Rear Window (1954)

Instead of writing a traditional review about one of the best movies ever, here is a 5 (and a half) minutes long summary of Alfred Hitchcock's amazing cinematic classic from 1954 (the voiceover comes partly from the Wikipedia's plot summary). 

I hope you'll enjoy as much as I did during compiling it.

If the last weekend was a lazy one what should I say about this one? I mean maybe I've found a new way to ruin the whole weekend. At least I've got to know the very basics of a Final Cut Express 4 editing software.

Ok, a small amount of "brightness" at the end: Hopefully you recognized the moving images among the stills (not about the ones with the Ken Burns effect, but the "real" moving images). I didn't plan to edit them at the beginning, but since I realized how statically constructed even the moving ones, I decided to use them. I believe that this aspect of the statical viewpoints is less researched in line of the film's analyses. At least in the reviews this wise cinematic feature owes less attention than the POV's, alias Jeffries' dramaturgical staticality accompanied by the camera.

(Let's not start sentences with an 'if', so involve it to your sentences like) if I could restart my cinema-interested career, I would definitely study editing!

10/10

(but what is your grade?)

mini Halloween

Happy Halloween by Argento's (mini) Suspiria!

29 seconds – my first try with the Final Cut Express:)

The Player (1992)

The phrase of the day by June Gudmundsdottir alias Greta Scacchi from another Altman movie, The Player (watch it, 10/10) is the following (the question asked by Griffin Mill, a screen writing executive in trouble... (Tim Robbins)):

"Do you like books?"

"I like words and letters. But I'm not crazy about complete sentences."

Just think for a sec about how this answer describes Altman's storytelling. The Player isn't a network narrative (his classic, let's say prototype one definitely is – which comes one (1!) year later than this...), but the way how it smoothly interconnects all the paths and characters of the story (I'm thinking on the endless camera movements going in and out of rooms and separate spatial zones, plus the unique way of intercutting and overlapping the several parallel patterns of conversations) is already shows and advances how he will soon master the seemingly spreading storylines. 

I've never been interested in these complicated narratives' compact and smooth solutions – usually the perfectly worked off loose ends sacrifice other qualities of the film. Makes from the well established and pronounced letters and words a simple, syntactically valid but semantically unimpressive sentence. (It would deserve another entry, but I mention only here Matteo Garrone's superhot Gomorra (2008), where the paths of the network narrative deliberately avoid to draw a coherent narrative picture (to fulfill its aim is to depict the maffia's lost hierarchical and organizational order, to narratively emphasize the ongoing chaos...)).

If you don't care about storytelling you might still be interested in embedded stories, more precise the always exciting exercises of a film-in-a-film plot. Almost like two days ago...

10/10

Sherlock Jr. (1924)

Don't need to introduce the genious Buster "Stone Face" Keaton. On the other day Tarsem's The Fall took a liking for watching an early stunt film (if you've seen the picturesque ode of early Hollywood's stuntmanship you understand my choice..). Usually we praise these films because of their reckless physical features. Although Keaton's Sherlock Jr. is full with these actions it is still more than a "simple" stunt film. It's packed with brain too. I could point to the embedded story of a wannabe projectionist as a detective and all the related tricks (this early example of a 'film in a film' character is – not a wonder – the movie's most cited value), but this time I'd like to indicate only one attraction / trick / gag from the film. What do you think about the jump at 1:59?

                            

I told you – Keaton is without doubt "the" stuntman, but he is a magician too from Harry Houdini's finest school (Keaton remembers as Houdini gave his 'Buster' name to him, but it's more likely that his producers advertised him through the already famous Houdini (fact, that they were working together (Keaton grew up in a vaudeville family (although the story could continue I won't open more parentheses))))...

Without any special lighthearted feelings for the silent era, this 44 minutes is definitely 10 out of 10! Keaton's Sherlock Jr. comprises more cinematic and comedic ideas than half of contemporary Hollywood has. And this isn't a joke. Try to enjoy stone faced.

10/10

(Hey, what about yesterday's questions? One of them is within the best ever made 25 films – according the imdb...)

Film quiz

Hello Reader:)
Don't think too far - this sudden but weak comeback surprises me too.

Anyway, this time let's play. The idea isn't original, I know. But show me a single new idea on the net (except this one)!

3 screenshots from 3 different movies which I've seen yesterday. Do you know them?

Yeah, it was a superlazy Sunday...

STAND BY: ON

Oops, I forgot to warn you that the blog is going to sleep for a while (I suppose the regular visitors realised this already:)

Hope the best, fingers crossed, and so on - I mean see you soon...

Quicktime Movie Player #2

- The Hours (Stephen Daldry, 2002). An old debt payed again with this film (btw I owned this film earlier already, but borrowed for a friend who forgot to give me back..). Anyways, a friend of mine advised and finally I've spent a time for it (114 mins.). It won't be my favourite, but - let's say - it is worth to watch. At least because of Kidman's nose. I felt a bit forced the multiple timeframe, but maybe this is because of my late watching (today we have far better examples for this narrative).

7/10

- Inside Man (Spike Lee, 2006). Is it summer or what? Another rewatched perfect movie - this time far within the 10 years "repetition limit". My memories agreed what the imdb says "it looked like the perfect bank robbery." It is, and it's more, just as the film is more than a perfect story. Spike Lee's storytelling gives two extra points for the otherwise very well written screenplay. A sequel is coming (screenplay again by Russell Gewirtz) - do I need to be happy? I hope I can.

9/10

- Superman II. (Richard Lester, 1980). During I was writing about the recent problems with the imdb here, I was searching for a perfect, reliable site which gives realistic evaluation about films. I found Metacritic.com, which site has its own best ever movie list (with its problems of missing titles). Lester's Superman 2 was listed on the surprising second position, so after my childhood's fainted memories I gave another chance for it (not to mention the superhero fever around TDK). Sorry to all the Superman-friends but this film is a mediocre try (3 more superman villains from the Krypton.). The only remarkable part from it was Gene Hackman's Lex Luthor. I see that I won't rewatch the whole series...

5/10

Quicktime Movie Player #1

(This new approach represents the survival period of the blog. Since my duties are obtaining more and more time from my precious blog (noo, not from watching movies!), these quickies will substitute longer reports on my movie experiences. Hope you'll ike them too. Let's see the last days crop.)

- Night and the City (Jules Dassin, 1950). I've thought it's gonna be another noir (not if I would have any problems with film noirs), but it turned out as a very well directed whirlpool drama of Harry Fabian, a small time hustler with ambitious plans but an overwhelming imagination. The culminated end I'll never forget. Give extra attention to the otherwise underrated Gene Tierney, Preminger's (and my) darling actress!

8/10

- The Sure Thing (Rob Reiner, 1985). Classic, at least in terms of my socialization: This movie is one of my favourite ones from my teenagerhood. And it's still working. It seems that John Cusack's early appearence convinced not only me. It was really worth to watch again: the scene when Walter receives a compliment about his shirt was mistranslated in my early VHS version. The original sounds even funnier:)

10/10

- Boogie Nights (Paul Thomas Anderson, 1997). Another re-watched classic. If every tenth year I decide to watch my favourite movies soon I'll be in trouble, but at least I won't have time to watch new ones. And here comes the beautiful surprise info of the day: PTA's regular cinematographer, Robert Elswit (got deservedly an Oscar this year for There Will Be Blood) was the photographer of Reiner's above mentioned The Sure Shot! Pow! No new words about the film, if you missed it until now, you'll have a movie of the day. 

Small remark: please check the version of the copy you're planning to watch: "DO NOT BUY REGION 2 EDITION!!! For starters, it has been heavily cropped. Originally filmed in 2:35:1 widescreen, some numbnuts has decided to crop it to 1:85:1, meaning it loses a lot of the picture. Along with that, the colour has been muted heavily, which makes it look pretty shoddy." Thanks for the info to SandyRing85.

9/10

Cinemania (2002)

"What is the difference between like it or understand it?"

I was referring several times to one of my favourite blogs owned by our time's best (another entry should / will prove this statement) film critics David Bordwell. Today he made my day again when in his latest post was talking about the possible differences between cinephilia and cinemania. If you're interested in the topic just click on him, here I'm just briefly mentioning that cinemania is a cinephilia on steroids, an almost sick obsession in movies. A cinemaniac watches several (3 to 7) movies per day, I mean every day! He or she organises his or her day around the screening times (with complete plans included the travelling schedule between the cinemas), collects tickets, leaflets, soundtracks and every kind of memorabilia, knows everything, let's stress it again, everything about movies! They have seen even all the B movies at least 3 times (for Harvey the Attack of the Crab Monsters (1957) is already an obvious classic), they are living in another world (most of the time immersed another film-reality), spending all their money for tickets (no matter how poor they are - usually they are, cos' watching films day and night doesn't let them work for living), washing their 1cm thick glasses before every screening, having the projectionists' phone numbers, and so on...

Angela Christlieb's and Stephen Kijak's documentary about New York's five unbelievable passionate (addicted) movie buffs is one of the best I've seen recently. You might think they are crazy (probably you judge right), but they are the happiest people in the world. They look like kind of sad bunch of losers, but at the same time you're becoming envious because of their freedom and true love for moving images. You feel pity but you'd like to be one of them - at least for a week (or a month, or...).

"Film buffs do not socialize, film buffs get together see movies, they do not to get together to having parties they do not to get together to know each other."

If you like movies, you'll love these guys and the film's exactly (!!! :) 83 minutes.

9/10