Mr. Smith Goes to Washington Review

Welcome to the third film of Pop Cultural Opinion's Oscar marathon, continuing until February 27, 2012. Today, I will be reviewing a Best Picture nominated film from 1939, said to be one of the best film years of all time. The film is Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. This film, although directed by Frank Capra, and starring the brilliant James Stewart, it lost Best Picture to the more revolutionary color film "Gone with the Wind". Both films are considered classics by today's standards, and the one that's considered better is debatable, but I think this review shows my personal opinion. So, from 1939, here's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington:

 Some people say Wizard of Oz, others say Gone with the Wind, but in my opinion, the best of the amazing year of 1939 HAS to be Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. Excellent direction, awesome acting, and some of the best editing I have ever seen in a film. It deserves every single accolade it received, and more. The story is actually quite complex and interesting. It's about Jefferson Smith, played by James Stewart, who get's nominated for senator after the death of Senator Samuel Foley. Smith was nominated because of his work as the leader of the state's Boy Rangers group. Mr. Smith is a little nervous when he starts out, but he starts to get the hang of it, and tries to introduce some of his ideas, most of them are turned down, so he has to stand up for what he believes in, and by stand up, I really do mean "STAND UP". The story is very well done, even if it seems slightly far-fetched at times. Also, some of the scenes following the story are extremely well done, especially the ending. The characters are very likable and anything but cliches, especially Mr. Smith himself. They feel like real life people, while still being interesting. The acting is outstanding. Every actor, no matter how long they're on screen, leave a big impact. I was even shocked a young African-American boy was in the movie, as this was a time where racism was more widespread. Even still, Gone with the Wind had an African-American woman in a bigger role, so it's not a huge deal, even though it was still a great move by Capra to break the Black/White barrier. Also, James Stewart does completely TREMENDOUS in this film. In my personal opinion, Stewart is the second best actor ever (Behind Chaplin), and this has got to be one of his best roles. He's so intense when he needs to be, but when the movie is calm, so is Stewart. He's actually quite quirky at those parts, but in the climax, he is just powerful with every word. Also, Jean Arthur get's completely lost in her character, and between her and Stewart, it's hard to decide who's better. Now, as every recent review I do does this eventually, it's time for "The Best and Worst of Mr. Smith Goes To Washington". The best, undoubtedly, has to be the last half an hour or so. This is where Mr. Smith talks non-stop, I'm not gonna say what he's talking about, and as time goes by, he get's more and more exhausted, and while he's doing this, his friends try to rally for him, but all attempts fail. The scene is actually depressing, with Mr. Smith talking for hours with no one listening, and his friends failing to rally for him. I won't tell you what happens in the end, but it's a big surprise. The worst of this film... The only huge flaw I can think of is how they portray the government. I know, I know, the government sucked back then like it does now, but it seems to portray the government representatives as snooty, hate-filled, etc, which can get on your nerves at times. Even with that flaw, this is still an awesome, timeless, wonderfully edited, amazingly acted, and tremendously written film, well worthy of a watch for all ages.

5/5

  

The King's Speech Review

Welcome to my second review of my Oscar marathon (Ending the 27th of February)! For my second review, I'll be reviewing last year's winner, The King's Speech. Enjoy:

The King's Speech is not the best film of the year, but it's still a well acted, well directed, and overall great film. It really keeps you interested in the characters and story, and it has a memorable quality to it. It's not perfect, but it mixes sophistication with entertainment very well. The story is about George VI, played by the wonderful Colin Firth. After his father, George V, dies, George VI is crowned King of England. The problem with this is that is George VI has had a speech impediment all his life, and as king, he has to make important speeches publicly. So, as the country is at war and in need of a leader, his wife arranges for her husband to see a speech therapist, played by Geoffrey Rush. I won't say anymore, as I just described the first half hour right there. So yeah, the plot is really simple, which can actually be one of this film's downfalls. The films accomplishes so little in such a long time, and even though that often leads to more atmosphere and character development, which it does here, it leaves time to be bored, which is a flaw. The characters are hit and miss. The 3 main characters, George VI, the speech therapist, and Queen Elizabeth are all very well done, but the rest of the characters are uninteresting and most of them seem pointless. However, most of those characters only get about 2 minutes of screen time, as most of the screen time involves the 3 main characters, so it's not much a problem, so I'll let it slide. The acting is... hard to explain. Most of the actors do good, but not great. Helena Bonham Carter, who plays one of the three main characters, Queen Elizabeth, also did good, but not amazing. Nobody does bad, but only two people actually do amazing, and I think they were the best actors of 2010, Colin Firth, and, especially Geoffrey Rush. Colin Firth get's a lot of emotion across, make his character feel like he's not Colin Firth, but his character, George VI. Also, the best of the movie, if not the best of the year, Geoffrey Rush. He's so interesting and when you watch the film, you don't see Rush, you see the speech therapist character. That's how good he was. Now, it's time for "The Best and Worst of The King's Speech". Even though it's obvious Geoffrey Rush was the best part about this film, I already described how good he did, so, to bring up something I didn't mention yet, the best is Tom Hooper's direction. He really knows how to keep us interested in such a simple plot as "A guy trying to speak in front of people", and he does it well. With awesome cinematography and camera work, Tom really brought light to a simple concept. The worst, in my opinion, is that, for a film that act's very important and even won Best Picture, it really isn't that revolutionary. This wouldn't be a problem, but if you're going to make a film that acts like it's a modern classic, it doesn't introduce any new and interesting ideas. Even films like 127 Hours and Black Swan, film's you'd expect to be similar to other films of the past, introduce new ideas that you'd like to see in other films, but this film doesn't do that. So, what's my final opinion of this film? It's flawed, I know that, but it's very entertaining, very memorable, very atmospheric, and with 2 of the best performances of the year (Though James Franco would argue), this is a great film. Worth the watch any day, just don't expect the best film ever. 

4/5

The Tree of Life Review

Welcome to my first review of my Oscar marathon, where I review many different Best Picture nominated films throughout the years. To begin, I'll go with one of this year's nominee's, The Tree of Life. Enjoy:




This is a movie that you need full focus on, as it can be confusing and surreal, and to some people, that's a bad thing, but if you really look closely, you may discover something magical, something Malick probably intended, but it's so much more than his experimental film. He put's great time and effort into the story and makes sure the imagery is similar to the story, so much so that I consider it one of the closest films ever to express inner piece, along with classics like 2001: A Space Odyssey. It has flaws, sure, but if you look deep enough within the story and the imagery, you will enjoy it more than you'd ever expect. The story follows Jack, from childhood (Hunter McCracken) to adulthood (Sean Penn). It shows his relationships with his brothers, his friends, his mother, played by Jessica Chastain (Fun fact, she's in 2 films nominated for Best Picture this year, this and "The Help"), and his father, played by Brad Pitt (Who's ALSO in 2 Best Picture nominated films this year, this and "Moneyball"). His mother was nice and kind to everyone in the family, but the father was very easily tempered and often mean to his children and his wife. It doesn't sound like much, but trust me, it has a lot of meaning when combined with the outstanding imagery. The characters themselves are very well done and realistic. They have great lines and act as like they're real life people. None of them are perfect, but that's what makes them so realistic and likable, well, MOST of them are likable. The father expects to much from his children, so it makes him seem quite vicious and unpredictable, but, again, even though he's unlikable, he's a very realistic character, and along with that, you have genuine fear of this guy. Jack is a very likable character, and you're scared for him when he's around his own father. It adds unexpected suspense to the film, and I commend the film for it. So, I liked the characters, but were they played well. YES. YES THEY WERE. Brad Pitt was scary and in character very well, Penn didn't do much, but was very effective to the film itself, Chastain was awesome and also well into her character, and the newcomer, Hunter McCracken, and I honestly believe he has a future in film. Now, it's time for the "Best and Worst of "The Tree of Life". The best, although I love the character development and acting, I'll have to say the best is the direction, by good ol' Terrence Malick. A little back story: Before I watched this movie, I was nervous Malick was directing, as the only movie I've seen at that point by him was "The Thin Red Line", which, in my opinion, was OK at best. However, he executes such a surreal, yet somehow relaxing atmosphere, as well as making the imagery in the film make SENSE (Unlike that ending scene in 2001). So Malick really is the best part of this film, but what about the worst? The worst, in my opinion, is several scenes in the first hour. Don't understand? Let me explain: In the opening hour, it's just comparing imagery, such as space, trees, etc, to the story that we're about to watch. That's all fine and good, but the problem with this is that they show the characters in the first hour, they explain their personality via visual imagery and spoken poetry, which is a brilliant idea, but with the characters so developed and interesting, you want to see how they interact with each other, see their relationship with the other characters, you know. Unfortunately, you have to wait a FULL HOUR just to get sensible interaction. It brings the movie down as instead of being fully captivated in the stunning visuals, you're awaiting a strip of dialogue from one character to another, and with the long wait, you're only half enjoying the film itself. Luckily though, when the characters DO interact, it's not disappointing, so I'll give it that. Also, the visuals give you something to think about, so a good amount of the first hour, you forget all about it. Overall, it's an outstanding film, and besides a few very annoying faults, it's highly recommended, but only if you have time to watch it over again, to fully understand the meaning of the film.

4.5/5

Oscar Marathon At Pop Cultural Opinions!

Yes, you heard me right, from now until February 27 (Yes, the day after the Oscars), I will be reviewing as much Best Picture nominated films as I can, from any year! This is to celebrate the upcoming Academy Awards, where 9 films have been nominated for the biggest award. So far, I only reviewed 2 of these movies, here are the links:

Moneyball Review: http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2011/12/moneyball-review.html
Midnight in Paris Review: http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2012/01/midnight-in-paris-review.html

The movies that could possibly be reviewed are included here (Not official, other movies may be reviewed, and some of these movies I may not be able to review):
The Tree of Life (2011) (http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2012/02/tree-of-life-review.html)
Gone with the Wind (1939) (http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2012/02/gone-with-wind-review.html)
The King's Speech (2010) (http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2012/02/kings-speech-review.html)
Apollo 13 (1995) (http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2012/02/apollo-13-review.html)
Around the World in Eighty Days (1956)
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (1939) (http://popculturalopinions.blogspot.com/2012/02/mr-smith-goes-to-washington-review.html)
Shakespeare in Love (1998)
Mrs. Miniver (1942)
The Blind Side (2009)
All Quiet on the Western Front (1930)
The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming! (1966)
A Star is Born (1937)
And More!


So check back here anytime from now to the 27th and see some of the great films I have in store for you!

Top 10 Greatest Songs Of All Time

Hey guys! Today, I'm gonna do something different. I'm going to count down the Top 10 Greatest Songs of All Time. Now before I begin, let's lay down some ground rules:
1. One Song per Band.
2. My Opinion Only.
3. No Covers.
Well, no that we got that out of the way, let's begin:


10. Stan - Eminem

The first and only rap song on this list, Stan is violent, gritty, and unforgettable. The lyrics start out calm and cool but pick up pace leading to the creepiest final verse you'll ever hear.

9. Misery Business - Paramore

Not as much meaning to this one as others, but the talent expressed in this is outstanding. The singer is tremendous, and the beat of the song will have you listening to it over and over again.

8. Smells Like Teen Spirit - Nirvana

Sure, the genre that this song invented, for the most part sucks, but the song itself is so rebellious and far from normal, it etches into your brain, and your stuck with humming it for weeks.

7. Imagine - John Lennon

By far, THE most meaningful song on this list, and unless you hate all music that hasn't been made in the past 2 weeks, you WILL love this song. I guarantee it.

6. Red Flag - Billy Talent

Probably the best obvious rebellion song out there. It really has a memorable quality to it, and with amazing vocals and instruments, this HAS to be here.

5. After the Gold Rush - Neil Young

Listen to this song once, ONCE, and tell me it sucks. You can't. It's so powerful and meaningful, I'm suprised it's not up there with "Imagine" and "Bohemian Rhapsody" as Best Song.

4. Panama - Van Halen

The best guitar ever in a song, and some of the best vocals. Trust me on that.

3. Thunderstruck - AC/DC

AC/DC is my favorite band, and out of their songs, this is the best. Listening to this song live should be on everyone's bucket list.

2. Thriller - Michael Jackson

I hate when people say Michael Jackson's overrated because his dancing is the best part. His dancing's awesome, and so is this music video, considered the best music video ever, but the song is amazing too. I love it.

1. Welcome to the Black Parade - My Chemical Romance

I'm not a fan of this band. They really think they're expressing a lot when they really aren't. HOWEVER, I do like two of their songs: Teenagers and this. And this one is just tremendous. It has an awesome meaning, awesome guitar, awesome drums, awesome vocals, an awesome music video, and just the best song of all time.

Any songs I missed? Leave your favorites in the comments!

Midnight in Paris Review

Midnight in Paris is a strange movie, but somehow, it works. In fact, it works so well, I believe it is one of the best films of 2011. It combines awkward situations and funny moments to create something that only Woody Allen could accomplish. The story is simple. A couple goes to Paris for business, and both of them have their lives changed. The man of the couple, Gil, hopes to stay in Paris for the rest of their lives, while the woman want's to go back to the U.S.A after they're done. The character interaction is set up very well, and the lines are equally as amazing. The main character, Gil, is a very intelligent man, but he's very awkward, so he doesn't seem as if he's smart to the other characters, as they're more annoyed with him than intrigued. The story itself is just easy to follow, like I said above, and yet, it really does show how much it can accomplish. Now, even though I really adore this movie for it's story, cinematography, and just overall charm, it does have a few flaws, and the perfect way to express that is with the characters. Yes, I do admit to liking Gil a lot, especially with an excellent performance be Owen Wilson and dialogue by Woody Allen, the rest of the characters are a mixed bag. Inez is likable at times, but most of the time, she seems like she completely hates Gil, and disagree's with everything he says, which is annoying because Gil is a very likable character. Sure, when Gil says he met Pablo Picasso, her reaction is understandable, but when he corrects her friend on a historical inaccuracy, she basically throws a fit, which can really be annoying throughout the movie. Also, the rest of the supporting characters can be unlikable as well. However, the flaws in the characters can really be made up with the acting. Everyone did a great job acting, even if their characters were mediocre at best. They make the characters seem almost lifelike, no matter how unlikable they become. Now, because it's a recurring trend in my reviews, it's time for "The Best and Worst of Midnight in Paris". The best HAS to be the cinematography. It's basically like watching a "Best of Paris" video made by a pro photographer, with a great story intertwined with it. It really does leave you speechless, and to see these characters even interact with such great monuments is a joy. The worst thing about this movie... Even though I'm tempted to say the characters, the actors that played them did well, so I'll have to say the filler. Sure, the filler isn't horrible, but it leaves you bored, just watching two or three characters have overlong conversations about a novel or something. Sure, there's some good filler in the film, but for the most part, it feels boring. Now, this film isn't perfect, it has it's flaws, but the impression it leaves on you seems almost... magical. It's very memorable and very enjoyable, minus a few flaws. Overall, I really enjoyed this movie, and besides the few flaws, it's perfectly watchable. Recommended to everyone who enjoys a good romantic comedy.

5/5

Cleopatra (1934 Film) Review

Oh boy, another movie people love that I hate. Actually, I'd put it up there with Rear Window and Gladiator as the most overrated film. Look, I do admit, Claudette Colbert did OK, the special effects were great for the time, and Cecil B. DeMille did good for one of his earlier projects, but this is just a bland history lesson I really didn't care about. It barely even has a plot! It's just flashy special effect with about 4 major plot points, and you don't even care about the characters, so why would the major events matter if you don't even care about what happens to these characters? I think the worst part about these characters is they lack any real emotion, and even if they do have an emotion, it doesn't last long. It's just a bland special effects movie, that's it. Sure, the special effects are good, but you got to have a movie to go with it, and this isn't a movie. It's a mess. The story is basically a biography of, who else, Cleopatra. Nothing wrong with that, except it was executed horribly. They didn't develop the characters, they didn't make them likable, and they didn't make them realistic. Also, the editing was all over the place, and the filmmakers obviously thought special effects top story, which is quite false. The acting is just the same. Sure, Colbert did OK as Cleopatra, but everyone else was just boring and uninteresting. Finally, the characters are also not executed well. Nobody had any good lines, nobody had anything interesting to say or do, and that's a real disappointment, because the history of Cleopatra herself is very interesting and worth a read, but when it was translated to film... Oh boy. The first Cleopatra movie is now lost, only about 5 seconds of the film even exist as we now know. The second film, this one, is, like I said, a boring bland mess. The final major Cleopatra movie to host the one word name was the 1963 version, said to be the most expensive movie ever made, well, up until the third Pirates of the Caribbean, but that's beside the point. Even though it was very expensive and starred several big name actors like Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, the film flopped at the box office, and critics loathed the film. As for me, I just watched the most beloved movie of the 3, and I thought it sucked. Now what hope do I have for this story? Now, it's time for "The Best and Worst of Cleopatra". The best, obviously, is the special effects. Now, I shall give credit where credit is due, these special effects are outstanding. They must have spent a lot of time and money on them, and Cecil B. DeMille helped make the special effects come alive in the environment. The worst has to be the dialogue. I know, there's a lot of things I hate about this film, but when one of the main character says that "He's to manly to hiccup", you can tell the dialogue sucks. Overall, I really do hate this film. It put's special effects before story, without even giving us a unique story to begin with. Not recommended.

1/5