We're At the Movies

Plot: A man is reunited with a mermaid who saves him from drowning as a boy and falls in love not knowing who/what she is.

Director: Ron Howard

Stars: Tom Hanks, Daryl Hannah, Eugene Levy, John Candy

Date of Discussion: 19/10/13

Quote Unquote Sir: The idea of a man being in love with a mermaid is a great starting point for a romantic comedy. There are so many directions it could go. Unfortunately, I think this movie's script picked the wrong one.

I think the movie's problems start with two bad choices. First, the way it has the mermaid character learn to talk, and second how the government gets involved in the story. She learns to speak English far too quickly and unconvincingly. The government's involvement in the plot really disrupts the arc of the story and its tone.

"Splash" initially has the feel of a light-hearted fantasy love story. Then suddenly the government is this disturbing threat, and THEN they're portrayed as bumbling fools in the climax. This is a movie with jarring tone and storytelling shifts that make it quite messy and frustrating by the end.

Michael M: Watching "Splash", I became bored and started thinking to myself, why is this the case?. Eventually it dawned on me that this concept would have been so much better if handled differently. One thing that didn't make sense to me was why the mermaid was trying to keep her secret from the Tom Hanks' character.

Wouldn't it be much more interesting if he knew she was a mermaid? Being in love with a mermaid seems like a great fantasy, so why is she trying to keep it a secret from him?

Instead of having comedic situations in which she is trying to conceal her secret from him, the case should have been the two of them trying to keep it a secret from other people. Also, at the beginning of the movie, Tom Hanks character as a child deliberately jumps off a boat and into the water, yet during the rest of the movie, they keep referring to this as an accident.

Quote Unquote Sir: I didn't think "Splash" was a boring film, at least for its first half. I was mildly optimistic that it might develop into something really worthwhile, until the nonsense with the government and the mermaid's character development threw it off course for me.

The details that bothered you didn't matter so much to me. I understood the mermaid wanting to keep her secret because she's afraid of how the man would react upon finding out that she isn't human, which is what he assumes. It would be a shock to discover that the person you're in love is of a different species! I liked the conflict of the man not knowing the woman's true nature and the suspense about what would happen when he found out.

I think the problem was that immediately after the Hanks character finds out, the government villains find out too. I would have preferred if the movie focused on how the Hanks and Hannah characters deal with her secret being out, instead of setting aside that potentially interesting dilemma for a new conflict with evil scientists.

Michael M: On the positive side, I did laugh a few times, largely thanks to supporting cast members John Candy and Eugene Levy. It's just too bad the movie's plot felt so misguided to me.

Quote Unquote Sir: I agree with you about Levy and Candy...Levy to a lesser extent. To me, Candy's performance was really the standout of the picture. One way the movie might have been improved would be by giving Candy more screen time.

I would also like to praise the performance of Darryl Hannah. I thought she was very appealing as the mermaid with an innocent sexuality and child-like wonder at her surroundings. I just wish she hadn't been forced to go through some of the uninspired machinations of the plot.

Michael M: The government getting involved in the plot didn't bother me so much. In fact, it did lead to some good comedic set-ups, but by that point in the picture I no longer cared about the story. Also, the movie missed out on a Great Garbo reference!

Quote Unquote Sir: I can't believe you were the one to bring that up first. =) On the other hand, what Candy does say at the point where a Garbo reference would have made sense was very funny itself, so I didn't mind the substitution.

Michael M: Yeah, that was one of the best jokes in the movie.

Quote Unquote Sir: This reminds me that even though I mostly object to the government men becoming villains in this movie, I think one good thing about that plot development was it giving John Candy more to do. He was funny in his scenes with the evil government types.

Did you appreciate Darryl Hannah's performance at all? I liked her more before she started speaking. I thought she was giving a very effective silent performance, convincing as an outsider to human society who is awkwardly trying to feel her way around it.

Michael M: I thought she did the role well, although I didn't mind her when she started speaking. It didn't make her any less convincing as an outsider.

Quote Unquote Sir: I didn't ever mind her performance...I just felt that the way she learned English was irritatingly unconvincing. To channel my favourite critic, I'm going to use a quote he would use in reviewing films sometimes... Jean-Luc Goddard said "In order to criticize a movie, you have to make another movie".

Quote Unquote Sir: I think one of the best ways to understand why "Splash" is so disappointing is to watch "Starman".

Quote Unquote Sir:That was a movie made in the same year about a romance between an outsider to human society and a human, and it's superior in every way.

It exploits a similar premise better with smoother story development, an outsider character learning to speak more believably, and even gets the government involved in the story more subtly and plausibly.

Michael M: Speaking of story problems, WHY is the incident at the beginning of the movie constantly referred to as an accident, despite the fact that the kid so obviously jumped into the water of his own free will?!?

Quote Unquote Sir: Haha, you're obsessed with that...it's just a plot hole. This is yet another demonstration of the ramshackle state of the script. As I was watching this movie, I could see how children would like it. The idea of a man being in love with a mermaid would by itself be enough for a movie to keep children interested, even if the plot is never as imaginative as its starting point. I almost wish I wasn't old to expect more from movies, so that I could enjoy this picture as a child might.

Michael M: When you're a child, you want to be an adult. When you're an adult, you want to be a child again.

Quote Unquote Sir: That's deep. Much deeper than anything in the movie.

Michael M: Yeah, I know. I'm awesome.

Michael M's Rating:


Quote Unquote Sir's Rating:

Plot: A starship crew goes to investigate the silence of a planet's colony only to find two survivors and a deadly secret that one of them has.

Director: Fred M. Wilcox

Stars: Walter Pidgeon, Anne Francis, Leslie Nielsen

Date of Discussion: 23/9/13

Quote Unquote Sir: I find "Forbidden Planet" to be a movie that's easier to admire for what it tries to do than for what it actually does. It takes on the posture of being a cautionary tale about the potential danger of man's dark side, with some talk about the Freudian concept of the id. I appreciate the movie's attempt to give its events some substance. I don't think it quite succeeds as ideas are not expressed clearly and effectively enough for the movie to achieve the depth it strives for.

The first time I watched this movie, I believed I'd seen a classic because I was so impressed by the originality and impeccable craftsmanship of its sets and special effects. On my second viewing, I still found those elements appealing, but my estimation of the picture as a whole was diminished. I realized that the more important elements of storytelling, writing, and characterization were much weaker. I think "Forbidden Planet" is worth watching and worthy of praise as a significant achievement due to its visual aspects...I just can't be very satisfied with a movie that doesn't engage me as much at the story and character level.

Michael M: My reaction was similar to yours to an extent, having also just completed my 2nd viewing of the film. I didn't find it as thought-provoking as other 50's sci-fi films. I too was left slightly confused by what the film was trying to convey. I understand that there are two themes going on - Dr. Edward Morbius' monoplising all knowledge of a planet's history, and the sexual themes regarding his daughter Alta and encountering men (aside from her father) for the first time. I feel the movie didn't achieve a clear message with these.

Quote Unquote Sir: When you bring up Alta, it reminds me of how much I disliked the way that character was written and acted. By making her a woman who has lived a sheltered life away from men, the filmmakers have an excuse to depict this character as an unflattering stereotype. She's a weak, innocent, child-like woman who needs the implicitly superior men to teach her the ways of the world.

Since Alta is completely ignorant about men, the crew takes it upon themselves to 'educate' her by doing things like 'teaching' her how to kiss. I found this very distasteful and borderline sexist...even if there was a logical explanation for it, I still thought it was an objectionable presentation of a female character.

Michael M: I don't have a problem with her character, considering there was, as you say, a logical explanation for it. What if it was the other way around? - A man who had never met women in his life. I imagine the portrayal would also be distasteful, but not that being a bad thing.

Quote Unquote Sir: That might have been interesting because it would have been reversing gender stereotypes instead of reinforcing them! It's disappointing when the only female character in a movie is so blandly conceived. Thankfully, she doesn't play a major enough role to seriously impact the story.

Michael M: I didn't find her bland, I thought her character was interesting.

Quote Unquote Sir: What was interesting about her?!? She basically asks the men lots of questions and they take turns trying to use her because they're all so horny from being alone in space without any women for months! And she's too naive to realize she's being exploited! It's ridiculous!

Michael M: I found her interesting for the reasons you've stated - because she's been sheltered all her life and reacts to men this way when she first met them.

Quote Unquote Sir: Yes, it makes sense, but there's no development in that character...from the moment she first appears until the end of the story, she's never more than functional character, rather than an individual with a personality. She's a tool for the characters to experiment with and an arbitrary presence to keep this movie from being a sausage fest by providing it with an obligatory female.

Michael M: I believe there is so much to enjoy in "Forbidden Planet" that I can overlook any shortcomings. I find it hard not to fall in love with the movie's retro pulp style, as well as the astounding level of detail put into the set design, knowing that everything had to be created by hand. Did you like Walter Pidgeon's performance?

Quote Unquote Sir: I can't say any of the main performances really stood out to me, including Pidgeon's, and I know he is capable of more engaging work. Walter Pidgeon's character definitely had a lot of potential intrigue. I think the proof of that is in "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea", where James Mason plays a similar character as a man who has isolated himself from human society and built his own little world to preside over in a place that had been previously undiscovered by other humans. I found myself thinking about "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" a lot as I watched this movie because I felt like they were similar, both being about explorers discovering the strange, secret world of an eccentric.

Michael M: I agree with you that "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" is an overall better film, largely thanks to James Mason...but I digress.

Quote Unquote Sir: You're not digressing, I'm the one who brought that up and you're just following up on what I said!

Michael M: Haha...

Quote Unquote Sir: I think "20,000 Leagues Under the Sea" was superior in almost every way. I would only consider the two pictures equal in terms of superficial elements. There were many moments where I really just wished people would stop distracting me from the background by talking! I felt like I'd rather go to a museum exhibit of this movie's sets and props than watch the movie itself because the production design was so much better than the writing of characters and story.

Speaking of visual striking aspects of this movie, I must express my fondness for the design of a character called 'Robby the Robot', who I believe has one of the most charmingly goofy designs of a movie robot I've ever seen. I enjoyed watching this character more than any of the humans. It had a visual appeal that kept my attention more easily than any of the dull humans with their generic dialogue.

Michael M: Perhaps I'm just being immature, but did you not find it funny when Robby said, "Sorry, I was giving myself an oil job". I'm embarrassed to admit that yes, I laughed at this line. =P

Quote Unquote Sir: I liked that line too, and I think you mentioning it brings up a good point. Robby the Robot isn't just the best character in the picture because he has such a neat design. It's also because he's the only one who gets to say anything memorably quirky or funny, especially lines like that, which nicely exploit his robot nature for humour.

Michael M: Yes, but how can robots self-pleasure themselves? Haha, I can't believe I'm talking about this.

Quote Unquote Sir: This just proves what a filthy mind you have. You think 'oil job' denotes something sexual? It means he was changing his oil because he needs to refresh his oil like a car...oil that is necessary as fuel! I keep trying to keep these discussions professional and you keep bringing in all this gutter talk!

Michael M: Haha, yeah, but I couldn't resist. :)

Quote Unquote Sir: I agree with you about the movie's style being very appealing. There's a climactic scene in which the heroes are shooting their ray guns at a powerful creature created by special effects and that particular scene really awakened in me a deep-seated childhood love for science fiction-flavoured adventure. I only wish the movie had more scenes and ideas that were similarly exciting.

Michael M: Even though I find the film has flaws in terms of the message it's trying to convoy, I find there's too much I like to just dismiss it. I love 50's Sci-fi movies, so it's a treat to see one that's financed by a major studio, which itself makes it stand out from other sci-fi movies made before and since.

Quote Unquote Sir: I still maintain that it stands out only in terms of visual qualities and that's not enough for me to endorse the movie wholeheartedly. At the same time, I wouldn't discourage people from watching "Forbidden Planet"...I would just recommend spending most of its running time staring at the marvelous settings, special effects, and props on display. I often felt inclined to ignore the actors and simply feast my eyes on their surroundings, except when Robby the Robot was onscreen. If I'd never seen any of these actors before this movie, he's the only one I'd predict has a successful career ahead of him. =)

Michael M: Hopefully he doesn't spend his final years starring in critically panned comedies.

Quote Unquote Sir: Yes, that would be unfortunate.

Michael M's Rating:


Quote Unquote Sir's Rating:

Plot: A mysterious rectangular object called a 'monolith' is discovered in prehistoric times. It sends humankind on a journey of discovery that culminates centuries later in space, during the mission of two astronauts and a super intelligent computer called HAL 9000.

Director: Stanley Kubrick

Stars: Keir Dullea, Gary Lockwood, William Sylvester, Douglas Rain (voice)

Date of Discussion: 9/9/13

Quote Unquote Sir: Unlike most movies, "2001: A Space Odyssey" isn't about a single character or many characters and a journey to resolve some conflict or emotional ordeal. It's about the journey of humankind as a whole towards knowledge...from the beginning of time to the future time where the movie's story takes place.

Michael M: The movie has four sections - 'The Dawn of Man', 'TMA-1', 'Jupiter Mission', and 'Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite'

Quote Unquote Sir: I admired the scope and ambition of this picture. At the same time, its story structure and certain stylistic flourishes in it bothered me. I thought the soundtrack was a bit a intrusive and distracting. The audience to this movie is treated to some truly magnificent set design and futuristic technology.

I was always impressed by the realism and sleekness of its machinery and environments, but I wished Kubrick hadn't set so many of his shots of them to classical music. I think they'd be fascinating enough viewed in silence, without the music trying to overemphasize their grandeur.

I was also unhappy with the the opening scenes, in which noisy, savage apes discover how to use tools for violence. The classical music in these scenes was apparently intended to give them a sense of significance so that they wouldn't be completely laughable, but to me, the music just made them even sillier.

The scenes that I found most effective at inspiring wonder and a sense of danger in space were those in which we could only hear the sound of astronauts breathing, without classical music on the soundtrack. I did love the use of music for establishing shots, especially 'Also Sparcha Zarathustra' by Richard Strauss, which is played early in the picture and recurs throughout it, always complimenting the visuals excellently.

Michael M: I suspect there's a deeper meaning to the fact that the movie transitions into the future after an ape kills another in a fight. It suggests that violence and war may be necessary for mankind's progression.

I believe this is one of most significant scenes I've seen in a film, and therefore, I find the use of such music in it more than appropriate.

Quote Unquote Sir: That ape scene made me feel like I was about to see another movie like the cave people picture "One Million Years B.C.". That movie's characters make grunts and other indecipherable sounds instead of having dialogue, and its whole story is about their adventures in the wilderness, encountering monsters, etc.

The classical music was probably used partially to establish that we're being set up for a much deeper story. I understand the necessity of it, but to me, it didn't quite work.

Another problem I have with this movie was that I found its first two sections difficult to get through. I could imagine them turning off a lot of viewers because of their leisurely pace and the fact that they deal with characters and events that are ultimately insignificant by the end.

Michael M: I enjoyed the entire film, but I agree that the second half is better than the first. I found the second section of the film incredibly relaxing to watch. It provides an interesting contrast to the third section with the astronauts and HAL. I believe this makes "2001: A Space Odyssey" a film of mixed emotions. The second section is the more optimistic part, showing the positive side of what mankind is capable of. The third acts as a cautionary tale.

Quote Unquote Sir: I feel that the movie only really came to life when it settled on being the story of the two astronauts and HAL in that third section. With the focus squarely on those three, it finally developed stakes, conflict, and suspense.

And the final 30 minutes, which were dominated by special effects, were spectacular. I usually grow restless when special effects dominate a movie, but I never wanted this movie's climactic psychedelic visuals to end...I couldn't get enough of them. Anyone interested in the potential richness of visual storytelling should see this movie to be immersed in that final sequence. The level of imagination and inventiveness in it was truly breathtaking to me...it literally took my breath away.

Michael M: I agree with you about the special effects sequences at the end. It's one of the most awe-inspiring effects sequences I’ve ever seen. It makes me wish I could see "2001: A Space Odyssey" on a cinema screen or at least on the biggest TV I can find with all the lights turned off.

Quote Unquote Sir: Well, I did see this movie in the dark on a big screen, and I can confirm that it's really the way this movie should be seen. I feel that I must address the character of HAL 9000 in some detail, because I believe it is rather ironically the most fully developed and human character in the picture.

It's a character of many qualities and appealingly clever ironies, both in design and presentation. I love the irony of the fact that, at one point, he's basically begging for his life in a flat, monotone voice that's a very plausible conception of how we would imagine a computer to sound if it could speak.

Michael M: Watching the film for a second time, it really dawned on me just how terrifying HAL is. I really was legitimately scared by it...perhaps enough for me to become a technophobe. If we created HAL, HAL is us. It makes me concerned about mankind's future if we put this much faith in artificial intelligence. I find HAL's human-like characteristics and display of emotion make it even more terrifying. It has an uncanny valley feeling.

Quote Unquote Sir: Your thoughts further reinforce my admiration of the HAL 9000's design, because I realize that one of Kubrick's most unexpected impressive accomplishments in this picture was to somehow make what is essentially an inert red light into an immensely disturbing and unsettling presence. It's only an inanimate red light, yet has more personality and expressiveness than any of the actually human characters around it!

Michael M: Not to mention there is no escaping it on the ship since it's essentially everywhere. Of course, "2001: A Space Odyssey" is not a horror movie, but I can say it’s one of the few movies that did legitimately scare me. I don’t mean things jumping out of the screen going “boo!” jump scares, but striking me with a very real fear.

Quote Unquote Sir: While I was often frustrated by the early sections of the film, I found much to appreciate even in them. Not only the production design and special effects, but also the cut from a bone being thrown into the air to a satellite in the future. This was a very inspired and elegant way of establishing the story's theme and transitioning from prehistoric times to the future world where the rest of it would take place.

And when the movie's final scenes unfolded, my grievances against its first half started to feel irrelevant. The first half was absolutely worth sitting through, because even though I had problems with it, the concluding passages had me so enthralled that by the time they were over, I felt extremely grateful that I had the experience of watching this movie.

Michael M: I know the ending of this film has been subject to much analysis. I'd like to simply say it just feels right to me, being like space itself - mysterious and unknown.

Quote Unquote Sir: The ending is very vague and open to interpretation. While I usually prefer conclusive endings, I also felt that this ending's lack of simple resolution was completely fitting.

I actually think a more conventional ending could have been disappointing. After everything that happened in the fourth section, an ending that challenges people to figure out its meaning is the only kind that makes sense in my view.

This is a movie for which my feelings can't easily be explained by a single rating. I would rate the last 30 minutes as perfect, but couldn't rate the first half quite as highly.

Michael M: About our ratings...do you want to ditch them and instead for each movie we'll just give a 'thumbs up' or 'thumbs down'?

Quote Unquote Sir: Dude, just because the guy's dead doesn't mean that's not still copyright infringement.

Michael M: Haha.

NEW RATING SYSTEM

(Out of 10)

1-4 = 'I Hate It.'


5-6 = 'Not bad, Aage. Not bad.


7-10 = 'I Like It!


Michael M's Rating:


Quote Unquote Sir's Rating:

Plot: A small-time hood struggles to succeed on the "mean streets" of Little Italy.

Director: Martin Scorsese

Stars: Robert De Niro, Harvey Keitel, David Proval

Date of Discussion: 31/8/13

Quote Unquote Sir: Charlie, played by Harvey Keitel, and his friend 'Johnny Boy', played by Robert De Niro are connected by both their friendship and Charlie's relationship with Johnny's cousin Teresa, played by Amy Robinson. They're both on the fringes of a criminal world in which the responsible Charlie is constantly trying to keep the reckless Johnny out of danger. This is deliberately a rather scattershot picture. It does not have a narrative that moves in a straight line to pull audiences forward through its story. It's more like a series of situations and its events don't always have the clearest connections. The lack of a regular kind of plot makes this movie difficult to watch sometimes.

While I admire the director's unconventional approach in constructing his story this way, there were times when it was frustrating to me. I sometimes found it hard to get a firm grasp of the story. What kept me interested were the performances and the style of director Martin Scorsese. He has certain techniques that give his picture a surreal quality, like juxtaposing romantic vintage music with scenes of disturbing violence. While this flourish eventually becomes a bit excessive, I found it effective on most occasions. While I would have preferred characters that were less elusive, the performances of Keitel and De Niro were engaging to me for different reasons.

I liked how Keitel conveyed his character's maturity, urgency, and internalized struggle with his religious beliefs and feelings of concern for the De Niro and Robinson characters. To me, De Niro's performance was the highlight. His character was such a livewire and loose cannon, with reckless behaviour and a cocky attitude that made him compulsively watchable and intriguing in an often appalling way.

Watching the film, I can see Scorsese's command of using style and authenticity to make his characters and setting striking. I only wished he'd been able to make the characters and story less murky. It's clear that when he can do both, his movies will be not only viscerally powerful like this one, but also easier to connect with emotionally. I would recommend this movie as an example of work from a director with obvious talent who is on his way, but hasn't quite reached his full potential yet.

Michael M: I agree with some of your statements, but one thing that I would differ on is your justifying the movie's plot as being “deliberately scattershot”. I think that may be over explaining to make an excuse for the fact that while "Mean Streets" is a more than competently made and well-acted movie, its talents should have a better screenplay to work off. I find this to be an example of a movie with little to no plot, which therefore relies heavily on other factors to give it purpose. It seems more interested in using such aspects as performances and atmosphere to establish what I like to call the essence of just being there.

Michael M: I found Mean Streets succeeded with this to an extent. I enjoyed the first hour of the film, simply admiring Scorsese’s trademark visual characteristics and how they immersed me in the gritty realistic criminal underworld. The film serves as a historical document for a less illustrious period of American history.

I agree with your praise of Scorese's film making techniques. One particular scene I was impressed with that I rewound to watch again was the moment in which we are introduced to De Niro and Keitel's characters at the bar. The camera zooming up to Keitel with the Rolling Stones' song "Jumpin' Jack Flash" was an unforgettable moment of filmmaking. I would also praise the performances and interactions between De Niro and Keital, who helped elevate the film.

Quote Unquote Sir: I want to go back to your point about the plot and performances. Why do you disagree about my saying the plot is messy on purpose and what problems do you think have to be elevated by the performances?

Michael M: Its positive aspects were not enough to keep my interest throughout the entire film. Without a coherent structure keeping it together, I felt the 2nd half became boring.

I found aspects of the movie's episodic plots interesting - mostly the relationship between Keitel and De Niro, but am stuck for words trying to think of much else.

Quote Unquote Sir: I agree that the plot's trajectory makes certain parts of it meander, but it seems like the relationship between the Keitel and De Niro characters made me more forgiving towards the movie than you. There's an early scene where Keitel is pleading with De Niro to pay off his debts and De Niro keeps making excuses for why he can't. The two actors have such a funny, energetic chemistry in that scene. It's one of many that shows how well Scorsese and his actors can handle the rhythm and quirkiness of tough guy dialogue to make it very entertaining. Occasional scenes like that were enough to prevent the movie from losing me.

Michael M: I agree about the interactions, especially between De Niro and Keitel. They were some of my favourite aspects of the film. Plus, I love the humorous lingo they use, like "What's a mook?" I feel the 70s was the only time a film like this could have been made as realistic and raw as it is.

Quote Unquote Sir: This film is definitely taking advantage of the freedom to depict the ugly side of a city more openly than would be possible in previous decades of filmmaking. While I do think the movie would have benefited from tighter plotting, I still feel it has more than enough other qualities to be worth watching and more consistently engaging for me to watch that it was for you. And I take issue with you accusing me of making an inadequate excuse for this movie's lack of plot. I think that lack of plot is intentional and fitting.

Michael M: I just felt that the movie's messy structure was more of a flaw than the director's intention.

Quote Unquote Sir: I maintain that it was intentional and this is a better movie than you give it credit for.

Michael M's rating:
6/10

Quote Unquote Sir's rating:
7/10

Plot: Ned Merrill, a middle-aged advertising executive, has been away for most of the summer. He reappears at a friend's pool. As they talk, he notices there are pools spanning the entire valley. He decides to jog from pool to pool and swim the whole valley. As he stops in each pool, his interactions tell his life story.

Director: Frank Perry

Stars: Burt Lancaster, Janet Landgard, Janice Rule.

Date of Discussion: 18/8/13

Michael M: Just for the record, I'm aware that I have given very high scores for every film we've discussed so far. This was of course unintentional, and I do hope that the next film we discuss will break the mold. So let’s find out if "The Swimmer" lives up to its cheesy tagline, “When you talk about The Swimmer, will you talk about yourself?”

The film begins with Ned Merril (Burt Lancaster) swimming in his neighbor’s pool. Everyone there is glad to see him and gives the impression that Ned is a respected and beloved member of his community. As he makes a journey to his own house while swimming through each of his neighbor’s pools along the way, there is a sharp contrast to how he was treated by neighbors in the opening scene, and as the viewer, I was left confused by what just happened.

"The Swimmer" is what I like to call a jigsaw puzzle movie. It leaves the viewer confused at various characters’ actions, but at the very end, it all makes sense. There is much re-watch value in this movie since it is such a deep film, both as a character study and a commentary on the falseness of the American Dream. However, I would have difficulty bringing myself to watch again because it’s just so tragic beyond words.

It takes a lot for a movie to make me feel legitimately depressed and to the point that I would have difficulty trying to watch it again, but I can say "The Swimmer" is one of two films which has managed to achieve this with me, the other being "Watership Down". I’ve seen few movies with an ending as pessimistic and unforgiving as that of "The Swimmer". Why this movie hasn't earned more recognition over time is beyond me.

Quote Unquote Sir: I've just watched "The Swimmer" for the second time, so I can attest to its re-watch value. I found it even better the second time, and to explain why, I want to go back to your 'puzzle' analogy. This is a movie that surprised me both times I watched it, but for different reasons each time.

The first time I watched it, I was surprised because based on the title and premise, I expected something more simple and pleasant than what I got. What occurred to me the second time was that the spiritual and emotional journey of this movie's title character is one that in every scene gives us more information about him, along with more hints about what the surprise ending will reveal about him. Therefore, it emerges in the end like a completed puzzle.

I think part of the reason the movie isn't as popular as we think it should be is because it's more sad than it looks on the surface. I felt like it was the happiest-looking sad movie I've ever seen. Everything takes place outdoors in an idyllic natural environment. This kept lulling me into expecting a lighter tone to match the setting. Instead, the story never wavered in its darker trajectory.

Michael M: I’ve yet to see Burt Lancaster deliver a performance that hasn’t impressed me, and "The Swimmer" is no exception. One scene for example involves him becoming emotional over a hot dog wagon (yes, a hot dog wagon). With an actor of lesser talent, this scene would likely be laughable, but Lancaster pulls it off effortlessly. I also wonder how many actors can say they starred in a movie being shirtless the entire time, not even the male cast of Twilight can make a claim to that. =P

Quote Unquote Sir: Watching this movie made me glad that Lancaster stayed in the movie business long enough to make movies like this. The movies being made during his prime could not possibly go to such dark places psychologically. It's also a movie that allowed him to show more vulnerability than in his earlier roles.

This is not only because of what we gradually learn about his character's true nature. It's also in how the camera interacts with him so intimately. There are several extreme close-ups on his eyes, and if the eyes are the windows of the soul, it feels like the viewer is looking right into his soul.

Quote Unquote Sir: And going back to your point, I also admired his willingness to be filmed only half-clothed for the entire duration of the picture. This further reinforces his vulnerability and I feel compelled to mention the terrific shape of this man in his mid-50s. I only hope I'll have the drive and discipline to stay in such shape at his age. =)

Michael M: I shared your expectation of the movie being simple and pleasant. In fact, at the beginning, the characters act in such a cherry manner that I found myself enjoying the essence of just being there among them in their idyllic surroundings. This in turn made me find the movie’s turn of events all the more tragic. I know you can have an aversion to depressing movies. Thus, I'm eager to know your reaction to the ending. Few other endings have ever hit me as hard as this one did. Whatever the opposite of life-affirming is...that's what this film is.

Quote Unquote Sir: I can like a well-made depressing movie, I'm just turned off by movies that I feel lay on excessive negativity just for the sake of it. While the end of this movie was depressing, I actually felt very pleased by it. I think it was more of an intellectual reaction because I was so impressed by how all the pieces fit together at the ending. My first reaction to the ending was shock, until I realized that it was very organically earned by hints spread throughout the movie.

I think with many movies, if you know what's going to happen, watching it again could be less enjoyable because it's more predictable. In this case, watching again is rewarding because you can look for clues, and when you detect them, you can appreciate how carefully and thoughtfully constructed this movie was to make it so resonant at the end.

Michael M: I feel this is the type of film in which I would notice something new on every viewing.

Quote Unquote Sir: Me too.
And let me just mention again what amazing shape Burt Lancaster was in for a man of his age. His physical condition could put to shame people his age AND people half his age!

Michael M: Well believe it or not, Lancaster was a circus performer before he became an actor.

Quote Unquote Sir: That's one of my favourite things about discussing movies with you...you throw in random trivia like that! =) Okay, maybe we should stop talking about Lancaster's body. People are going to get the wrong idea about us.

Michael M: Oh and yes, I would totally go gay for Burt :)

Quote Unquote Sir: Let's not put that in the review. It's not professional.

Michael M: Haha...too risqué.

Michael M's rating:
(9/10)

Quote Unquote Sir's rating:
(8/10)

Plot: A Jewish prince seeks to find his family and revenge himself upon his childhood friend who had him wrongly imprisoned.

Director: Fred Niblo

Stars: Ramon Novarro, Francis X. Bushman, May McAvoy

Date of Discussion: 10/8/13

Quote Unquote Sir: 1925's "Ben-Hur" is a historical drama with a character and story arc that's fairly common in fiction. It's about a brave and heroic man living in a time of oppression and tyranny from a powerful, corrupt regime, exerting its influence unjustly over the citizens of its kingdom.

Quote Unquote Sir: In this case, the oppressors are the Romans and the oppressed are the Jewish people. The central conflict is between former friends Ben-Hur and the Roman Messala. At the same time, the story contains mythology from the Bible. The exploits of Christ are taking place and being discussed at the same time as Hur's experience.

The material of the story is familiar and predicting where it's going to go isn't difficult. I didn't mind because I was so entranced by the film's strong acting, directing, and cinematography. I found the use of colour especially striking, as this mostly black-and-white picture expanded its palette to give the religious scenes a special feeling that was spellbinding to me.

Quote Unquote Sir: My only major criticism of the picture is about its pacing. I felt that the period between Messala and Hur's initial falling out and eventual climactic showdown was drawn out too much. I think if maybe 30 minutes or more had been cut out of the picture, it would be a much better experience overall. I liked the movie enough to recommend it, but with reservations. I only wish it had been more streamlined and tightened up a bit.

Michael M: I’m a huge fan old Hollywood epics. While the 1959 version of "Ben Hur" is one of my favourites, the silent 1925 original makes for a great companion. It's an amazing film in its own right and even contains several aspects which I find top the 1959 version.

Silent movies have a certain magic and a dream-like state not present in talkies. Watching this film, I really did feel like I was being transported to another land. The sets and the painted backdrops are astounding, leaving me in a state of awe.

Michael M: I also found it surreal to see color technology in such an early piece of cinema. The ship’s battle sequence, which is featured in both films, was stronger in this version. I question why some of its elements were not included in the remake. The use of snakes being fired into other ships and even men being tied to the front of boats makes this sequence more gruesome than that of the remake.

Michael M: The other major action sequence is the chariot race and I find that it unintentionally benefits from one knowing of the film's troubled production. I find it amazing that the cast and crew put themselves in such danger when filming it.

There is even one moment in which two chariots crash into each other, one of the crew members ran onto the set, and this was all kept in the final cut of the film. This is one of my favourite movies of the silent era. It had me enthralled throughout and constantly impressed by its production, even when compared to a Cinemascope remake made several decades later.

Quote Unquote Sir: I agree with your praise of the big action set pieces and I share your enthusiasm for the colour in the film. I was surprised by both the simple fact that it was used and how effectively it was used.

Michael M: Colour technology is almost as old as film itself. However, the technology was expensive and the process was time-consuming, so it was not used often. I find it amazing to see such old film footage in color, it's almost like being transported back in time.

Quote Unquote Sir: But how do you respond to my assertion that the scenes between the big action set pieces were too slow-paced?

Michael M: Perhaps it's my love of epics that made me enjoy the picture more than you...it never dragged at all for me and I was enthralled throughout.

Quote Unquote Sir: Did you not feel that the film might have been a little more satisfying if it ended after the chariot race? Everything that happened after felt like just tying up loose ends to me. In other words, narrative housekeeping.

Michael M: I don't see that as a problem. I was emotionally invested in these characters and I would be dissatisfied if it did not tie up the loose ends.

Quote Unquote Sir: It's just frustrating to me when a movie seems to be moving along smoothly and then gets disrupted by what feels to me like padding.

Michael M: I can sympathize with that. There are movies which I have similiar feelings about. This is not one of them, though.

Quote Unquote Sir: I'm complaining about what amounts to a fairly small chunk of the picture, given its actual running time. If point A is the injustice committed against Ben-Hur and point B is his opportunity to avenge it, I'm basically saying I only wish that the distance between those points had been shortened.

Michael M: Care to give a final score? I give a 9/10.

Quote Unquote Sir: I would gave it 3 out of 5 stars or 6/10.

Michael M: Based on your rating system, would you call a 6/10 a movie you like? For me, 6/10 is average. In other words, a movie I don't like.

Quote Unquote Sir: I generally wouldn't give 3.5 out of 5 or 7 out of 10 unless I feel that I could watch the movie again without much displeasure. I believe that I would have the same issue if I ever watched this movie again. I'd be frustrated by a period of it because of the sluggish pacing.

By my ratings system, 6 out of 10 doesn't mean I don't like it. I like more of it than I dislike. I just didn't like it all the way through.

Michael M: That sounds like my description of a 7/10. Perhaps I'm just more generous with movie scores.

Quote Unquote Sir: Yeah, I can't seem to stop myself from kind of being a cold-blooded bastard when it comes to ratings. That's one reason I don't like to rate things most of the time. I'm afraid it'll make me look like a jerk. =)

Michael M's rating:
(9/10)

Quote Unquote Sir's rating:
(6/10)

Plot: When the fleet puts in at San Francisco, sailor Bake Baker tries to rekindle the flame with his old dancing partner, Sherry Martin, while Bake's buddy Bilge Smith romances Sherry's sister Connie. But it's not all smooth sailing: Bake has a habit of losing Sherry's jobs for her; and despite Connie's dreams, Bilge is not ready to settle down.

Director: Mark Sandrich

Stars: Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Randolph Scott, Harriet Hilliard

Date of Discussion: 17/7/13

Quote Unquote Sir: "Follow the Fleet" is the third Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers movie I've seen after "Top Hat" and "Swing Time". So far it's my favourite. While I liked the others, I felt this one was better in a few ways.

In the other Astaire and Rogers works I've seen, I found other characters less interesting. When this one kept cutting between them and another couple, I found that I liked all four characters equally. This is especially impressive because one of the people in the second couple (Harriet Hilliard) was making her film debut.

Also, in some other Astaire and Rogers pictures, I felt like plots were sometimes weaker than the dancing sequences. This time I enjoyed the music-less scenes so much that think I would have still liked the movie if it didn't even have dancing scenes.

The other big positive was that I loved every single song. I tend to only enjoy some of the songs in musicals. Every song from the one in the opening scene delighted me with clever and funny lyrics. I'm a sucker for good rhymes and this movie had many in every song.

Finally, I think the Rogers and Astaire characters were stronger than usual. I love the way they'd banter with each other. I found it really believable that they'd known each other for a long time, there was such a comfortable shorthand between them. They reminded me of the characters in "Trouble in Paradise" and that's about the highest compliment I can pay an actor and actress in a '30s romantic comedy.

Michael M: I’ll attempt to give as constructive an analysis as possible as opposed to just blindly praising the film since it features and my favourite film couple and and favourite actress of all time.

Quote Unquote Sir: Yeah, I thought that might challenge your ability to be impartial. =)

Michael M: I know I once said this was my favourite Fred and Ginger film, although I now consider it my third favourite after "The Gay Divorcee" and "Swing Time" respectively, but who knows, maybe it will change again!

I agree with you on Randoplh Scott and Harriet Hillard's roles. Although I find other Rogers & Astaire films all have great supporting players, those two may be my favourite in the series. I thought the film had a perfect balance between Astaire and Rogers and Scott and Hillard.

Quote Unquote Sir: I do have one criticism of the movie. It's a small thing, but it sullied an otherwise completely enjoyable experience. There are a pair of scenes where Astaire and Rogers are playing tricks on each other and causing each other humiliation and I was disappointed to see those scenes in this movie. I felt they were a more low kind of comedy compared to the rest of it.

I believe they threw off the tone a bit. I was thinking, 'They are above this sort of silliness...or at least they should be in this movie'.

Michael M: I have to disagree with you on that one. I love the moment in which Fred put sodium bicarbonate in the glass to ruin a girl's chance of passing an audition, unaware of that fact that the girl is Ginger!

Quote Unquote Sir: Well, I like the idea of him accidentally playing the trick on the wrong person...I just didn't approve of how it was executed. Like I know it's supposed to be funny, but I just felt bad for her. And come on, how about the trick she plays on him?

Michael M: About your praising the film for the banter between Fred and Ginger and the fact that it feels like they've known each other for a long time...I unsurprisingly agree.

And I find that this is the case even in their very first film "Flying Down to Rio". Even in "The Barkley's of Broadway", which was made 10 years after their last RKO film, it feels like time has never passed. Their chemistry is like no other.

Quote Unquote Sir: I can believe that...but for some reason it seemed more pronounced to me this time.

But back to my point about the two tricks...the bigger point I'm making is that what I really appreciated about the two characters and how they were played was how they interacted as adults. I mean the flirting and competitiveness. When Astaire screwed up her audition and she sent him after a man to embarrass himself, I thought they were being childish.

Michael M: Well I don't see that as a bad thing. I find every Astaire and Rogers film offers something the others don't. Here it was getting to see the two play commoners trying to make it in the world, and also that they are friends instead of lovers, which was a nice change of pace.

Quote Unquote Sir: I'm not as well-versed in Rogers and Astaire as you, but I just found their dynamic in this movie more appealing than in others I've seen. Maybe I liked that their relationship wasn't as simple as 'just friends' or 'just lovers'. They were like friends who you could see winding up being more. I really think the dialogue in this movie and the way they bounce it off each other is just top notch and dialogue is not something I'd expect to be particularly special in an Astaire and Rogers movie.

Michael M: Well anytime you say anything positive about the film I will unsurprisingly agree. I have no major gripes with the film, and I'm not just saying that because I'm a fanatic.

Michael M's rating:
(9/10)

Quote Unquote Sir's rating:
(8/10)

Plot: A Barbary Coast saloonkeeper and a Nob Hill impresario are rivals for the affections of a beautiful singer, both personally and professionally in 1906 San Francisco.

Director: W. S. Van Dyke

Stars: Clark Gable, Jeanette MacDonald, Spencer Tracy

Date of Discussion: 24/7/13

Michael M: I initially didn't know what to expect from "San Francisco". I wasn't familar with Jeanette MacDonald, but I gave it a shot because it had Spencer Tracy and The Gablemeister. The film deals with the relationship between Gable and Macdonald's characters of Blackie Norton and Mary Blake in 1906 San Francisco, so I suppose it won't be a spoiler if I mention there's an earthquake along the way.

As the story progressed, I became really attached to the characters, and the film even became suspenseful as I waited in dread for the earthquake.

Jeanette MacDonald is a singer as well as an actress, and just like the characters in the movie, I was completely in awe of her singing voice. The other notable cast member is Spencer Tracy as Father Mullin, lifelong friend of Blackie Norton who subtly attempts throughout the picture to convert Blackie from his sinful ways.

The film does have a religious tone to it - an attempt the please the Christian Legion of Decency, which I found heavy-handed at times, especially at the end of the film. Without actually spoiling it, I'll say there is one scene which I found to be a real "Oh, come on!" moment.

The film's earthquake itself is an amazing sequence, featuring some the of the best special effects I've seen in a 1930's film, while the aftermath is very harrowing. I find the film's ending very powerful, even with the religious undertones.

"San Francisco" represents Gable at his classic best, delivering a mesmerizing performance, with Blackie Norton being one of the most interesting characters I've seen him play. Tracy gives his usual excellent natural performance, while MacDonald left a great impression on me.

Quote Unquote Sir: I went into watching this movie from a different perspective than you because I was familiar with Jeanette MacDonald from her work in some Ernst Lubitsch operettas. As a result, I brought certain hopes and expectations with me.

I liked the characters MacDonald played in those movies and enjoyed her acting in them as well. I just didn't like her singing because I'm not a fan of opera. I thought that because this movie is not an operetta, MacDonald wouldn't sing and, as a result, give a performance that I could enjoy more. I was disappointed when it turned out that she plays a singer who does plenty of opera.

Whether you like opera or not, I think the bigger problem with MacDonald in this picture is that she plays a very stereotypical character - a prudish, repressed sort of a woman. This character isn't a problem by definition. I just didn't think it fit being paired with the one played by Clark Gable.

I agree with you about Gable. I believe there's a certain kind of character he tends to play very well, perhaps better than anyone else...and that's exactly the type he plays in "San Francisco". I'm talking about a man who is a little unrefined, aggressive, and rough around the edges, yet with a macho charm that makes him seductive at the same time.

I loved watching Mr. Gable play this sort of 'patented Gable role', but I didn't think it made sense for such a character to be attracted to the personality of MacDonald's character. I know opposites attract sometimes, but to me this didn't feel like one of those cases.

As for Spencer Tracy, I felt that he was underutilized. He was in the film much less often than I expected, and when he did appear, he did very little, except in one scene where he got to show some passion. I would have liked more scenes like that for him.

Michael M:This was when Tracy was only starting to become a rising star and I knew he only had a supporting role when going into the film, so I was satisfied with the amount of screen time he did get.

Quote Unquote Sir: I understand that, but I still think more should have been done with his character. I was just disappointed that such a good actor was included in a role seemingly set up to be pivotal, only to ultimately be a relatively insignificant factor in the film.

It looked like a sort of battle for the MacDonald character's soul would take place between he and Gable. Tracy's screen time was far too limited for such a scenario to really play out satisfyingly.

Another thing I will agree with you about is for the special effects at the end...

Michael M: For the earthquake sequence and its aftermath, I found it quite shocking that there where quite a few off screen deaths...

Quote Unquote Sir: Yes, for its time, the realism of the earthquake sequence was very impressive to me...

Michael M: The sequence is actually the same length of the real earthquake itself. I found the sequence and its aftermath made the film's final 15 minutes very powerful and harrowing.

Quote Unquote Sir: My reaction to the earthquake was a little different from yours. I got caught up in wondering up what the Gable character would do and forgot about the impending disaster. While I appreciate the way it was done, I think the use of the earthquake itself felt a bit like an easy way out for the story.

There was a conflict between the characters and instead of finding some way to resolve it through some kind of conversation or confrontation between them, the movie has the earthquake just happen and dictate where the characters' relationship ends up at the movie's conclusion.

Michael M: You could say the same thing about any disaster movie...

Quote Unquote Sir: Well not necessarily, because in "Titanic" for example, the natural disaster doesn't influence how the characters feel about each other. Their feelings are the same both before and after the disaster occurs.

Michael M: I felt the way the earthquake changed the characters wasn't unexpected, so I have no problem with it. Plus, from the very beginning of the film, you know there is going to be an earthquake. If it came unexpectedly, then it would have been a cheap plot device.

Quote Unquote Sir: Yes, actually, I was initially tempted to call the earthquake a 'Deus Ex Machina', but because I know this movie's earthquake was based on a real event, I felt that this wouldn't be a relevant point.

Michael M: One thing I did find quite odd though - why was there a ball going on at 5:00 A.M.? A bit late, don't you think? That was one small aspect I did find a bit contrived.

Quote Unquote Sir: That didn't bother me and I think it's far less contrived than the Gable character being attracted to the MacDonald character's personality. =)

Michael M: One thing I did like about the film's historical context - it shows how a bit of the wild west still existed in San Francisco in the early 1900's.

Quote Unquote Sir: I think that's a very good point...Gable's character would certainly be at home in a Western, running his establishment much like the proprietor in an Old West town's saloon.

Michael M: What's your opinion on the film's religious tones? I do feel they where a bit heavy-handed at times, especially at the end.

Quote Unquote Sir: Yes, towards the end, I agree that the religious material was laid on a bit thick. Treading lightly to avoid spoilers, I'll say that I also found some of Gable's reactions to religion not completely convincing. This was the only thing done with his character that felt a bit off to me.

Outside of that, for me Gable's character and performance were by far the highlight of the picture and the only element of it that I was able to enjoy with some consistency.

Michael M: As I say, Gable is the badass to end all badasses :)
Such a swooning screen presence...

Quote Unquote Sir: NOW you're talkin'...
I can definitely get on board with that idea!

Michael M's rating:
(9/10)

Quote Unquote Sir's rating:
(5/10)