Apparently....

I write like
Stephen King

I Write Like by Mémoires, Mac journal software. Analyze your writing!

Well, that's what this thing says anyway. I used three different blog entries and got three different answers. I also got H.P. Lovecraft and Dan Brown as possible matches.

The funny thing is that I have only read two Dan Brown books and a half of a Stephen King book.

AFI 100 Review: #98 Unforgiven

Unforgiven

1992

Directed By: Clint Eastwood

Written By: David Webb Peoples

Starring: Clint Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Richard Harris, Jaimz Woolvett

The Acting: This film has some real heavy hitters and you get just what you would expect from such a lineup. Gene Hackman won an Oscar for his performance here as a real son-of-a-bitch former outlaw gunslinger turned lawman. He's as mean as a rattler and likes to have fun with his prey, but that's not really a surprise. This isn't new ground but Hackman performs well and is enjoyable in a sadistic kind of way.

Morgan Freeman also performs well. He's the former son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger turned farmer, as he states himself when we are first introduced to him. This part isn't really a stretch for him either. It actually reminds me of his character in Seven.

And, of course, there's Clint Eastwood as another former son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger turned farmer. He plays the torment well, here, as he slowly slides out of his decent life as a farmer and back into his old ways of killin'.

Richard Harris makes a brief entry into the narrative. But as one review I read commented, he really doesn't do anything to move the story along. If anything he's just enjoyable as a still son-of-a-bitch outlaw gunslinger who espouses at length how much better the English do everything.

All the other players do well, including the one that plays the young gunslinger wannabe. But I can't remember seeing him in anything after this movie so his career must have floundered after this film.

Interesting: What's interesting to me about this story is the complete lack of discussion about a moral standard. Everyone's on the line here. The whores that band together to raise the bounty for the cowboys that cut up one of their own? They hire men to kill other men. Surely the woman was wronged, but is it deserving that the two should pay with their lives? The pair that did the cutting? Well, one of them seems like a decent boy caught up in something he wanted no part in. He is genuinely sorry and tries to make amends. The hired killers? Well, they hear it that the cowboys did much more horrible things to the prostitute than were actually committed. They know what they're doing isn't necessarily right, but this is all business so it's okay, right? The lawmen? Violent and cruel, but there is law and order in the town.

Now, we could debate all of these points and how I have simplified many of the elements of this story. But I think we can all agree that this film takes no position on right or wrong. In fact, Clint's character himself agrees with the following exchange:

The Schofield Kid: "Yeah, well, I guess they had it coming."

Will Munny: "We all got it coming, kid."

Cultural Impact: All of the reviews for this film speak of a eulogy for the Western film. That this movie was an excellent bookend for the genre. They also speak of the significance of the similarities between Eastwood's career and the arc of the character. I won't cover all of that here as you can read those reviews for yourself. But does any of that matter?

When I was in school, I had to present a short film that I had made. Prior to starting the film I stood in front of the class and began to explain what my intentions were when I set out to make this movie. The teacher stopped me mid-sentence and asked a very simple question: "Mr. Voorhies, do you intend to be in every theater in the country and explain what you intended before they show your films, should you become successful?" I immediately got his point. What I intended didn't amount to a hill of beans. The film had to stand on itself.

Now, that shouldn't be confused with anything that the audience projects on the film themselves. It's the difference between Eastwood intending this film as a eulogy for the Western genre and the audience getting to that conclusion on their own. Obviously the two can't be completely separated. The director does have some ability to imply and suggest. But all too often the audience comes to a completely different conclusion.

Take, for instance, The Thing From Another World and it's remake The Thing. The first was intentionally a allegory for McCarthyism. But the second became an allegory for the beginning of the AIDs epidemic when the audience noticed things about the film that the filmmakers never intended. (I wrote a blog entry on this here.)

Anyway, I don't see this film as culturally impacting. I don't consider it a eulogy for the Western since eleven years after this film was released my third favorite Western of all time was released: Open Range.

Does This Film Belong On My List: No, I don't think so. There are some really great moments here. But that doesn't make a great film.

AFI 100 Review: #99 Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner

1967

Directed by: Stanley Kramer

Written by: William Rose

Starring: Spencer Tracy, Katherine Hepburn, Sydney Poitier, Katherine Houghton, Cecil Kellaway, Beah Richards, Roy E. Glenn

The Acting: I've never liked Katherine Hepburn. Her voice to me is like fingernails on a chalkboard. Here, she was as close to me liking her as I've ever been. Her performance was almost understated and most of what I didn't like here could be blamed on the character of the story.

But Spencer Tracy is the real revelation for me here. I've seen him in many of his older films, but none of his later films. As this was the case, I recognized his portrayal as Karl from "Up." Even so, he really is marvelous. I like that he's surly and pragmatic. His character is sincerely concerned with the physical abuse that the couple faces. (Incidentally, this was his last as he died seventeen days after filming was completed. His health was failing and he knew he was going to die soon. So his acting here, coupled with the fact that he so clearly agrees with the film's message, takes on a heightened sense of poignancy.)

Sidney Poitier does a great job as well. I must admit my only other real exposure to him in film is in Shoot To Kill. But here, he is reserved and very in control. He plays this perfectly giving the audience and the other characters of the story no reason to object to the union other than race.

Cultural Impact: Well, this movie is designed to be culturally significant. It's the whole reason for its being. All parties set out to make a point. This movie was released in 1967 and there couldn't have been a more ripened time for it to hit the population. This film ends with a speech (a good one at that) that explains why Spencer Tracy was wrong to think as he did. And it's delivered to convince the audience as well. But I don't believe anyone went to see this film that didn't agree with it before they entered the theatre. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'm not giving film the power it deserves, but I've always considered film to be a medium that best nudges society in directions. There really isn't anything subtle about this film in the end.

Does It Belong On My List: I want to say "yes," based on the importance of the subject matter. But as I stated before, I don't think this movie convinced anyone that wasn't already in agreement. So how culturally significant was it? Maybe there is significance in the fact that the film was made by a major movie studio with major players. Maybe that's an accomplishment in itself. But in the end I have to say, "no."

AFI 100 Review: #100 Yankee Doodle Dandy

Yankee Doodle Dandy

1942

Directed by: Michael Curtiz

Written by: Robert Buckner, Edmund Joseph, Julius J. Epstein, Philip G. Epstein

Starring: James Cagney, Joan Leslie, Walter Huston, Richard Whorf

I have to admit, I really didn't want to watch this one. I had no idea what it was about so that really doesn't make sense. It's number 100 on the American Film Institute's list of the greatest movies of all time so that is where I started with my Netflix. It arrived and then sat next to the television for over two months. Paula finally sent it back assuming that I wouldn't watch it, but I was duty bound. And as if the universe was Hell bent on helping me on my way, Turner Classic Movies featured it for July 4th this year.

What I liked: Honestly? Not much. This really isn't my kind of movie. Not that I don't like musicals, because I do. This is a biography but it seems like one that tries to include too much. What you get is almost a skimming of the story. There was a little bit of comedy that I found appealing. I can distinctly remember at one point saying "That's funny." The bad thing is that I don't remember what it was so it couldn't have been life changing or anything.

The Acting: Cagney won an Academy Award for this, but he always just seems like Cagney to me. No, he's not the gangster on top of the world, but he's still Cagney. Sometimes that works (see John Wayne) but it doesn't work for me with Cagney.

The Music: This is a musical and there are a few full music numbers featured. None of them really struck me. As it happens, I really don't like the title song.

Cultural Impact: I bet this is pretty neat stuff to anyone who wants to know more about the life of George M. Cohan. But I don't. Yeah, the movie was released in 1942 not long after the United States entered the war. But there isn't really anything patriotic about this movie for me. Perhaps it reinforces the American Dream and perhaps that's what some of us were fighting for. I guess I like my patriotism a little more blatant and over the top.

Does It Belong On My List: Nope.