Category: Movies

The Birds

Two-thousand birds and 100,000 fish died in Arkansas about 100 miles apart, and so far nobody knows the reason.  The media is all over the story.  Such news gives us a little fear because it seems like the beginning of a horror movie or an end-of-the world movie.  Animals start dying for no reason, and then. . . .? For example, in Alfred Hitchock’s The Birds, a character in the movie refers to a real-life mystifying incident where birds in a California town started hitting buildings and dying, implying a connection to the later horror in the fictional story.

Hopefully, the scientists will figure out the causes.  They at least partly solved the mystery of some of the honey bee deaths in recent years.  Some scientists discovered the bees were dying from a combination of a fungus and a virus, even as the bee population continues to decline. But, if scientists do not discover the causes for the recent Arkansas fish and foul deaths, it is not such a bad thing for us to be bewildered for awhile. It sparks the imagination.

I have not watched The Birds in a long time. It was one of the first scary movies I saw as a child, so it carries disturbing baggage for me. The special effects seem unreal today, but the movie is still spooky. One of the best parts of the movie is that they never explain why the birds are attacking. Why are the birds suddenly attacking people? Does it have something to do with the lead character’s past? Alfred Hitchcock was a genius to not explain the attacks. By contrast, M. Night Shyamalan might have made The Happening a better movie had he learned that lesson. Unanswered dark questions terrify us more than the beaks and claws.

In honor of fallen feathered and gilled friends, check out the movie The Birds.

Bonus Byrds Explanation: For those of you who believe there must be a reason for the bird deaths, here are some Byrds who agree that everything has a time to every purpose under heaven.
Bonus Update (1/8/11): Google Maps now has a world map showing where the latest mass animal deaths have occurred.

  • Christmas Don’t Be Late
  • The Eyes of Alfred Hitchcock
  • How Alfred Hitchcock made “Rope” With Only 10 Cuts
  • Versions of “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge”
  • A View from the Rear Window
  • The Leopold & Loeb Trial and Alfred Hitchcock

    • (Related Posts)

    The King’s Speech (short review)

    The King’s Speech (2010), about King George VI, is one of the best movies of the year. It is entertaining, interesting, and an excellent mix of drama, humor, and history.

    King George VI

    Do not be deceived about the “king” in the title and be turned off or expect a story focusing on royalty. Although the movie does give great insight into the life of the royals, it is mainly a movie about human beings. The movie begins with the future king as the Duke of York, known to his friends as “Bertie.” He is second in line to the crown behind his father and older brother, but events beyond his control will later propel him toward the throne. In carrying out is royal duties, he sometimes has to give speeches, and his speaking is hindered by a severe stammer. After various experts failed to help him with his stammer, Bertie’s wife (Helena Bonham Carter) encourages Bertie to try one more expert, Lionel Logue, played by Geoffrey Rush.

    When Rush enters the movie, it really takes off in its study of the relationship between the commoner and the future king. Rush is outstanding in the role, and Colin Firth is also exceptional in making the viewer come to understand the imperfect person underneath the king. The acting all around is excellent, including Carter and including Guy Pearce as King Edward VIII. Timothy Spall’s portrayal of Winston Churchill was the only weak point in the cast. But the problem may have been in the difficulty of portraying someone as recognizable as Churchill without slipping into caricature.

    [This paragraph reveals small potential spoilers.] The title’s reference to “The King’s Speech” refers both to Bertiie’s difficulties in speaking and to the climactic speech at the end where he addresses the nation. While the focus on the former is compelling, the shift to the focus on the latter fell a little flat for a movie climax. Because of the tone throughout the movie, as well as maybe from previews, there was no suspense about whether the final speech would succeed. Plus, the uplifting movie’s ending foreshadows some dark clouds with the images of Hitler near the end and the introduction of Neville Chamberlain, who after the movie ends will have a policy of appeasement to the Nazis. So, the movie did not quite convince me of the speech’s importance, although it was important. It is hard to fault the movie for the climax, though, when it portrays true events and is not responsible for our knowledge of the upcoming events. But it is too bad that his speech alone could not have immediately defeated the Germans, in both the movie and in real life.

    Conclusion? The story, acting, and movie are excellent. In a year of few great movies, The King’s Speech is near the top of the crop.

    If you have not seen the movie, stop reading here and go see it. If you have seen the movie, you might enjoy hearing the actual speech from King George VI featured at the end of the movie here:

    Leave your two cents in the comments.

  • 2011 Oscar Predictions Roundup
  • The Legacy of Bridget Bishop and the “Witches” of Salem
  • 12 Years a Slave (Short Review)
  • “Gravity” Is Such a Lonely Word (Short Review)
  • Video of Every Best Picture Winner
  • The “I Shoulda Won” Best Picture Oscar Quiz

    • (Some related Chimesfreedom posts.)

    127 Hours (Short Review)

    During a time when I lived in Arizona, I often went hiking in the desert by myself. There is something about being alone in the wilderness by yourself that is rejuvenating. After seeing 127 Hours, though, you will think twice before heading off into the wilds alone.

    127 Hours: Between a Rock and a Hard Place, Aron Ralston

    In 2003, Aron Ralston was out hiking and climbing rocks when he fell in a canyon and a boulder trapped his arm. For the next five days, he struggled to stay alive and to try to figure out a way to escape. Anyone going to see the movie probably already knows how it ends. Knowing that, 127 Hours, which is based on Ralston’s book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place, is pretty much what you expect.

    Although I had hoped to be surprised in some way, there was not a lot beyond what I expected. The accident happens early in the movie, and then it builds toward the brutal ending, and it is rather explicit even if some of it is thankfully blurred out.

    The ending, though, was somewhat surprisingly uplifting. In the loner’s struggle to get back to civilization and to get help from other people, there is a release from the anxiety. I am not sure, though, whether or not the release came from the telling of the story or whether, as in Mel Gibson’s The Passion, the movie slowly beats you into submission with its brutality so that you feel the emotion when you are finally released from that brutality.

    Is it worth seeing? If you know what happens and you are still curious, 127 Hours is worth seeing. James Franco, as always, does a good job, which is important in a movie such as this where the lead actor must carry the film. The scenery is captivating and best seen on a big screen. And it is a compelling true story about what a human being can do in desperate circumstances.

    Army of Shadows vs. Inglourious Basterds

    French Resistance Movie When watching Army of Shadows recently, I could not help comparing it to Inglourious Basterds.  It might not be fair to compare Army of Shadows’s realistic portrayal of the French Resistance to the Nazi-killing fantasy, but let’s do it anyway.

    There was something disorienting about the way that Quintin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds glorified violence while also portraying the enemy as a regime that glorified violence.  The movie is supposed to be fun, and I understand that.  I love some of Tarantino’s violent movies, like Pulp Fiction.  And Inglourious Basterds had some excellent scenes, with Tarantino doing an outstanding job of portraying building tension in the opening farmhouse scene and in the scene in the bar.

    But I just could not fully enjoy a movie where we were supposed to root for a sadistic character (played by Brad Pitt) against sadistic Germans when it almost seemed the Pitt character would have fit just as well in a Nazi uniform instead of a U.S. uniform had he been born in Germany.

    By comparison, one cannot imagine the “heroes” of Army of Shadows working for the Nazis, even though we see those characters doing acts of violence in a much darker movie.  Army of Shadows portrays members of the French Resistance in day-to-day activities to survive and continue the movement.

    This film seems to show what it was really like to resist a totalitarian powerful authority like the Nazis.  The individual’s struggle is to keep the resistance alive in the shadows while betrayal lurks around every corner.

    There is no large-scale successful destruction of Nazis in Army of Shadows, and, in fact, you do not see any successes toward stopping the government.  But the main characters are still heroic in their existential struggle to continue in spite of the appearance that everything is doomed.

    In the movie, Resistance leader Phillipe Gerbier (played by Lino Ventura) speaks of facing death but might as well be speaking of the movement itself when he says, “It’s impossible not to be afraid of dying.  But I’m too stubborn, to much of an animal to believe it.  If I don’t believe it to the very last moment, the last split second, I’ll never die.”

    The 1969 movie is directed by famed French director Jean-Pierre Melville and based upon a 1940’s novel by Joseph Kessel, which in turn was based on Kessel’s experiences in the Resistance.  The book appears to be out of print, and the movie only made it to the U.S. a few years ago.

    When the movie was released in 1969, French critics campaigned against it.  They believed it glorified the Resistance and Pres. Charles de Gaulle (although the movie is not about de Gaulle) during a time when the president was not popular due to his reaction to a 1968 student uprising.  So the film did not do well in France, and it was not released in the U.S. until 2006.

    More than five million viewers have watched the trailer of Inglourious Basterds on YouTube while viewers have only seen the trailer there for Army of Shadows less than 35,000 times.  After more than 40 years, it’s time to see this excellent movie you might have missed.

    Bonus Subtitle Note: Yes, for you non-French speakers, Army of Shadows is in French with subtitles, and I understand the “resistance” to foreign movies.  You cannot type on your computer or play with your iPhone while reading subtitles.  I understand.  When I put a foreign movie in my Netflix queue, I often move it down the list as it makes it way toward the top.  But do not miss out on great movies like this one just because you have to read a little, and if you saw Inglourious Basterds, you made it through the German subtitles at points.  If you want to read more about Army of Shadows, the Onion AV Club has a good discussion of the movie here.

  • The Human Costs of World War II
  • Controversial Video of the Week: “DJesus Uncrossed”
  • Cartoonish Gunfire But Brutal Slavery in “Django Unchained” (Review)
  • The Ending of “Judgment at Nuremberg” And the Film’s Lesson for Today
  • “The Grey” Is Not the Movie You Thought It Was (Missed Movies)
  • What Tarantino’s “Star Trek” Might Look Like

    • (Related Posts)

    Missed Movies: Solitary Man

    Michael Douglas There are two types of good movies.  First, there is the movie that you enjoy while you watch it and then never really think about again — until you are flipping TV channels and come across it and think, “Oh yeah, this was good.”  Second, there is the movie that you continue to ponder long after you watch it. The movie may stay with you for any number of reasons.  Maybe a character reminded you of someone. Maybe the movie puzzled you in a good way. Maybe there was a scene you cannot stop thinking about.

    The 2009 movie Solitary Man falls into the latter category for me. The movie features one of Michael Douglas’s great acting roles and is worth it for that alone.  Douglas plays a womanizer and former car dealership owner who sees many of his bad decisions catch up to him. You may not like or admire the character, but he comes across as a real person, not a caricature, and you most likely will want to see what happens next.

    Solitary Man has an excellent cast, including Susan Sarandon and Jesse Eisenberg (recently in The Social Network).  The scenes between Douglas and Danny DeVito are excellent in a way that may only be possible when played by two old friends portraying two old friends.  In the DVD extras, Jenna Fischer (who you might know from The Office) recalls how when she read the script before knowing the cast, she could only think of Michael Douglas in the lead role.  Douglas does such a great job, there is only one other person I could imagine in the role.  As he has aged, Douglas reminds me more and more of his father, Kirk Douglas, who I might also imagine here as Ben Kalmen.

    [I am not giving away much about the ending, but if you plan to see the movie and do not want to know more about it, skip this paragraph.]  The ending of Solitary Man is one reason I keep thinking about the film.  The end is not an exciting explanation point, but more of a small question mark.  I was reminded of a Tom Hanks movie where a lot of people did not like the ending, but I did.  Here, the ending seemed perfect and true to the movie and the character.  If you have seen Solitary Man, you may read more of a discussion of the ending in this interview with the writer/directors.

    Like many movies in my Movies You Might Have Missed series, you should not watch Solitary Man expecting it to be one of the great movies of all time, but it is a small, entertaining, and thoughtful movie that you might enjoy.  I’m surprised that the movie did not get the attention that it deserved.  Some reviews at the time praised the movie as a smaller version of Douglas’s fine work as an aging English professor in Wonder Boys, because of some similarities between the characters.  But the movies are very different, so you should not be expecting Wonder Boys II.

    While Douglas’s Wonder Boys character had more of a slapstick element, Solitary Man seems more grounded in day-to-day reality.  There are moments of humor, but Douglas creates a real character of flesh and blood.  And, even though you may not admire the character, you will see flashes of humanity and real life here. And that is what creates movies you think about long after the screen goes dark.

    Missed Movies is our series on very good movies that many people did not see when first released.

  • A Vietnam Movie About the Continuing Effects of the War: “The Last Full Measure” (Missed Movies)
  • Stephen King’s “The Life of Chuck”: A Few Thoughts for Those Who Haven’t Seen the Film . . . and a Few for Those Who Have
  • Nicolas Cage Shines In Modest But Surprising “Pig” (Short Review)
  • Is “Captain Fantastic” Fantastic?
  • Runaway Train (Missed Movies)
  • Tommy Lee Jones and “The Homesman” (Missed Movies)

    • (Related Posts)