I’m not sure exactly how many films I’ve seen in my lifetime.

It is probably over a thousand, the list below barely scratches the surface of all the films I’ve seen and it was surprisingly easy to come up with. Rather than systematically list films by era or genre I got my brother’s girlfriend Dawn to call out any films she could think of.

I thought of this idea about five minutes before I began typing and Dawn rattled off films as they came to her while I typed out brief verdicts for each one. I initially intended to create a system for rating but found it too restrictive so I just wrote a brief instinctual verdict for each one.

I have included a link to Rotten Tomatoes and the score of each film, I haven’t seen some of these movies in a very long time…

NOTE: The percentages at the end are not my scores but the percentage of positive reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

1. Men in Black (1997) – meh (91% – seriously?!)
2. Fight Club (1999) – brilliant (80%)
3. Unforgiven (1992) – immense (96%)
4. Shaun of the Dead (2004) – decent (gets worse every time I watch it)
5. Memento (2001) – pretty good (93%)
6. The Departed (2006) – good (92%)
7. Aliens (1986) – the best sequel ever made (100%)
8. Reservoir Dogs (1992) – great characters and dialogue (95%)
9. American Beauty (1999) – uplifting, brilliant (the stupid bag scene apart) (89%)
10. Goodfellas (1990) – excellent (96%)
11. Predator (1987) – one of Arnie’s best (76%)
12. 12 Angry Men (1957) – captivating (100%)
13. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl (2003) – meh (78%)
14. Shawshank Redemption (1994) – really, really good (88%)
15. Little Miss Sunshine (2006) – better than I expected (90%)
16. Sin City (2005) – flashy trash (78%)
17. Toy Story 2 (1999) – yep, it’s good (100%)
18. Bambi (1942) – I remember it being good (much to the amusement of Dawn and Sean, many gay jokes followed) (89%)
19. Final Destination (2000) -guff (30%)
20. Edward Scissorhands (1990) – pretentious crap (90%)
21. Stranger than Fiction (2006) – Surprisingly good (72%)
22. Shallow Grave (1995) – okay (71%)
23. Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (1996) – facepalm (49%)
24. Man on Fire (2004) – underwhelming (39%)
25. Ocean’s Eleven (2001) – meh (81%)
26. 28 Days Later (2003) – meh (88%)
27. Casino Royale (2006) – surprisingly really good (94%)
28. Psycho (1960) – I was expecting it to be better (98%)
29. The Flintstones (1994) – Jesus wept (18%)
30. Aladdin (1992) – good (92%)
31. Jackass: The Movie (2002) – hard to class as a film really, hit and miss(48%)
32. E.T (1982) – good (98%)
33. Independence Day (1996) – a glorified B movie (61%)
34. Titanic (1997)  – Good (81%)
35. Ring (2002) – fairly decent (71%)
36. Pulp Fiction (1994) – Tarantino’s best film by a long way (97%)
37. Hot Fuzz (2007) – fun (90%)
38. Monty Python: Holy Grail (1975) – classic (94%)
39. Good Will Hunting (1997) – good (97%)
40. Heat (1995) – pretty good, not great (89%)
41. Zodiac (2007) – boring (87%)
42. Little Mermaid (1989) – decent (90%)
43. Ghost (1987) – crap (80%)
44. Dirty Dancing (1987) – utter shit – that women like this film makes me wonder if they actually deserve equal rights (67%)
45. The Terminator (1984) – the best Terminator (100%)
46. Bean (1998) – a test of mental endurance, awful (41%)
47. The Mask (1994) – rubbish (76%)
48. Frailty (2002) – ridiculous (74%)
49. The Day After Tomorrow (2004) – shite
50. Donnie Darko (2001) – overrated pish (84%)
51. Apollo 13 (1995)– crap (96%)
52. Deep Impact (1998)– more crap (46%)
53. Volcano (1997) – even more crap (40%)
54. I know what you did last summer (1997)– yet more crap (36%)
55. The Matrix (1999) – first half decent rest shite (86%)
56. Lord of the Rings: Two Towers (2002)– boring (96%)
57. Addams Family Values (1994) – some good moments (74%)
58. Nightmare before Christmas (1993) – overrated, largely guff (97%)
59. Star Wars: Return of the Jedi (1983) – (see earlier blog) (75%)
60. Three Men and a Baby (1987) – sickening  (78%)
61. Transformers: The Movie (1986) – decent (haven’t seen it in 10 years) (50%)
62. Cruel Intentions (1999) – trash (47%)
63. Lock Stock and Two Smoking barrels (1998) – good if a little overrated (71%)
64. Clerks II (2006) – absolutely fucking diabolical (62%, seriously what the fuck?)
65. Baby’s Day Out (1994) – horrific (23%)
66. Home Alone 2 (1992) – decent (17% – that seems harsh!)
67. Liar Liar (1997) – pretty bad (84%)
68. Babe (1995) – Jesus wept (98%)
69. The Simpsons Movie (2007) – unfunny crap from a show that is a pale shadow of what it used to be (90%)
70. Mr Nanny (1993) – a holocaust of a film (7%)
71. The Thing (1980) – really tense, really good (80%)
72. Blair Witch Project (1999) – doing something different doesn’t make it good (85%)
73. Run Lola Run (1999) – see above (92%)
74. The Santa Clause (1994) – crap (Dawn: “What’s the film with Tim Allen dressed as Santa Claus?”) (79%)
75. Silence of the Lambs (1990) – they really should have just stopped at this one, a fine film (96%)
76. Matilda (1996) – another crap Dahl adaptation (89%)
77. A Bridge too Far (1977) – the quintessential war movie (67%)
78. Rocky V (1990) – laughable (21%)
79. The Sting (1973) – really good (91%)
80. The Sword in the Stone (1963) – good (73%)
81. The Witches (1990) – crap (100%, what the fuck?)
82. Starship Troopers (1997) – entertaining trash (60%)
83. Love Actually(2003)  – hated it (63%)
84. White men can’t jump (1992) – I liked it despite itself (78%)
85. The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1999)– a pointless sequel (48%)
86. A Bug’s Life (1998) – meh (91%)
87. Hollow man (2000)– hollow is an appropriate adjective (but I like Bacon’s character) (27%)
88. Jaws (1975) – good but overrated (100%)
89. Jerry Maguire (1996)– oh Christ (84%)
90. Dawn of the Dead (1978)– awesome (95%)
91. Drop Dead Fred (1991)– mindless crap (still haunted by my little sister’s repeat viewing of this monstrosity) (9%)
92. Braveheart (1995) – good (it’s a movie, not a history lesson) (76%)
93. Saw II (2005) – crap (35%)
94. Mouse Hunt (1997)– hated it (really wanted the mouse to die) (44%)
95. The Mummy (1999)– didn’t like it (54%)
96. George of the Jungle (1997)– crap (53%)
97. Leon (1994) – ludicrous garbage (74%)
98. Death becomes her (1993)– had its moments (56%)
99. Meet Joe Black (1998) – meh (49%)
100. Dog Soldiers (2002) – entertaining (79%)
101. Cool Hand Luke (1967) – the best film ever (100%)

“It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don’t really know what the truth is. I don’t suppose anybody will ever really know.”
~~Juror #8

For some men, it’s disturbingly simple to dismiss the full, oppressive weight a possibly innocent/possibly guilty defendant’s fate in the pursuit of fast, easy Jiffy Lube justice. Juror #8 (Henry Fonda), however, finds himself unwilling and unable to unload a “guilty” verdict because he’s got a pair of Yankees tickets in his pocket or dinner congealing on the table at home. His firm refusal to take facts at face value makes him the unwelcome voice of reason in Sidney Lumet’s taut, phenomenally acted “12 Angry Men,” a courtroom thriller that zeroes in on the ways petty grudges and prejudice cloud human judgment.

Perhaps, though, “courtroom thriller” isn’t quite the right phrase to describe “12 Angry Men,” since playwright/scriptwriter Reginald Rose sets nearly all the action outside the courtroom and inside the jury’s quarters.  This is a brilliantly strategic move, since it narrows our focus and enhances the claustrophobic atmosphere, forcing us inside a small, cramped, sweaty room bursting with big egos, smart mouths and short, explosive tempers. These close quarters offer unusually, and often uncomfortably, intimate glimpses into the jurors’ lives — their professions, their children, even their thoughts, beliefs, hangups. Director Sidney Lumet’s close camera angles enhance the tension immeasurably, literally backing his actors (and us) into corners that offer no escape route. Lumet, it seems, understands that true human nature reveals itself best when suffocated by four walls.

Indeed, “12 Angry Men” is as much a character study as it is a legal procedural, and it’s a credit to the actors that there are no throwaway characters or forgettable ones. Their personalities emerge slowly inside the jury room, where they sit deliberating what seems to be a slam-dunk case: a disadvantaged teen (John Savoca) is accused of murdering his father. There are two witnesses, a knife wiped clean of fingerprints. The teen has an alibi he can’t back up with details, a long rap sheet and a volatile relationship with his old man. Then the 12-man jury retires to deliberate, and things get heated. Juror 8 dissents immediately, urging his peers to question the case’s basis on circumstantial evidence. The remaining jurors, all convinced this young hood deserves the chair, include: 1 (Martin Balsam), the impatient foreman; 2 (John Fiedler), a shy but kind bank clerk; 3 (Lee J. Cobb), a belligerent, stubborn businessman with a runaway son; 4 (E.G. Marshall), a cool, impersonal stockbroker; 5 (Jack Klugman), who grew up in the same slums as the accused murderer; 6 (Edward Binns), a blue-collar man who abides his own moral code; 7 (Jack Warden), a slick, vain salesman; 9 (Joseph Sweeney), an elderly man who’s a keen observer of human behavior; confrontational bigot 10 (Ed Begley), a garage owner; 11 (George Voskovec), an immigrant who designs watches; and 12 (Robert Webber), a wishy-washy ad executive. Initially united in their commitment to quick Jiffy Lube justice, they resist Juror 8’s impassioned arguments until his logic starts to make too much sense to ignore. Slowly, very slowly, they all — excluding 3 and 10 — begin to listen, reason out the prosecution’s points. What’s more, they begin to care about what they’re doing more than what they’re missing by sitting in the jury chambers.

If this exposition makes ”12 Angry Men” sound like a film that’s all talk and no action, that’s because it is. But with acting this accomplished and a script this polished, that’s hardly a criticism. Lumet’s direction is virtually perfect, both invasive and remarkably detached; his camera becomes a character itself, elevating the tension, then abating it, pushing the actors into corners, then letting them wriggle free. This approach lets us know the characters, and it coaxes, too, amazing and emotional performances from each of the 12 actors. Voskovec and Fiedler offer light comic relief, while Sweeney finds an unexpected shrewdness in elderly Juror 9. Fonda underplays Juror 8 to great effect, never overacting or aiming for melodrama. But nobody matches Cobb in terms of purely frightening intensity; as Juror 3, he holds back nothing. He lets us feel the knife twist of his disappointment — in his son, in himself. He is the voice that reminds us that life renders objectivity impossible.

Some people have far too much time on their hands as is exhibited in the partial sketch above. Someone took the time to draw a character interaction map for the Lord of The Rings triology. Star Wars original trilogy, Jurassic Park, 12 Angry Men and Primer. By far the more impressive display is the Lord of The Rings chart. Now I need to print this up and what the movie again.

You can see all the charts here.

News

• It’s Election Day 2009, with a number of races of note going on, including in Virginia, New Jersey, and New York.
• James Dobson steps down from Focus on the Family.

Politics

• While Republicans are focused on stopping the Democrats’ larger legislative plans–health-care reform, finance reform, climate change–the latter are pushing through a lot of smaller changes largely unopposed.

Human trafficking

• Governor Carcieri of Rhode Island signs a major anti-trafficking bill into law.

Green

• NPR looks at climate change–how it’s affected us so far, and how it will continue to affect us.

Miscellaneous

• From the geniuses at xkcd.com, movie narrative charts.
• Joss Whedon bids on the Terminator franchise.

“Movie Narrative Charts” by XKCD (via Slashfilm)

I was never a really big fan of nerdshit webcomic XKCD, but they’ve really outdone themselves with their latest “comic”, if you can even call it that. These Movie Narrative Charts are epic as they are impressive: they attempt to track the characters of five film franchises –  Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Jurassic Park, 12 Angry Men, and Primer. I’d offer a spoiler alert, but click here to bask in the glory of the fullsize image… right now, I’m really tempted to just print this out on poster paper and put it up on my wall.

I recently watched this movie for my Narratives class and now it’s quite easy to understand why it’s considered a classic.

This story does a great job of exploring the human tendency to rely on heuristics. The characters face a struggle in their search for ’solid facts’ as they try to rid themselves of personal biases and preconceived notions about what the ‘truth’ ought to be.

It has also spurred in me a new found interest in Henry Fonda who is considered one of the greatest actors of all time.

Some people have too much time on their hands or just studying it a little too much.

These charts show the character interactions in the movies. The horizontal axis is time, the vertical grouping of the lines indicates which characters are together at a given time. I particularly like the Primer chart; if you haven’t seen it and like films in the vein of Memento, go pick up a copy. I’d make sure you don’t keep blunt instruments close at hand, I promise you by act two – you will be reaching for that churchill dog.

Click here for a full screen version of the charts.

Dré

Ravens Insider: Ravens-Broncos primer – The inside scoop and …
Week 8 predictions: Lions vs. Rams
the cat people
freak fest 2009
the blind side trailer
deviled eggs
derek jeter
Chipotle Free Burrito Halloween
dominos
Fuzzy Thurston Bash on Joe McKiegal
auburn football

Existing Visual » Visualizing the Interactions of Famous Movie …
Day of the Dead Dance Party @ Philadelphia Museum of Art
cole hamels stats
Plocky.com – All Your Accounts Together In One Place
oksana grigorieva wiki
batman movies
the blind side true story
turn the clocks back 2009
ihatejade video
zaxby
INDIA vs AUSTRALIA 3rd ODI

Whoever thought after being in over 15 films about mindless action, Vin Diesel actually can act.

Mobster Giacomo “Jackie” DiNorscio (played by Vin Diesel) faces a series of charges even though he has a prior 30 year conviction, but he decides to stand trial instead of ratting out his family and associates. A wrench is thrown into the system when DiNorscio attempts to defend himself and act as his own lawyer at trial.

Director Sidney Lumet, who at the time was 81, has directed films 12 Angry Men and The Verdict, so he does know his way around the courtroom. The really significant thing about this film is that it is not one of those typical courtroom dramas where the bad guys are against the good guys. The good guys in reality are the defenders of the government but Diesel’s character is so lively and fun you are sort of split between of who to cheer for and that hasn’t happened in a courtroom drama that I have seen.

The only problem with this thing is that I don’t know why this film had put itself of having sympathy towards the criminals that Vin is standing for. If a movie has you cheer the bad guys when one man is the voice for all, and he’s still bad, that goes to show that the movie has a problem.

I also wish that there were more scenes outside of the courtroom, although, Jackie in real life spent half of his life behind bars anyway. Also at times I felt the movie lagged but that was the feel for the longest Mafia trial in American history, so i guess its  the effect that counts.

I really did enjoy the screenplay since most of it was actually said in the court. The film can be touching but also can keep you entertained even when Jackie starts to pick up his game. This screenplay has a very wise mix of humor and drama that is still smart even when it seems like it gets out of hand.

The most surprising thing about this film is the performance from Vin Diesel. He surely shows us why he was penned a movie star after all. He chose the right project to where he can be funny, vicious, and also very serious when it comes to telling the truth and not ratting. This is a very surprising performance that surely wins you over and has you forget that he is a total crook.

Consensus: Find Me Guilty finds itself rooting for the bad guys, but has a great real-life look at one of the longest Mafia American trial, backed by a surprise performance from Vin Diesel.

7.5/10=Rental!!!

Here is my personal list, one at a time, of the top ten movie characters ever. However, feel free to agree or offer better choices and argument. SPOILER CAUTION! The content below may give away some of the plot of the film(s) concerned.

<<< No.5 – Ellen Ripley —————————————- No.3 – Maximus >>>

#4  JUROR NO.8

Juror #8 (the marvellous Henry Fonda) in the 1957 classic ’12 Angry Men’ is the epitome of truth and unprejudiced justice. Sitting in a New York jury room without air conditioning on the hottest day of the year, he stands alone against 11 angry men who all believe the young defendant is guilty of murder. Fighting their egos and prejudices he demands that they discuss the case and that just because he probably is guilty does not mean he necessarily is and that the man should not be sent to his death as there is reasonable doubt.

Juror #8: I just want to talk.
Juror #7: Well, what’s there to talk about? Eleven men in here think he’s guilty. No one had to think about it twice except you.
Juror #10: I want to ask you something: do you believe his story?
Juror #8: I don’t know whether I believe it or not – maybe I don’t.
Juror #7: So how come you vote not guilty?
Juror #8: Well, there were eleven votes for guilty. It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.
Juror #7: Well now, who says it’s easy?
Juror #8: No one.
Juror #7: What, just because I voted fast? I honestly think the guy’s guilty. Couldn’t change my mind if you talked for a hundred years.
Juror #8: I’m not trying to change your mind. It’s just that… we’re talking about somebody’s life here. We can’t decide it in five minutes. Supposing we’re wrong?

Gradually he creates doubt in their minds, one by one, by presenting the flaws in the prosecution’s case and exposing the prejudices of those who seem to assume he is guilty.

Juror #2: It’s hard to put into words. I just think he’s guilty. I thought it was obvious from the word, ‘Go’. Nobody proved otherwise.
Juror #8: Nobody has to prove otherwise. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. The defendant doesn’t even have to open his mouth. That’s in the Constitution.

He has heard the same evidence the rest of the jury has, but he is concerned about the lacklustre defence who did not cross examine the key eye witnesses very strongly.

“Look, there was one alleged eye witness to this killing. Someone else claims he heard the killing, saw the boy run out afterwards and there was a lot of circumstantial evidence. But, actually, those two witnesses were the entire case for the prosecution. Supposing they’re wrong?”

Juror #3: You’re talking about a matter of seconds. Nobody can be that accurate.
Juror #8: Well I think that testimony that can put a boy into the electric chair SHOULD be that accurate.

We don’t find out much detail about Juror No.8, but we do discover that he has 3 children and makes his living as an architect. It’s only at the last moment of the film is his name revealed to be Davis. We do learn that he is quite a wise fellow and seems to be able to empathise with people from different backgrounds and sizes up the rest of the jurors very well. In particular, he is in opposition to the bull-ish Juror #3 (Lee J.Cobb) and knows how to push his buttons in order to make his point. He realises Juror #3 is angry at the defendant (who is accused of murdering his father) because of his own estranged relationship with his son.

Juror #8: Ever since you walked into this room, you’ve been acting like a self-appointed public avenger! You want to see this boy die because you personally want it, not because of the facts! You’re a sadist!
[Three lunges wildly at Eight, who holds his ground. Several jurors hold Three back]
Juror #3: I’ll kill him! I’LL KILL HIM!
Juror #8: You don’t *really* mean you’ll kill me, do you?

[then a bit later]

Juror #3: That business before when that tall guy, what’s-his-name, was trying to bait me? That doesn’t prove anything. I’m a pretty excitable person. I mean, where does he come off calling me a public avenger, sadist and everything? Anyone in his right mind would blow his stack. He was just trying to bait me.
Juror #4: He did an excellent job.

We also learn that Juror #8 has taken a strong interest in this case and is willing to take a risk. A big and convincing part of the prosecution’s case is that the accused had bought, and then claimed he lost,  a distinctive looking switch-blade that knife the night of the killing that the shop owner said was unique and the same as the murder weapon. Juror #8 asks to look at the knife in the jury room and in a dramatic moment #8 pulls out of his own pocket a similar looking knife and reveals he went to the accused neighbourhood, and even though it is against the law, he found he could easily buy a switch blade that looks just like the murder weapon.

Juror #10 (Ed Begley) alienates himself from some of the jury with his remarks on the accused based on the ethnic background of the defendant and in his frustration he shows his true racist colours with a rant that causes most to turn their back on him. Even though Juror #8 is winning his argument and exposing the flaws, errors and prejudices of his fellow jurors, he is not glib or egotistical and takes no personal pride in proving he is right. He ignores the personal conflicts going on and tries to be focused and rational with the task at hand.

“It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth. I don’t really know what the truth is. I don’t suppose anybody will ever really know. Nine of us now seem to feel that the defendant is innocent, but we’re just gambling on probabilities – we may be wrong. We may be trying to let a guilty man go free, I don’t know. Nobody really can. But we have a reasonable doubt, and that’s something that’s very valuable in our system. No jury can declare a man guilty unless it’s SURE.”

After creating credible reasonable doubt in the testimony of the key eye witnesses, he has convinced most of them and there are 11 votes for not guilty with only stubborn Juror #3 sticking to his verdict of guilty.

Juror #3: I don’t care whether I’m alone or not! It’s my right.
Juror #8: It’s your right.
Juror #3: Well, what do you want? I say he’s guilty.
Juror #8: We want to hear your arguments.
Juror #3: I gave you my arguments!
Juror #8: We’re not convinced. We want to hear them again. We have as much time as it takes.

In an emotional end, Juror #3 tries to explain his reasons but he is losing conviction in his words and eventually breaks down as he realises in his emotional state he is ripping up the photo of him and his son. He changes his vote to not guilty and they all leave. Juror #8 does not gloat in his victory and empathises with #3’s situation. The others leave #3 there, but #8 helps him put on his jacket.

Juror #8 is a character full of virtue. He stands up for what he believes and does not bend in the face of considerable peer pressure. He does not rise to the bait and the criticisms, but displays reason and objectivity. He is not claim he knows the boy is not guilty, just that he has doubts and wants to talk them through. He is willing to listen to the arguments both for and against. He not only makes my top 10, but appears quite highly on it as it is a character that is important to me. A character I and others hope to aspire to be and emulate. We are all human and show prejudice from time to time, but Juror #8 helps reminds us of how we should be.

<<< No.5 – Ellen Ripley —————————————- No.3 – Maximus >>>

After a while we went through trials like A Time To Kill

The band becomes a family, though dysfunction-ill

Not 12 but 6 Angry Men

Now 5 left after one Departed

So we playing local shows for Barflys on Absynthe

The music game to us looking like Pan’s Labyrinth

Seeking fan expansion

Like Monty Python to the Holy Grail

Like Hoop Dreams even though they failed

You still succeed for trying, not buying in to what they tell you

Not listening to what Glengarry or Glen Ross  are trying to sell you

So my mind changed i became never tired

A Man on Fire

And It was going Great

Like Steve McQueen trying to Escape

We became Drunken Masters at the live performance show

Natural Born Killers of the rhythm and the flow

That’s where the story ends for now, come back next week for more

a New Beginning Like Star Wars Chapter 4

Yesterday, I was looking up videos on the internet (specifically YouTube) because that’s what I do when I’m bored.  I found some of the Zombies singing “Gotta Get a Hold On Myself” live from 1966.  I thought it odd because that wasn’t one of their greatest songs (chart-wise.  I like it just the same.).  Though odd, I’m not saying it was a bad find.  I like the Zombies…

The main point of this though is that the same uploader had some videos of Peter & Gordon, with “in memory of Gordon Waller’ written in the description box.  I didn’t understand that.  Then later I found out that Gordon Waller had died in July.  I didn’t find out until 9 October!  What’s wrong with that?  I mean, Peter & Gordon were one of the more popular groups of the 1960s.  One would think that the death of one of them would garner more media coverage.  Granted, not a ton of media coverage to the point where it becomes overbearing, but still, enough that would be informative for the public. 

To-day, I get to watch “12 Angry Men” for my Saturday movie.  I made a list of the movies, and I will type them up and post them in the pages.  Which should be up there^.  My CD for this week was “The Great Buddy Holly”.  I was surprised to find on it a track entitled “Midnight Shift”.  I know that song from the album “Too Much Fun: the Best of Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen” by Commander Cody and His Lost Planet Airmen (obviously).  That was an interesting musical connexion.

Yester-day, one of my Facebook friends had a note about “My Life According to The Beatles”.  It was a note in which one had to answer question using only song titles from one particular artist.  Although not being tagged (I’m usually not), I copied it and filled it out, replacing the Beatles with the Zombies.  (That was a rule anyway.)

My Life According to the Zombies

Using only song names from ONE ARTIST, cleverly answer these questions. Pass it on and include me. You can’t use the band I used. Try not to repeat a song title. It’s a lot harder than you think! [No it's not.] Repost as “my life according to (band name)” Pick your Artist: The Zombies!

I’m assuming that cover songs are OK.

Are you a male or female: “Road Runner”

Describe yourself: “Hung Up on a Dream”

How do you feel? “I Want to Fly”

Describe where you currently live: “Walking in the Sun”

If you could go anywhere, where would you go? “Memphis”

Favorite form of communication: “Conversation Off Floral Street”

Your best friend is: “She’s Not There”

You and your friends are: “Friends of Mine”

What’s the weather like: “Smokey Day”

Favorite time of day: “Sometimes”

If your life was a TV show, what would it be called? “Leave Me Be”

What is life to you: “It’s Alright With Me”

Your current relationship: “Whenever You’re Ready”

Your fear: “Changes”

What is the best advice you have to give? “Don’t Go Away” or “Tell Her No” I can’t decide…

Thought for the Day: “Is This The Dream”

How you would like to die: “Wings Against the Sun”

Your soul’s present condition: “Gotta Get a Hold On Myself”

October 5, 2009

Dear readers,

Have I told you already how much I love “Cry-Baby”? Well, I love that movie. I rarely laugh out loud during movies, and I did during “Cry-Baby”.

This weekend has been a writing spree. But now school is back in session and all I can think of is how much I want to be back on a set, or at home writing. This is a wanderlust of a different kind. I can’t wait I can’t wait I can’t wait. Ugh, how many times have you heard me say this? It must be true then, if this feeling keeps returning.

Is this what culture shock is like? When one person experiences something either exceptionally awesome or traumatic, and they can’t connect to anyone about it? When it seems like everyone else is stuck in the mundane while you are going through something super dee duper or horreeebluh.

The oldish music craze continues. Today it is “Wake Me Up When September Ends”. My youngest sister decided she’d help me start my nap this afternoon, and somehow I said “Wake me up when September ends,” and she laughed because it is October. I asked her, and she doesn’t remember the song. I can still remember when they would repeat this song on the radio over and over and over until I got sick of it. For me, it will always be connected to 9/11, probably because of all the memorials that used it. But there’s good reason for her lack of memory – it has been around practically since she was born.

Haha guess what I’m doing? NOT watching a Johnny Depp interview. Some interviewers are still…slightly obnoxious. But after this weekend, I understand what he means when he says his job is done after the shoot. Before it was like, “oh, yes…that’s just something Johnny Depp says all the time” but it’s the truth.

It’s not that life is dull, there is so much happening – too much in fact. I wonder if I will ever be this busy in my life again. A naive thought, yes, but pardon my limited life experience so far. Have you noticed the lack of photos lately? I barely have time to write posts anymore. Today I took a nap after work, which came after fall play auditions. Tomorrow I have orchestra. I have a love-hate relationship with orchestra. I hate the idea of going to yet another class, but once I’m in there playing I’m happy. Not to say I don’t check the clock every ten minutes.

In AP Lang we’re reading Into the Wild, which depresses me just thinking about it. He dies.

But, my book is the one with the movie cover on it, Emile Hirsch sitting on a bus. For me, Emile Hirsch is Speed Racer. Actually, before I saw “Speed Racer” he was “that guy from ‘Into the Wild’”. But then I opened the book and there was a picture of the real guy in front of the real bus, and I became sad again.

Also, the book was shelved under Field Guides at Barnes and Nobles??? Does that encourage imitation of his situation?

Yesterday I mentioned that I was painfully awkward. When I need to be weird I’m painfully quiet and shy, and when I need to be quiet I’m ridiculously weird. I don’t like this. But then Sushi said that I’m awkward even when I’m weird, so…I guess I’m just awkward 24/7. But it’s pretty hilarious relating my awkward situations to Sushi. It’s funny when you look back. But a first impression is a first impression. And being self-conscious is never fun.

Writing a feature screenplay is hard. I’ve been writing for three days and I’ve got ten minutes worth of my latest screenplay. Now I have to duplicate that eight more times to reach 90 minutes. Go go go!

We’ve been watching “12 Angry Men” in contemporary media. I’d already seen it twice before, and didn’t like it. But this time, I watched it in “filmmaker mode”. Haha yes I just made that up. But it really is something when you see it that way. Brilliant. Still wouldn’t watch it on a rainy day. Rainy days are for making tortured sounds as you near the end of PotC 2.

Love,
Katherine

“12 Angry Men” a devenit unul din filmele mele preferate. Modul in care este construita actiunea, dialogul, unghiurile din care se filmeaza…totul totul imi place!

Actiunea se centreaza pe cei 12 membri ai unui juriu, care s-au intrunit sa delibereze sentinta in cazul unui tanar hispanic in varsta de 18 ani, acuzat de crima de gradul I. Procesul s-a incheiat, toate dovezile si martorii il indica pe el ca fiind vinovat, si in plus, alibiul sau pentru momentul crimei este unul foarte slab. Daca ar fi fost declarat vinovat, ar fi primit pedeapsa cu moartea.

La primul vot al juratilor, 11 dintre ei voteaza “vinovat”, numai unul din ei votand “nevinovat”. El si-a motivat votul prin dorinta sa de a incerca sa analizeze mai bine cele intamplate, sa se asigure ca i-au acordat pustiului o judecata corecta. De-a lungul discutiilor si confruntarilor dintre membrii juriului 12 caractere si personalitati diferite se descopera spectatorului. Fiecare vot era, de fapt, motivat de experiente personale.

La sfarsitul celor 96 de minute, ceilalti 11 jurati au fost convinsi ca, de fapt, acuzatul era nevinovat. Este un film plin de emotii in care barbati imbracati la costum si cu cravata ajung sa planga, sa tipe si chiar sa realizeze ce greseli au facut in trecut.

Modul de a filma este, oarecum, diferit de cel folosit astazi…in momentele foarte intense se pune un prim-plan foarte dramatic pe cel care vorbeste, dand un ton si mai grav discursului.

Vi-l recomand din toata inima!

Exceptional! Si un film perfect de vazut ( de revazut a 7-a oara, in cazul meu ) intr-o dupa-amiaza innorata de toamna.

Povestea e simpla, aducand mai degraba cu o piesa de teatru filmata decat cu un film. Asadar, nu exista efecte speciale ( filmul e facut in ‘57 ), nu exista roboti, nu exista super-eroi, nu exista scenarii gaunoase sau neverosimile, nu exista Keanu Reeves sau Tom Cruise, nu exista poante rasuflate, personaje inutile sau ( din pacate ) Megan Fox in bikini . In schimb, exista un scenariu excelent, tensiune foarte bine raspandita pe durata filmului, actori unul si unul ( Henry Fonda, Lee J. Cobb, Joseph Sweeney, E.G. Marshall ) si mai ales, niste personaje multi-fatetate, nu cliseele oribile cu care ne-a obisnuit Hollywood-ul contemporan.

Actiunea intregului film se petrece in camera juratilor dintr-un tribunal. In urma unui proces, un tanar dintr-o mahala New York-eza, suspectat ca si-a ucis tatal, este in punctul de a primi verdictul de condamnare la moarte. Menirea juratilor este sa hotarasca in unanimitate daca acuzatul este sau nu vinovat. Din acest moment filmul incepe sa creasca, precum o simfonie de idei, si nu se opreste din adaugarea de noi bucati de puzzle, atat din punct de vedere al cazului judiciar, precum si din punct de vedere al dinamicii dintre personaje, pana in final.

Personajele din film sunt vii. Se influenteaza reciproc. Castiga in complexitate, in motivele din spatele gandurilor, vorbelor si deciziilor lor. Si asta da cu adevarat latura umana a fiecaruia dintre jurati. In final, filmul reuseste sa arate cat de mult depinde viata acuzatului de prejudecatile sau de viata personala a fiecaruia dintre jurati: “It’s always difficult to keep personal prejudice out of a thing like this. And wherever you run into it, prejudice always obscures the truth.”

Jocul actoricesc e impecabil. Personajele sunt excelent transpuse in pelicula. Fiecare gest sau fiecare tresarire a fetei a oricarui dintre jurati nu este intamplatoare. Avem de-a face cu 12 oameni total diferiti, fiecare cu alta motivatie sau alt background social in spate:

Juratul nr.1: Un om simplu, depasit de rolul de presedinte al juriului, nesigur sau temator de ceea ce reprezinta obligatiile pozitiei pe care o detine. Face orice ca sa-si decline responsabilitatea.

Juratul nr.2: Un contabil timid, neobisnuit in a-si face auzite opiniile, sau ne-asteptandu-se ca opiniile sale sa fie luate in considerare.

Juratul nr.3: Cel mai complex personaj din film. Capata noi si noi trasaturi pe masura de filmul evolueaza. Initial pare ca judeca cazul intr-un mod impartial, argumentandu-si deciziile intr-un mod logic. Pe parcurs, se dovedeste ca in spatele verdictului sau se ascunde o decizie emotionala si o preconceptie personala legata de caz. Rol de Oscar facut de Lee J. Cobb.

Juratul nr.4: Un broker arogant si care-si doreste rolul de lider in grup. Se considera mai inteligent decat toti ceilalti din camera si evalueaza cazul cu un aer de superioritate evidenta, intr-un mod calculat si rece, ceea ce il face sa omita din perspectiva sentimentele, emotiile, motivatiile celor implicati in caz.

Juratul nr. 5: Un om provenit din acelasi mediu social ca si acuzatul, identificandu-se in acest fel cu el, aflandu-se astfel, sub o puternica tensiune emotionala. Da verdictul de vinovatie, pentru a nu considera ca este influentat de compasiunea sa vizavi de acuzat. In mod paradoxal, tocmai asta il face sa dea acest verdict.

Juratul nr. 6: Un om simplu, muncitor, admitand ca toti ceilalti din camera juratilor sunt mai in masura sa ia o decizie si sa dea explicatii vizavi de caz. Doreste, insa, sa se faca dreptate si asta il face sa traiasca sub teama de a lua o decizie gresita.

Juratul nr.7: Cel mai nepasator jurat vizavi de caz. De-a lungul filmului nu are nici un fel de opinie legata de caz, cautand sa scape cat mai repede din responsabilitate, pentru a ajunge la timp la meciul de baseball. Desi poate sa faca distinctia intre bine si rau, e de parere ca nu are rost sa-si bata capul cu asa ceva.

Juratul nr. 8: Un om ganditor, atent la detalii. Nu ezita sa-si faca cunoscute opiniile, desi stie ca risca ridiculizarea sau dezaprobarea celorlalti din camera. “This gentleman has been standing alone against us. Now he doesn’t say that the boy is not guilty, he just isn’t sure. Well it’s not easy to stand alone against the ridicule of others, so he gambled for support and I gave it to him. I respect his motives.”

Juratul nr. 9: Un batran intelept, cu o vasta experienta de viata, cu simt psihologic si o foarte fina empatie.

Juratul nr. 10: Voteaza “vinovat” manat doar de ura personala fata de provenienta sociala a acuzatului. El insusi este doar cu o treapta sociala mai sus, motiv pentru care votul sau este alimentat de dorinta de a crea o diferenta cat mai mare intre conditia sa sociala, si cea a baiatului acuzat.

Juratul nr.11: Un ceasornicar, un om meticulos si bine manierat.Respecta dreptul celorlalti de a avea o opinie diferita. Nu-si pierde cumpatul decat o singura data in film, in fata indiferentei crase a juratului nr.7

Juratul nr. 12: Un tanar angajat la o companie de marketing, obisnuit sa-si ascunda opiniile personale si invatat sa-si muleze parerile dupa ceea ce crede majoritatea.

Per total, un dozaj complet de scenariu, studiu psihologic, drama, personaje perfect conturate si joc actoricesc impecabil care fac din filmul 12 Angry Men o capodopera.

Nota: 10/10

There we go, much better than that last post…

This is a continuation of the blog entry dated August 23.

The International Noir series continues at the JACOB BURNS FILM CENTER through September 3.  Besides Chinatown there have been two other films of note that I’ve seen.  The first is Louis Malle’s, Elevator to the Gallows.  This was Malle’s debut feature…and what a debut it was with music by Miles Davis and starring, the sensuous,  Jeanne Moreau in this her “break-out” film role. I’ve also seen Akira Kurosawa’s, Tengoku to jigoku, High and Low (The title in Japanese literally means, Heaven and Hell).

Is there any film genre Kurosawa couldn’t handle?  THIS is a police procedural, and this is the standard that all others should strive to equal–but rarely do.  Yes, Mifune’s performance is, as is his wont, way over the top, but I gather this was the standard for actors in Japanese film at the time (of course when you watch the subtlety of Takashi Shimura’s performance in Ikiru you are forced to question the validity of that statement).  The final scene of High and Low transcends the genre and carries this into the realm of “masterpiece”.  There are rumors of a remake.  Why?

No news cycle seems complete without at least one horror story about the war in Afghanistan. After years of these I couldn’t help but feel the situation there was one of  unrelenting hopelessness.  Seeing Afghan Star gave me a different perspective.  The filmmakers follow four contestants as they make their way through the rigors of the Afghan version of “American Idol”.  Silliness and pettiness ensue as segments of the population go to wild extremes to support their favorites, while other contestants are plagued by death threats and the possibility of fundamentalist retribution.  Despite it all there seems to be a comforting “normalness” to the competition.  When I saw the film earlier this summer, the director, Havana Marking, was there and I asked her about the reaction of American Service Personal to this phenomena.  Her feeling was that there is no reaction because the Americans don’t really know what’s going on outside of their bases.  Understandable but sad.  She also said that she’d heard that the U.S. military was considering making the viewing of Afghan Star mandatory for anyone who is to be deployed there.  JBFC is presenting this highly enlightening and entertaining documentary on October 12 & 14.

hey, knife to- oh wait, I did that joke already...

PG?

Henry Fonda, Lee Cobb, Jack Klugman, Jack Warden

Juror #3: Well why should he lie?  What’s he got to gain?
Juror #9: Attention maybe…
Juror #3: You keep comin’ in with these bright sayings!  Why don’t you send ‘em in to a paper!?  They pay three dollars a piece!

Eleven out of twelve jurors are ready to return a guilty verdict in a murder case without really giving it a second thought, but Juror #8 (Fonda) thinks they need to discuss it further.  This angers some of the other men for various reasons.  Some think the young defendant is clearly guilty, while others just want to get out of there and get home – or to a baseball game.  As they discuss the facts, and their own reasons for voting guilty, opinions begin to sway.

It’s not easy to create excitement and energy in a movie that takes place almost entirely inside one room, but director Sidney Lumet managed to do it in this case, in what was evidently his first motion picture after directing on television for a few years.  That background may have benefited him because the limited sets and fast paced dialogue are somewhat reminiscent of a television show.  He uses the relatively small juror room set to its fullest with varying angles and sweeping camera movements.  It never felt too closed in, except for when he wanted it to feel that way as the meeting went on longer and longer.

We see early on that everyone, including the judge, is bored with this case.  All signs point to guilty, especially in the eyes of most of the jury.  As they enter the jury room, they’re joking around and talking about everything but the case at hand.  Only Juror #8 seems to actually be focused on the facts of the trial.  This early scene is entertaining while it also sets up the personalities and attitudes of the various jurors.

Another great early scene is when the initial vote is taken.  When asked who votes guilty, all but 3 or 4 raise their hands.  The ones that don’t immediately raise their hands look around, see they’re in the minority, and all but one gradually raise theirs as well.  It’s a perfect example of mob mentality and fear of standing up against a majority, even when a man’s life is at stake.

Some of the characters and their actions are slightly over the top with their hate and prejudice, but it’s all to make a point about how clouded a person’s judgment can be when they let that stuff get in the way of the facts.  As Fonda pleads with them to discuss the case further, and some opinions start to change, it all feels very authentic.  Nobody just inexplicably changes sides for the sake of advancing the plot.  We understand the characters and can see why they may or may not change their vote.

This movie could have gotten bogged down in a lot of legal talk, but thankfully it’s more about the characters, what they believe, and why they believe it.  Though, there is still a fair amount of discussion about the case and what happened.  I found that stuff interesting to listen to, but I’m not sure every viewer would.

So, another American classic out of the way, and this one was as good as advertised.  Funny and insightful dialogue, good characters and performances, and a good message about social responsibility and standing up for what you believe in.  Well done, movie.

Apparently jury duty can be really exciting!

10 – .7 for a few over the top characters – .5 for some by the numbers character development = 8.8

This Russian-language film provides a powerful retelling of Sidney Lumet’s brilliant 1957 film 12 Angry Men. Set in contemporary Russia, 12 does a masterful job of re-framing the story to be both culturally relevant and current. Like the original classic, this film takes place predominately in a single room — in this instance, a school gymnasium where the jurors meet to decide the fate of a young Chechen teenager accused of murder. I stand amazed that in an era of green-screening and multi-million dollar special effects, a 160-minute movie can be set in a single locale and remain captivating.

This film’s story arc and plot focuses more on community, relationships, and storytelling than the original 12 Angry Men. The 1950’s classic was bent more toward reason and persuasion, while this film tended toward the heart as the motivating factor in determining guilt or innocence. Reason wasn’t all together disregarded, but it became a minor consideration in comparison with the need for each juror to connect with the details of the case from an experiential level. This form of plot structure created a wonderful opportunity for the 12 actors to shine as each told a portion of his personal story. I’ll admit, however, that there were at least two occasions where I struggled to see the connection between the story and the case at hand, but this didn’t necessarily make the story itself any less engaging.

Potential viewers of this film should be forewarned that it is long (over 2.5 hours) and that the first thirty minutes test your patience as the jurors settle themselves in the jury room and get down to business. I think this beginning portion of the film could have been substantially shortened with little loss, but this matter is quickly forgotten when the jurors start telling their stories. The inter-splicing of scenes from the defendant’s childhood do eventually help to explain elements of the case and provide some emotional connection with the accused; however, the repetition of the images does get slightly annoying after two hours. One particular scene of a dog carrying a portion of a man’s arm still makes no sense to me and had seemingly no relevance to the story at hand.

While not a perfect film and definitely in need of some minor edits for time considerations, 12 provides a fascinating look at Russian culture. The acting is top-notch and the stories told so compelling that you’ll be glad you stuck with it. I recommend this film to those interested in foreign cinema and those who loved 12 Angry Men.

Reporter Ben Munceford and Lieut. Cmdr. Chester Potter, the doctor, are flown out to sea at the same time to board the destroyer,  Bedford. Upon arrival there is immediate tension with Ben being denied access for reporting and even greater tension between Captain Finlander and the doctor. The doctor has been flown out to join the crew as part of the Navy’s request, not the captain’s. It is obvious that Captain Finlander is a very hard nosed captain and has the respect of every one of his men, running a very tight ship, it is his way or the highway. The Bedford’s purpose is to patrol looking out for Russian submarines, and after spotting one, the tension builds even more as Captain Finlander seems hell bent on driving the Russian sub to the surface, even though the sub has made it to international waters. You’ll have to watch to see how this builds and what happens.

Reporter Ben Munceford is played by Sidney Poitier (Best Actor for Lilies of the Field). It is refreshing to see a film so old, 1965, and not to have any mention of race. Poitier makes a great reporter, very inquisitive and in the end challenging Captain Finlander on what is right, wrong and motives of the captain. The doctor is played by Martin Balsam (Best Supporting Actor for A Thousand Clowns, 12 Angry Men). Balsam has some very nice scenes with the Captain, especially when the Captain gives his opinion on why the doctor is really there, having joined back into the service after resigning previously. Of course not to forget the great Richard Widmark who plays the captain. Widmark is absolutely perfect for this type of role, having played similar roles in Midway, Coma, and The Swarm. 

This movie was a real sleeper for me, having enjoyed it much more than expected. Of course I like war films and anything involving water, so I was probably destined to like it. If you liked Crimson Tide and The Caine Mutiny, you will really like this film. Worth watching for sure.