May Blind Spot: Safety Last

When I got to see Mark Harris’ epic documentary The Story of Film: An Odyssey(2011) last year, like everyone else who has seen it I am sure, it opened a lot of new doors for me. I always knew a lot of areas that I lacked exposure, like silent films for example, but what this doc did brilliantly was gave me starting points to eradicate those anomalies in my film knowledge. I am still working on many of those areas but it is always good to know where to start than just grapple with all the options. One such area was classic comedians and it introduced me to Harold Lloyd, probably the last of classic comedians that I was introduced to. I checked off lot of names from my watch-list over the last year and inclusion of Safety Last(1923) in this year’s blind spot line-up was to get rid of that last dark spot around the corner as well.

It is convenient for us viewers too but it's rather convenient of director to name characters in this film as 'The Boy', 'The Girl' or 'The Pal' and 'The Law'. So 'The Boy' and 'The Girl' are in love with each other and want to get married but he wants to become responsible first. So he leaves his small town, goes to a big city to get a job and make sure he can provide for his girl. After being in the city, 'reality' strikes and he has to share a room with his 'pal' and can only get a job in De Vore Department store as a salesman. Off course, he can not tell this to his girl as this would mean he can not hold his part of bargain. So he lies that he has a great job that pays sumptuously and will be able to get married and bring her to the city pretty soon.

Keeping this illusion alive takes lot of work. And Money. And if they had that, it wouldn't be an illusion. So he has to pawn almost everything they own to buy gifts a manager of his fabricated stature could afford like lavaliere and almost his entire paycheck for a chain to wear it. Though such gifts convince his girl of his well-being, they also convince her mother that a young man should not be left alone in big city with so much money. And 'The Girl' decides to surprise him by visiting. This puts our boy in a rather precarious situation and presents us with a long but well done sequence even though we must have seen similar scene played out many times before. And during this sequence, his real manager declares that he will give $1000 to anyone who will come up with an original idea to promote their store. This culminates into that iconic scene which most of us watch Safety Last for(see picture above).

It is actually a very simple story of boy and girl. Nothing specifically wrong with that especially since it is rather enjoyable. It's just that it is too straight forward and set up in a way that the whole thing is leading towards one big gig at the end. It largely depends for all the laughs on talents and physical humour of Harold Lloyd and his roommate, Bill Strother. Again, nothing specifically wrong with it either since lot of comic films did that in the day and considering how well choreographed and performed that one last, big stunt is, it's also worth it but it's just too old school. 90 year old, to be precise. And we being The Dark Knight(2008) generation and all, might have been a bit too used to a fight or an explosion or to at least whip smart one liners every second of every minute. If you can curb that instinct of yours, you can lean back and certainly enjoy this one. I did!

If you thought that I was making fun of its simplicity, let me remind you again - I enjoyed this film! As for its simplicity, it was a reminder to watch films with their time frames in mind. I am sure many things it does, like that iconic climb of Tower in the end or sequence in which he juggles multiple roles during impromptu visit of his wife-to-be, were rather difficult to film and to stage in 1923. They may not be today with technology so far advanced but that's why you need to keep in mind that it was made in 1923 and it is still quite enjoyable, if not exactly novel. Standing the test of time for almost a century, that in itself is quite notable achievement. I fail to imagine how many of today's films would pass that test in 2100.

The other day, someone shared a quote from Man of Steel(2013). In the middle of General Zod giving a pounding to whole New York and Superman trying to save it from that, he finds time to get Lois Lane somewhere alone and kiss her. Now how he was able to do that in the middle of shitstorm is matter for another post but he IS Superman so... Anyways, I digress. After their kiss Lois i.e. Amy Adams says "You know, they say it's all downhill after the first kiss". I can apply that analogy to all classic comedians and my affairs so far with their films.

In all reality, that makes Chaplin nothing short of Superman. His reply to Lois above is something on the lines of 'I am pretty sure that only counts when you are talking about Human' and Chaplin has proved his super-human abilities with every film. I don't even remember the first time I saw a Chaplin film; I must have been single-digit old. We have had our ups and downs, mostly ups though, but it hasn't hit a rough patch yet and after all these years, there is still something to look forward to i.e. Limelight(1952). Buster Keaton, based on analogy above, turns out to be very human. The first kiss was The General(1926) and it has been by far the best one. I have taken it forward from that and I genuinely enjoy the company but it has certainly been downhill since that first kiss. 

The Marx Brothers, on the other hand, have been extremely unlucky. They haven't gone much further than second date and even that second date was to ensure I didn't brush them off with one false step. There are certain things you just can't do in affairs like these, you know! Jacques Tati, though not contemporary of others in these ranks and it is too soon yet to seal his fate but, is another one that might end up with fate similar to Marx Brothers. Second date I will soon arrange might do the trick for him. I don't know much about Harold Lloyd but based on all these encounters is it wrong if I expect him to be at least Captain Freaking America? I mean he is sort of lame but he is still a super hero. Or... am I having just too many affairs?

February Blind Spot: How Green was My Valley

There are many films, especially those made decades earlier, where their reputation, good or bad but mostly bad, usually precedes their presence in pop culture references than anything that actually concerns film itself. And more often than not, these films are only remembered for all the wrong reasons for no fault of their own. My choice for this month’s blind spot, 1941’s Best Picture Oscar winner How Green was My Valley(1941) – ‘the film that beat Citizen Kane(1941)’ – is one such film. In February, all of us are in the high pitch Oscar fever with ceremony just a few days away. Since last year, I have been trying to get through all the Best Picture winners and hence, I thought it will be a good idea to choose past winner for this month. Last year I did the same thing with The French Connection(1971). I am continuing the trend this year with How Green was My Valley.

This is a story of Morgan family, 1 BIG family, leaving in one small village in South Welsh at the start of 20th century. Like many small villages, most men in village have one business. In this case, it is coal mining. Morgans have six sons and one daughter, Angharad . Their youngest son, Huw, is our narrator and protagonist. Their father and all five sons work in collieries.  Being a small and close-knit community that most villages like this are, Father Morgan is not only the patriarch of Morgan household but also a well respected, authoritative person of the community. Their daughter is the most beautiful face in the valley and their sons are voice of youth, young, dynamic leaders of tomorrow. What we get for two hours is this family, and subsequently everyone around them, going through uncertain phase of their life.

We see them going through workers strike that their father vehemently opposes but has to participate for the sake of whole community. We see them trying to live through consistently dropping wages but increasing risks and in case of Angharad who falls in love with Mr. Gruffydd, their local priest, but has to marry son of mine-owner because he thinks he will not be able to provide for her, we see whole community turn on to them for something she herself strongly opposed. However when it comes to Huw, family has high hopes for him. At least their father does; he has seen what collieries can do to man and very capable, hardworking men like his other sons. He doesn't want his eldest to go down that gutter as well and is visibly upset when Huw decides to follow their family tradition. Mother, on the other hand, seems quite contend with him following their father's or brother's footsteps. "If he could be as good a man as his father or his brothers, I will be fine with it", she says. There are many occasions when she says something like this, very simple and practical, and I love that about her.

I tried not to go into this one with too many preconceptions. In this case, it was slightly easier since only thing almost anyone talks about it is being ‘that’ film. It almost doesn’t exist beyond that but I will admit I wasn’t super excited about it either. And first 15 minutes confirmed my belief. It might be that I am watching too many 2013 movies in the past few months that theatricality of a 1941 film bothered me a bit initially. Not like I have that problem every time I watch a classic and I do watch fair amount of them but it was bit jarring this time around. It also could have been that voice over narration which felt bit too on the nose. I was almost certain then that I will just have to slog through this one. I was going to take this as a sort of dress rehearsal of what I expect majority of my 19 remaining Best Picture winners will be.

But then, something unexpected happened! As I kept going through it, I get more and more into it. That voice over narration disappeared almost completely. It appears here and there till the very end but not to the point of my initial annoyance. I got used to the type of acting and was even able to see beyond it. By the end of it, I was completely into it to the extent that I kept praying for Father to be well in the end from the second alarm blares over that valley. I credit most of this to its screenplay. What I find most interesting in it, apart from turning me around completely on it, is how much it manages to put in it in those two hours. There are almost too many characters for it to handle - 6 sons, their daughter, parents and few other add-ons like Bronwyn, their daughter-in-law, and Mr. Gruffydd, local priest. But it manages to give almost every one of them enough screen time to warrant their existence and at the same time keeping it easy enough to follow.

It is also funny that even though my favourite part of the film was screenplay, it was also the only department I had problem with. I like everyone in their respective roles, I like the direction, I also like how Ford makes it look like. But I really don't have much to say about any of them except it was good. Screenplay is something I have already praised for it's depth but I will go into couple of loose ends here as well. Movie starts with that voiceover narration I've already talked down. In it Huw talks about finally leaving the valley after 50 years. When it ends, he couldn't be more than 15. So what happens over the rest of 35 years that is worse than what we have already seen that makes him leave? I don't get why would Ford put that bit at the start if rest of film has no intention answering it. I don't want dwell too much on it since, as I said, I quite like this film but it was something he could have easily avoided.

So let’s address the elephant in the room – How does it measure up against Citizen Kane, Mecca of films? Let me make two things clear first. One, I have only seen Kane once, about three and half years ago, so the only thing that I remember about it is what’s Rosebud? Absolutely nothing else! So yes, it is highly overdue for a re-watch which brings me to my second point. Based on that first watch, I am not that big fan of it. Hence it never was high on my list of re-watches. My reaction to it was somewhat similar to that of Joey and Rachel’s(That’s a Friends(1994) reference for you. Go, figure!). I might have rendered my opinion useless after that preamble but at this point, I actually do prefer this one over Kane. And if you know your Oscars and your Citizen Kane, you would know that it was always going to be impossible for it to win. If there is anyone to blame here, blame Academy for making that decision; ‘tis the season after all!

Announcing 2014 Blind Spot Entries

Around Christmas, I will post my entry for this month's Blind Spot and with that 2013 Blind Spot Series will come to a conclusion. Blind Spot series is designed to motivate us into scratching off the names from our to-watch lists. We do that with every film we watch but these are meant to be those big, glaring omissions that are certain to attract some stares if you admit not having seen them in public. At this time of the year last year, I was little skeptical about being a part of it because first of all, there are just too many of them and secondly if I did participate, I wanted to take it seriously and look at the finish line. I am happy that I am at least looking at it now but as usual, others are way ahead of me. Most others have already published next year's entries. I might be lagging but I ain't a quitter! This is what I intend to check off for this series in 2014.

Safety Last!(1923)

Dracula(1931)

How Green was My Valley(1941)

Brief Encounter(1945)

Diabolique(1955)

Jalsaghar(1958)

The Exterminating Angel(1962)

American Graffiti(1973)

The King of Comedy(1982)

Au Revoir Les Enfants(1987)

Ed Wood(1994)

L'enfant(2005)

Off course in compliance with my OCD, movies are spread almost evenly over the time period ranging from silent era to contemporaries. 2 silents, 1 Halloween special, 1 previous Best Picture winner, 4 foreign films and one Satyajit Ray as a bonus should hopefully give me a lot of variety. Majority of the movies I saw this year were for their directors. I ventured into Tarkovskiy territory for the very first time and will encounter Ozu in December, went deeper into Kubrick and Bergamn filmography. I see the trend continuing next year as well with likes of Scorsese, Coppola and Bunuel but there are few here I have included based on their own accord. Biggest change from this year, however, would be me abandoning the question-answer format I used this year for these posts. I think I am about ready to do straight up posts for them. We'll see how that goes!

This year was a great hit considering that I ended up loving almost all the movies I saw for this list. I really don't like writing negative reviews so I really hope next year will be the same. Huge thanks to Ryan McNeil for organizing this, compiling the links every month and championing it throughout the year. I hope to be at the finish line this time next year as well. 

October Blind Spot: Frankenstein

First and foremost, what makes this a Blind Spot movie? In other words, why is this film essential?

I don’t think it needs any other reason than because it is Frankenstein. The reason I chose Frankenstein(1931) is, believe it or not but, I had never known this story up until recently despite being a lauded literary classic. Extent of my knowledge went so far as knowing a scientist creates some monster. That's it! For the longest time, I was under the impression that name of the monster is Frankenstein because, frankly, that does sound rather sinister name. So I thought this might be a good chance not just to check out one of the most iconic horror films in movie history but also to get acquainted to this piece of classic literature. And off course, there can’t be a more apt time of the year than Halloween for this, right?

So, what is the story about?

Henry Frankenstein is a young scientist obsessed with being a God. He wants to create life and has spent months in isolation working on his machine he believes will create life. We first meet him in a graveyard, along with his deformed assistant Frits, making rounds of cremation grounds and gallows looking for human parts to assemble complete human body to revive. Back home, his fiancée Elizabeth is worried about him and seeks help of his former teacher and mentor Dr. Waldman. Along with Victor Moritz, friend of both Henry and Elizabeth, they go to his laboratory to put some sense into him. There they witness Henry bring a monstrous, grotesque body he has composed form various stolen parts back to life. Initially Henry is extremely happy with the results but soon, because of series of misunderstandings, his monster turns on them. Henry realizes his mistake and even agrees to destroy his own creation but he underestimates the monster he has brought to life and wrecks havoc.

I am pretty sure everyone knows the story in general because I don’t think there are many more specimen like me out there. Not only have I never read Mary Shelley’s book, I had no idea what the story was until I saw this couple of nights ago. Since then I did a little research about the book and it seems that movie took a lot of freedom in interpreting the story in its own way. It not only prunes various characters and storylines but also makes it much lighter in terms of price Dr. Frankenstein has to pay for his creation. It even adds few things here and there. I would not know if it is for better or for worse until I read the book but I did like what I saw.

What did I think of it? What did I like the most about it and what didn't I like?

It satisfied me on various levels. First of all being a 1931 movie, I immediately assumed it to be a silent film. Imagine my surprise as the master of ceremony takes the stage to warn us about the horrors coming our way and he actually talks. Then there is also the matter of this unprecedented introduction. Agreed that I haven’t seen most of Frankenstein’s brother classic monster movies but I have never heard of such introduction before and it definitely got me right into the mood for a horror movie. Score!

Once again, being a 1931 movie, when you sit yourself down to watch it you have certain expectations from it. You expect to see a lot of stagey, loud emoting. Much more emphasis is on actually showing every strand of emotion than just hinting at it. I don’t mean to downplay that because it’s something you have to leave with in movies from that period. I have become used to it by now and, as I just said, even accept it as a trademark of the period. While this movie does have its share of such moments, frequency of it and scale is on much lower side. It makes it much easier to get into this movie. I was pleasantly surprised by how much modern it looked in its presentation.

Last and certainly most important thing is Boris Karloff and his monster. Though it is considered an iconic horror film, it can hardly be scary after more than 80 years. We have seen far too much now to be scared of it. But mere presence of Karloff with that equally iconic makeup is still quite enough to send some shivers down your spine. However what makes this performance worth mentioning here is this isn’t just one-dimensional monster. Even if we look at that one encounter with Maria, it manages to make him look somewhat human in his own way with that. It ends with disastrous results for both Maria and the monster but showing him being able to connect is definitely worth praise.

After having seen it, do I agree with its 'essential' status? And why?

Not only because this is one of the most iconic horror movies but also because of the various motifs it manages to touch upon I think this classic story, which has managed to stay in the discussion for well over a century, certainly deserves the label essential. From very early stage of our existence, our desire, our need to push our own boundaries, explore new grounds has brought us where we are. However right now, when our lives are more than ever governed by the technology, is the need for us to know where to stop. With the monster’s encounter with Maria that I alluded to earlier, it also brings forth the question of whether it was our incompetence in understanding him, nurturing him into our own civilization is what brings out his monstrosities; another warning against conquering the unknowns.

Frankenstein is an ideal example of man crossing his boundaries to be someone he doesn’t fully grasp and obviously to most dire results. Henry Frankenstein is obsessed with being God and his desire to create life is what brings this calamity on him as well as others. Over the years, we have had fair share of movies warning us about it but this could be one of the pioneers. Also, It must have taken some guts to take such an acclaimed piece of literature and put his own spin on that, hopefully without loosing the gist of original. James Whale not only dared to do that but did it well and the fact that it holds so well after so many years and is still so true is a real testament to its timelessness.

Does it open few new doors for me? Does this inspire to watch any other movies?

I have only seen The Phantom of the Opera(1925) and Nosferatu(1922) of all the classic monster horror movies I alluded to earlier. If these three films are any indication, I will like to try my hand at some more of that genre. Maybe The Mummy(1932) for more Boris Karloff or Dracula(1931), another equally iconic movie with equally iconic monster Bela Lugosi as well a classic piece of literature and maybe even The Wolf Man(1941). Being black and white horror movies, I don’t know when will I really get to them but I certainly would like to try some of them. Hopefully soon, at least before next Halloween.

Wrapping it up: September

Another month, another wrap-up post full of this month's viewings. As you will go down to the list of movies I saw this month, don't be surprised to see a lot of very high rated movies. I mean, it does happen usually but now even more than usual. Because just before leaving States, I bought myself a stock and by stock I mean more than 150 films. Off course, most of these films are the ones I wanted to see either because of the mass appeal or critical acclaim. So for the next few months, don't be surprised if you see a lot of great first-timers for me. Just warning you. So lets get to it then.

September

Broadcast News(1987): For some reason.... no, scratch that. For many reasons I felt like I haven't felt while watching any movie in quite a while and it is such a great feeling. Within first half hour, I was beaming with smile about everything in it and I knew that I was going to like this movie right then and there. Now, after having seen it, I know I was right. I know that I am going to watch it again and again many times and I feel like I will have something more to like in it every time I watch it. It is such a personal, such a beautiful film. I am cursing myself for not having seen it sooner.

The Hunt(2013): Once again, it's Mads Mikkelsen reigns Supreme but there is so much more to admire about this film. When I heard about the topic, my biggest worry was how would they justify a 5 year old talking about something like this and yes, they handled it really well. I think the reason this story works so well is at no point, it tries to pin someone down. There are many characters in this film that do horrible things but every single one of them has a solid reason to do so and in their shoes, they are absolutely right about it. It's amazing how things turn out some time. And I LOVE the note it ends on. It's SO perfect.

Zombieland(2009)(Re-watch): From its narrative approach to its stylistic elements, from making a zombie comedy to calling the characters by the city names, there is so much in it that just should not have worked but this movie is still such a delight. I love Emma Stone and can watch pretty much anything she is in but she is absolutely perfect in that role and so is Abigail Breslin. Eisenberg can be little annoying but that is exactly why his character works. But Woody Harrelson has to be the biggest delight of this perfect cast. He is pure fun to watch.

The Conjuring(2013): Typically, I am not a Horror fan but I tries this because of the high praise from various bloggers and I have to say they were right. Total scenario of this film is pretty basic but it wins in the execution. What it does right is, like many other horror films, it didn't try to startle the viewer. It was actually scaring me. Every time you see something scary, it is kind of introduced for a second first and then it goes to its full scale horror. So you know something is going to hit you but then it hits you and hits hard!!

Sweet Smell of Success(1957): Tony Curtis' slimy, disgusting press agent is probably the biggest spectacle on screen. But from the acting POV, I was leaning more towards relentlessly unscrupulous Lancaster for one reason - I absolutely despised Falco; I know I am supposed to but we are supposed to hate Hunsecker as well and I didn't. I was more fascinated by the length he was ready to go to. This one further cements my belief of 1957 as the Best year in cinematic history. I already have 9 extremely solid entries from this year and this one takes it into double digits.

Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind(1984): It is so apt that success of this film resulted in the formation of Studio Ghibli because this movie is everything you ever expected from a Ghibli movie. As I said in the Miyazaki Profile post, it is as if this is a Test case for everything we have now come to expect from Miyazaki and Studio Ghibli films(young but dynamic female protagonist, initially threatening but redeemable antagonist, strong environmentalist vibe) and it is astonishing how wonderfully well it works even after 30 years of its release.

The Dark Knight Rises(2012)(Re-watch): My first viewing since I saw it in the theaters. Michael Caine and Anne Hathaway are still awesome, Bane's voice wasn't that much of a distraction anymore (but that could be subtitles). Many little things in the story make a little more sense this time but there are still few things that I could have done without. But the biggest thing that hasn't changed is I still don't give a shit if it is the worst film in the whole world (It's not, by leagues). I Love It! Deal with it.

The Silent Duel(1949): I remember watching High and Low(1963) a little over a year ago. That was my first Kurosawa film not set in the Samurai period. I already recognised him as one of the greatest directors ever but this opened a whole different avenue for me. I have seen many films set in contemporary period now and Kurosawa has almost never disappointed me yet. As for this film, it was very different to watch otherwise very animated Toshiro Mifune being the quiet, reserved person but he sure made it worth it.

From Here to Eternity(1953): I am slowly going through Best Picture winners that I haven't seen yet. I know 3 or 4 that I am looking forward to but most of the rest feel like Homework. So it is always great to see a surprise package like this making this homework worth it. Gentleman's Agreement(1947) did something similar last year. It had a great cast with everyone doing a notable jobs in their roles but once again, Burt Lancaster made me notice him. Either he knew how to choose a meatier role or he knew a knack to make them meatier. Either way, its commendable.

In the Name of the Father(1993): I have seen my fair share of IRA related movies and in some ways or the rather, every one of them has moved me; even outraged me. But I don't think I have felt anything this much. If we are comparing two films, I will say Hunger(2008) is a better movie but even that didn't feel so much. And as great as Daniel Day-Lewis is in this film(and I think he is even better than his Oscar-winning performance in My Left Foot(1989)), it was Pete Postlethwaite who was scene-stealer. My heart went out to him every time he was on screen.






The Searchers(1956): Movie that has been referred as 'The Best Western made ever' was this month's Blind Spot Entry. I don't know much about westerns but I think I will prefer couple of others I have seen over this. Racism involved in it has probably been the most talked about topic in this and if you read here, I have tried to weigh in as well. It may look like I am supporting racism in it but what I wanted to say was he might be trying to show us how people used to think then. I am no Ford expert but I won't find him guilty yet either.

A Man and a Woman(1966): Reminded me of One Fine Day(1996). I have had troubled relationship with French 'New Wave-y' films. I think of most of them as gimmicks that may or may not work for anyone. I am not sure if this counts as a new wave film but if it does, it is probably the one I liked most. There are still many gimmicks in it that I don't think are necessarily needed but most of them worked for me. Aimee Anouk is yet another in the line of many stunning beauties in French films but yet again, she was able to support it with her very mature performance.

Whisper of the Heart(1995): There are many films under the banner of Studio Ghibli but are not directed by Miyazaki that I haven't seen. Even though he did not direct it, he did work on the screenplay and it is such a sweet film. There is no fantasy element in it but once again, it is a coming of age story of a young girl who challenges herself to prove her worth. I would have rated it even higher but I had few problems with middle school students confessing their love and proposing to each other. 

In the Heat of the Night(1967): Yet another Best Picture winner of the list. Both Sidney Poitier and Rod Steiger were stellar in their performances and the mystery of the killer kept me engaged. But looking at the basic plot, I expected the stakes to be higher and I can't shake off the feeling that they played it too safe. Though it never was superficial, screenplay looked like it was caught in two minds whether to concentrate more on Racism or on murder investigation at hand and in the process, couldn't get deeper into neither.

Somewhere(2010): One of the topics that I have often wondered about is should we allow an ending to ruin the whole movie experience? I have often been guilty of it myself but I swear, I try not to. It's just that sometimes it's not possible, like in this case. I LOVED Elle Fanning in this, I loved the way it portrayed their loneliness. You could see that in their eyes even in the moments they are enjoying the most, knowing that this is ephemeral. But that ending has left such a bad taste in my mouth.

The Castle of Cagliostro(1979): Hayao Miyazaki has made himself quite a reputation in the past few decades. This is the first film he ever directed and in a grand tradition of my Profiles posts, it was the last of his films I saw. It's a good film but the thing is Miyazaki directed it and now, that we know him so well, I've come to expect certain things from his film and it's nothing like that. Does that make it a bad film? Definitely not but it definitely would've been better with his signature traits.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey(2012)(Re-watch): I LOVE LOTR and I really want to like this too. I even like a lot of things about this film but I still don't understand why Peter Jackson had to add so many extraneous bits to it. I had the same problem when I saw it first, I was wondering same thing this time as well and they won't go away until next two movies come out and give those characters a valid reason to belong where none of them do. Please, Peter Jackson. Help me like you!

Hulk(2003): I have always been confused about which of the two Hulk movies is directed by Ang Lee. After watching this, I was almost sure it was the other one. I have only seen half of his films but this has got to be the least favourite, by far. Pairing of Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly is probably the best thing about this film and it actually works pretty well as well. Lee's direction isn't bad but it isn't anything notable either and that rarely happens. Even script lacked the punch and end result proved lackluster at best. 

The Incredible Hulk(2008): If the Bana-Connelly pair was the best thing about Lee's Hulk, Edward Norton - Liv Tyler pairing was the worst thing about this Hulk. Not that everything else is any better but Liv Tyler's rigidness makes them look Oscar-worthy. I usually like Norton but even he is very monotonous here. Idea of giving Hulk an adversary by making yet another but evil Hulk is such a washed-up trick. Maybe they could have saved it by executing it better but it just consistently goes over the top. Maybe he was lesser of all evils but I kind of liked Tim Roth.

The Lost World: Jurassic Park II(1997): I might have seen it in parts before but it definitely was my first viewing from start to end. I don't know how I didn't see it before but now that I have seen it I am wondering what made me sit down and watch it this time? At least once the two teams get together and shit hits the fan, things got somewhat better. It was otherwise so bland, so predictable. Even the way the scenes were set up was a clear indication of whats to come next. That's lazy!

Total Count: 20. 17 First Time Watches and 3 Re-watches .

2013 YTD Count

Total Count: 197. 180 First Time Watches and 17 Re-watches.

So, how was your month? Did you see anything interesting? What do you think of the movies I saw? Any favorites?