor from An Education. 

Those of you not familiar with An Education, Jenny Mellor is our main character. She's sixteen years old and fervantly studying to get into Oxford. She's obsessed with  the French; french films, french music and speaking french. She's also living in the 60's and is just trying to get through high school so she can be free of her parents and do what she pleases. Then she meets David, a much older man who takes a liking to her. Her father (who is the one pressing her to do everything she can to get into Oxford) is immediately taken with David, as is Jenny's mother. And while they want the best for her, in the end, you need a husband anyway, and what a better one than David? 

The 60's were an interesting time for women. While an education is valued, it's definitely not necessary and it definitely isn't frowned upon to do nothing past high school. So when David waltzes into her life, she finds she has found a ticket out of her education. Her parents who supported her studying and "joining" so strongly are very quickly taken by David and seem to be fine with the lack of studying and their interest in seeing Jenny go to University wanes very quickly. 

Jenny is an incredibly interesting female character to me. She's incredibly smart, incredibly driven, but she also is thrilled with everything David shows her. David takes her to parties, to art auctions and to Paris (the place of her dreams). Jenny is definitely not a stupid person, but she does make some poor decision, but they're all decisions we could potentially see ourselves making, in a similar situation. Jenny is incredibly relatable, or at least I thought so. She's quite innocent about most things, but does have a lot of passion about the things she loves. She's sixteen and can't wait to move away from home and to see the world. When Jenny meets David she is swept away... but is hesitant to miss band practice or class or studying to be with him, at first. Jenny seems the value in her education, into making a life for herself, until David shows her that you don't need an education to become rich, well-dressed and happy. 

Jenny learns a lot during her time dating David. Lots good and lots bad. Like the title suggestions, she has to learn the value of her education. Jenny lets herself become swept away by David, his friends and his world. It's "perfect" and Jenny stops questioning what's going on around her. She sees David and and his friend Danny steal art, but doesn't really question it too much. And when she does, David charms her right back. Jenny is not only swept away by David, but his two close friends Danny and Helen. Helen is also much older than Jenny but plays an interesting contrast. Helen has no education, is not all that smart, but is gorgeous and rich and happy. Helen convinces Jenny to wear better clothes and dresses (often lending Jenny clothes, which she ends up being able to keep), she loans her night clothes and does her hair for her. Helen also tells Jenny not to ever question what David or Danny do, but just to keep reading the magazines and talking about clothes and Paris. 

But once Jenny learns a secret about David (I won't spoil it!) Jenny must clean up this mess she's made for herself. She's been skipping school, not studying and missed taking her university tests. She won't get into Oxford, and her education is all she has left. 

What makes Jenny so wonderful is all the stages she goes through. She is complacent and naive to her "boring" life before David. Then she meets David and he shows her the world, she barely feels as if she lived at all before she met him. And after David, she brings great poise and grace while putting her life back together. Jenny comes full circle, going through all the stages and learning so many things that we all do learn, in all different ways. Jenny is just like us. 

After David, she has a lot of people to apologize to, a lot of work to make up, and a lot of sacrifices to make if she wants to go to University (Oxford, or anywhere!). Jenny's perfect life gets yanked away from her when she finally looks around and questions what's going on around her. It is when she dismisses her education is also when she stops looking around and just blindly accepting all that goes on around her. 

This may make Jenny sound weak, but on the contrary she is a great encapsulation of the average sixteen year old girl, and not a weak one. She has not been made "masculine" in any way, but is a girl who lets her fantasies run away with her for too long and she must now pay the price. She is smart, inquisitive and passionate. Jenny is someone who takes in everything around her and learns from it. Jenny may have made a lot of mistakes, but wouldn't we have made similar ones as well? Who needs to go to boring high school classes when you can go to French Art Auctions or Paris with a man you love and you think loves you too? Being in love is definitely not a weakness, if anything Jenny's experience made her much stronger and smarter than she was before this. 

To be a strong female character doesn't mean they have to be more macho, more impenetrable or cold. In actuality, Jenny is strong because of her ability to pick up the pieces. How could someone ever be strong if they never had to face a bad situation or any sort of problem? Jenny lets herself feel all the emotions she is capable of; love, hurt, anger, boredom, forgiveness, sadness and absolute happiness. Jenny is strong because she embraces it all, in good times and bad. She also knows there are always consequences to her actions, and she definitely learns this the hard way. Not that Jenny ever rushed into something like this. Jenny was initially quite hesitant with David, but he showed her a life better than she could've imagined, and who could resist?  

Jenny is an interesting character to me because I can relate to her. I remember being sixteen and being excited to finally leave school. Admittedly I was not nearly as driven as Jenny, but I definitely had a passion to experience life and travel and do what I want. And while I didn't make the same mistakes as Jenny did, I have made some of my own and have learned from them all the same. Jenny is so well-rounded and a complete person. She is incredibly believable and easy to relate to. This, to me, is what makes her such an awesome female character. 

Mutiny On The Bounty

Mutiny On the Bounty, 1935
Directed by Frank Lloyd
Nominated for 8 Oscars, Won 1
Win Includes: Best Picture (yep, that's it!)

HMS The Bounty is headed off on a two year voyage to Tahiti to collect bread fruit trees (for cheap food for slaves). But the captain of the ship, Captain Bligh, is an extremely brutal tyrant, having workers flogged, rations cut to the extreme, and dangling workers off the ship. The voyage is gone for two years, and the trip to Tahiti is unbearable for the crew. But Fletcher Christian, his first mate, won't stand for the inhumanity that Bligh is showing his crew, and makes a stand. And after a blissful 6 months in Tahiti, Fletcher leads a mutiny against Bligh. But don't think Bligh won't wreak his revenge.

Mutiny On The Bounty was definitely much more interesting than I expected it to be. Clark Gable is just generally great and I find I very much enjoy most movies he's been in (even though all I've seen is his Best Picture Winners!) but the movie was not as boring as it definitely could've been, but it definitely suffers a little bit of 1930's caricature acting and censorship that's expected of the time period. While the suggestions of sex is definitely there, it definitely could've been a lot more explicit. However, the story was interesting and while it painted Captain Bligh particularly badly, in the end it didn't exactly paint Fletcher Christian in the best light either, but it was definitely a little biased in it's views.

The film definitely leaned more towards a condemning side for Captain Bligh. He's a vile and cruel man and we aren't often showed any humanity that he has. On the other side, first mate Fletcher Christian is quite different. He's caring and protective of the crew, and while understands the need for punishment for misbehavior, he understand that Bligh crosses the line way too far when it comes to punishment. Christian is painted quite the saint for most of the film, but the film even starts to turn on him a little bit in the end, which I think made the film more interesting, for sure. It's always a little boring when the movies are as one-sided as this one almost was. Then again, the film doesn't turn on him that much and still paints him as quite a glorious guy.

Most of the film takes place at sea (with an awesome fake pre-filmed background), so there's not entirely too much to say for visuals there, but the Tahiti scenes were quite pretty.

The acting was quite good, though there was definitely a lot of people guilty of over-acting or just being downright caricature. Clark Gable was quite good and never too extreme in his role, but Charles Laughton as Captain Bligh was quite the dramatic guy. There were also your staple stupid guy, drunk but lovable guy, the whiny guy, the "i won't take it!" guy, etc, all on this boat. It was a little over the top, but I was kind of thankful Gable was around to just sort of calm things down and actually act like a real person.

However, I still did enjoy the movie was what it was. I can forgive over-acting in early films, and when the film has an interesting story, it can be forgiven all the more. While the film wasn't terrible, it wasn't quite amazing either. However, it was a nice change and was quite different from other films on the winners list and was a bit lighter of a movie, despite it's subject matter.

Acting- 8/10 

Directing- 8/10 
Screenplay- 7/10 

Visuals- 7/10 

Music- 7/10 

Emotional Connection- 7/10 

Entertainment- 7.5/10 

Rewatchability- 7/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 7.5/10 

Overall Package- 7.5/10       

Total: 74/100

The Great Ziegfeld

The Great Ziegfeld, 1936
Directed By Robert Z. Leonard
Nominated for 7 Oscars, Won 3
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Actress in a Leading Role, Best Dance Direction

The Great Ziegfeld tells the story of Florien Ziegfeld, a man who aspired to be a showman. Starting in the 1893 World Fair, Flo is conniving and often uses his friend Billings to get the money he needs or steal the talent Billings is after. Flo is determined and using his wit and resources becomes one of the biggest showman ever.

Admittedly, I had extremely low expectations for this film going in. 3 hours, black and white, biopic, semi-musical. And while the film wasn't all that good, it was less terrible than I imagined it would be. However, the script and story was all over the place, never doing really anything consistent. The musical numbers were extravagant (both visually, but also in length). And besides the musical numbers, everything else was quite dull and not nearly as interesting.

The first hour or a little less of the story was Flo's rise to fame, and seeking out his stars and new talent, including Anna Helm, a French singer whom he ends up marrying. The second hour or so is mainly stage show numbers. As mentioned, many of them are quite long, and the film liked to do one after another, so that you're essentially watching Ziegfeld's actual show. The musical numbers are what makes the film interesting, for the most part. While the music itself is alright, it's the costumes and the set pieces that are so extraordinary. Flo is a go big or go home guy and this is shown by his stage shows. We have enormous stages and rotating floors and a huge winding multi-tier cake like structure, with stairs wrapping around, and stage floors divided into 5 parts, each of which can slide in and out one at a time. This was the most interesting part, and was expertly done. However, the rest of the film flounders around it and it's not enough to save this section of the film. There are also way too many numbers shown in a row that you really start not to care, and it loses some of it's wonder.

The third part of the film shows marital troubles between Flo and Anna, especially with Ziegfeld becoming increasing obsessed with doing more and more shows, and with finding younger and prettier talent. At one point, Flo promises men in a barber shop that he will put on 4 shows on Broadway at once, and all 4 will be hits.

Besides some fantastic set pieces during the musical numbers, there is nothing really extraordinary about this film. It's extremely overlong and could've easily been reduced by 45 minutes or an hour. It's length and lack of focus is what hurts the film so much. There's just nothing all that interesting about the film, and only sometimes seems to have a plot or really any point.

Acting- 7/10 

Directing- 7/10 
Screenplay- 6/10 

Visuals- 9.5/10 

Music- 8.5/10 

Emotional Connection- 5.5/10 

Entertainment- 5/10 

Rewatchability- 4/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 5/10 

Overall Package- 6/10       

Total: 63.5/100

Tom Jones

Tom Jones, 1963
Directed by Tony Richardson
Nominated for 10 Oscars, Won 4
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Writing (Screenplay Based on Material From Another Medium), Best Music (Score)

Tom Jones is a bastard, but was raised by Squire Allworthy as his own son after the Squire sent away Tom's parents (a servant girl and the local barber). And this story is basically about how Tom keeps getting into trouble because he's slept with someone. Tom has sexual relationship with a local girl, Molly, on the sly, while he is falling in love with Sophie Western, who has just returned from a few years abroad. They have to hide their relationship since Tom is a bastard and Sohpie knows her parents won't approve. Indeed, Sophie's mother tries to fix Sohpie up with Tom's dour and unpleasant cousin, Blifil. After Blifil's mother dies in an accident, Blifil and some friends convince the Squire that Tom is quite the villain, and sends him away. Much adventures follow Tom as he makes his way to London. Some involving the army, many involving pretty and promiscuous women.

 This movie, quite frankly, was quite bizarre. The first few minutes of the film, of when the Squire finds baby Tom in his bed and sends his parents away, are done in the style of a silent film, using title cards and everything. And while the rest of the movie uses sound, it often uses odd transitions, has characters breaking the 4th wall and addressing the audience, and even Tom put his hat over the camera lens to transition a scene. While the film is no doubt a comedy, these techniques are often odd, but I can't really say that didn't fit in with the film, really. All around the film was odd and quirky.

However, I didn't find the film overly entertaining or amusing. Admittedly the first 15 minutes or so I was having connection problems and had to switch where I was watching this film online, but still. Albert Finney did a great job as Tom but little else about the movie was very good at all. It's not the type of film I could ever, ever seeing winning nowadays, and it's very different from anything else that's won before or after. The film seemed to stay at surface level with all the characters so there was not really any depth or tons of ways to connect with these quirky characters.

The story itself was quite stupid and silly, and was surprisingly sexual for it's time, especially since the Hays Code was still technically in effect (though crumbling at this point). There were way too many silly characters and it seemed like none of them had very much common sense about them. Tom is constantly getting himself into trouble by either sleeping with someone or having other people think he did. The film was kind of all over the place, story wise, and I'm not sure if I was just bored and not paying full attention, but things and problems seemed to pop up randomly.

There's not much else to say about the film except it was quite silly and boring, and I can understand why it was so hard for me to find a copy to watch (and why it's like $50 on Amazon). The film is quirky and odd, and very strange. It's not a film I really ever need to watch again.

Acting- 7.5/10 

Directing- 7/10 
Screenplay- 5/10 

Visuals- 8/10 

Music- 6/10 

Emotional Connection- 5/10 

Entertainment- 5/10 

Rewatchability- 4/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 5.5/10 

Overall Package- 6/10       

Total: 59/100

How To Train Your Dragon 2

How To Train Your Dragon 2, 2014
Directed by Dean DeBlois

How To Train Your Dragon is perhaps my all-time favourite animated film. It's was funny and adorable, has one of the best soundtracks ever, and has a great story. The film ended on a happy note, and a sequel was not needed whatsoever. I would've been perfectly fine if the filmmakers never touched this story again and left it at the one film. However, the sequel blew my expectations out of the water and delivered a grown up story in the form of an animated film, and was a completely worthy sequel.

The film is smart to set itself 5 years later than the original film. The original ended on such a happy note that trying to make an immediate sequel out of it would've seemed like they were trying too hard. But 5 years ahead brings a whole new set of problems. Hiccup and his friends are now adults, and Stoick has offered his son the place as chief on Berk when his time would come. Hiccup is still unsure who he is and if he'd be the kind of person to be able to be a good chief. But this film brings new problems and new villains. Hiccup and Astrid come upon some dragon trappers while exploring and learn that they work for a man named Drago Bludvist who is raising up an army of dragons. But Hiccup meets someone else as well, someone he never thought he'd meet. A dragon rider with a secret rescued dragon sanctuary. And while Hiccup means to talk sense into Bludvist instead of having Berk go to war, Hiccup and the new dragon rider find themselves in the midst of war anyway.

How To Train Your Dragon 2 is not quite a children's move. While the original was a delight and children and parents could both enjoy themselves, the sequel seems to have grown up alongside the audience and presents a much more grown up story and goes into some dark places. But because of this, HTTYD2 is able to improve upon the original in a bunch of ways and really find it's feet as a film with real characters that have depth and complexities.

The film is also one of the most beautifully animated films I've pretty much ever seen. The flying sequences are much more complex than the first film and the amount of action going on in each shot is incredible. We constantly have something going on in the background. As well, the dragons are as beautiful and fun-loving as ever. They are colourful and complex and there are so many different varieties of them. If nothing else, the film is an absolute delight for the eyes and is just brilliant to watch. But thankfully, this is not the only thing the film is boasting. We have John Powell who has come back with many of his themes from the first film, but brings some great new material as well, expanding upon the original score. We also have a tender singing moment that is so sweet and special between two characters who completely deserved such a wonderful moment and is just as good (if not even sweeter) than any Disney love song in recent years.

But what really brings this film to life is the characters and the interactions between them and the journey they go on. Hiccup and Astrid are in a great spot together and we see such a healthy relationship between them. No drama, but they are happy as ever together and work seamlessly as a team. While Hiccup is off by himself, Astrid is there to take over the team and help further Hiccups mission. We also have some fantastic interactions from the secondary characters. While not too interesting in the first film, we have the hilarity of Fishlegs and Snotlout both trying to catch the attention of Ruffnutt. And probably the most hilarious part of the film, is Ruffnutt's attraction to the dragon trapper Eret. It makes for some hilarious moments, ones I won't spoil as they're way funnier to watch. On a different note, Hiccup is surprised that this new dragon rider he meets turns out to be his mother (it's not a spoiler if the trailer told me this ahead of time). Her story of why she left him and Berk is heartbreaking, and the interactions she and Hiccup have are some of the best and most moving I've seen in a while. It feels incredibly real and natural, and there is so much emotion there, on both sides, that you can't help but be moved. And what's even more sweet is the scene we get of Stoick seeing his wife again for the first time. I won't spoil the scene for you, but it's incredibly beautiful and one of the most moving scenes in an animated film. I won't lie when I say that I got a little teary in this moment.

If I was going to complain about anything about this film, there's only one thing that comes to mind. The only way that this film did not improve upon the original was the "problem". In the first film, the problem was the dragons themselves and the people of Berk, who couldn't seem to stop fighting each other. However, this film we have a specific villain with a face and voice, and he is particularly underdeveloped compared to everyone else around him and has somewhat weak motives. But this is me being extremely picky because all the character development and interactions of the rest of the film more than make up for it, in my opinion.

The film succeeds because of where the film goes. It has grown up along with it's audience, and it takes a dark turn that was foreshadowed, but still unexpected. And as dark and sad as it was, it was extremely brave and gave me a lot of respect for the film and where it's going. The film really trusts the audience and isn't afraid to take a drastic and surprising turn, one that will definitely bring tears to children's eyes. However, it's moves like this (and others) that make me respect the film so much because of the risks it's willing to take, showing that animated movies aren't solely just "kids movies" but can be respected as movies on their own. The film doesn't play it safe but instead tries to be true to real life (or as much as you can when the story involves vikings riding dragons). This film is about characters with disabilities but yet isn't focused on them. While the first film focused on Toothless relearning to fly since losing one of his tail fins, Hiccup now has only one real leg (the other a mechanical contraption). We have a children's movie starring characters with disabilities who still go about life normally. You'd think there would be more internet rejoicing over this, but whatever.

Overall, this film was unnecessary in every sense, but it's one I'm so happy they made anyway. I was so skeptical upon hearing all over the internet that this film was perhaps even better than the original, something I thought completely impossible. However, while I don't think it completely surpasses the original, I feel with all the growing up it's done, it certainly gives the first one a run for it's money. The two films, while very similar, are quite different and do really compliment each other. While I would've been alright without a sequel, the team behind this one crafted an incredibly beautiful story about family and loyalty, and is a completely deserving sequel to the brilliant original.

9.5/10

You Can't Take It With You

You Can't Take It With You, 1938
Directed by Frank Capra
Nominated for 7 Oscars, Won 2
Wins Include: Best Picture, Best Director

You Can't Take it With You is a classic rom-com that you've more or less seen probably a few times since 1938. It's a tale about a young couple and their two families. Alice is a sternographer and is in love with the new, young vice president, Tony. Tony comes from a rich snobby family and his father is extremely powerful. Anthony Kirby Sr is dealing a monopoly in the trade of weapons, and is hoping to buy up 12 blocks of land. The last house to buy just can't seem to be bought. It's owned by a man named Martin Vanderhof, an eccentric man (and family) who doesn't care to leave his home, despite how much money they're offering him. But Martin is Alice's grandfather, and when Alice and Tony get engaged, Alice states it's mandatory for their two families to meet (Martin unknowing that it's Kirby trying to buy his house and Kirby unaware of Martin being the last homeowner). However, Tony thinks this is a bad idea, and it turns out he may have been right. The Kirby's are snobs and rich while the Vanderhof/Sycamore's are fun, creating fireworks in the basement, dancing Russian ballet in the living room and painting in the dining room. 

Like I've mentioned before, and also mentioned with It Happened One Night, is these feel like movies you've seen before, but they are recent releases. There have been dozens of films about couples getting engaged only to have the families meet and all hell breaks loose. However, this doesn't make the movie less fun as it's a charming story, and we get more classic and talented actors than what usually happens with romantic comedies like these nowadays. 

James Stewart was so young and it was cute to watch, as this is one his earliest work. The whole cast was quite fun and it was fun to see them at work, raising all sorts of antics, whether their fault or not. The film is not completely predictable (only like 90% predictable) and does have a twist or two I personally wasn't expecting. However, the film wasn't anything overly special. While James Stewart was fun to watch, Capra's other Best Picture winner was quite superior. That's not to say this was a bad film. Not even close! While the film was probably a little too long (126 minutes, which probably could've been shaved down a little) but the story was funnest when we had Alice's family altogether, being the quirksters they are.  


However, the film was still fun to watch, even if it wasn't quite Best Picture quality, it was a treat and it's always nice to have a lighter non-serious, non-war film to win, because goodness knows there's not many of them on the list. 

Acting- 8/10 

Directing- 8/10 
Screenplay- 7/10 

Visuals- 7/10 

Music- 7/10 

Emotional Connection- 7/10 

Entertainment- 7.5/10 

Rewatchability- 7.5/10 

Overall Enjoyment- 7.5/10 

Overall Package- 7/10       

Total: 73.5/100