Raging Bull

Watched: 17th January 2016

Top 250 Position: 117
Rating: 8.3 out of 10 (from 239,022 user ratings)
Correct at 28th October 2016

Who's in it:
Robert De Niro
Cathy Moriarty
Joe Pesci
Frank Vincent
Nicholas Colasanto
Theresa Saldana
et.al.

Directed By: Martin Scorsese

Year: 1980

Duration: 2 hours 9 minutes

Accolades: Won 2 Oscars; Best Actor in a Leading Role (Robert De Niro) and Best Film Editing (Thelma Schoonmaker).
Nominated for a further 6 Oscars; Best Picture, Best Actor in a Supporting Role (Joe Pesci), Best Actress in a Supporting Role (Cathy Moriarty), Best Director (Martin Scorsese), Best Cinematography and Best Sound.

Plot:

Set in 1941this movie follows a self-destructive boxer's journey through life. As he reaches the heights of his career the same drive and violence attempt to destroy his life outside of the ring. How many people will he hurt along the way?

Interesting Facts About the Film:

• In preparation for his role, Robert De Niro went through extensive physical training, then entered in three genuine Brooklyn boxing matches and won two of them.
• To achieve the feeling of brotherhood between the two lead actors, Robert De Niro and Joe Pesci actually lived and trained with each other for some time before filming began. Ever since then, the two have been very close friends.
• The reasons why the film was made in black and white were mainly to differentiate it from Rocky (1976) as well as for period authenticity. Another reason was that Martin Scorsese didn't want to depict all that blood in a color picture. Also in the book Jake LaMotta says "Now, sometimes, at night, when I think back, I feel like I'm looking at an old black and white movie of myself. Why it should be black and white I don't know, but it is."
• Martin Scorsese shunned the idea of filming the boxing scenes with multiple cameras. Instead, he planned months of carefully choreographed movements with one camera. He wanted the single camera to be like "a third fighter".
• The real Jake LaMotta has been deaf for most of his life, so most of his anger came out of not understanding what people were saying. He has a 30% use in his right ear, and 70% in the left.
• To show up better on black-and-white film, Hershey's chocolate was used for blood.
• The f word is used 114 times in this film.
• In 2007, the American Film Institute ranked this as the #4 Greatest Movie of All Time.

Source IMDb.com

Review

I've seen a lot of Scorsese films now and been genuinely impressed. I'm not sure this is one of my own personal favourites though. But let me explain what makes this movie before any die hard fans out there judge me.

For those of you that don't know and wish to watch this movie it is in black and white, I personally don't have an issue with that but I know that some do. The use of black and white really does emphasis the film and put some more context to it, and shows that it isn't just about 'modern' life. It also helps in the fight scenes not seeing bright red blood everywhere, so I can see where Scorsese was coming from when he made this decision.

In all I personally felt that the movie was a little bit slow, but then I am used to fast paced films. 20 minutes in and I felt it had been much longer, an hour in and I have to admit I was a little bit bored. Don't get me wrong the acting is good and all round this is a very good movie, just not my sort of movie I think.

For anyone thinking that this is a feel good movie you would be wrong, also be warned of violence, though it's a movie about boxing so if you think there won't be violence I don't know what you were thinking.

Maybe to the modern eye this is not a top movie. I like boxing movies, for instance I just watched Creed and really enjoyed it, but Raging Bull is just not for me.

Don't expect a happy ending, this is definitely a deep and dark movie that leaves you without a joyous feeling at the end.

I have to say though I struggled to get into it, but when you do it leaves you wanting more.

I think I might have enjoyed the movie more from the beginning if I had known the plot outline before watching, as I had no idea what the story was before.

This is basically a movie about a man so consumed by jealousy, anger and hate that he can't see reality from what he imagines to be the truth. This is portrayed in such an amazing way by De Niro you can see why he won an Oscar. Just genuinely outstanding how he portrays a man spiralling out of control. This is story asking the question if you can pick yourself up or are you out for the count?

I was amazed to discover that De Niro added approximately 60kg to portray the character shown in the start of the movie, weight loss/gain for movies always seemed to me to be a new thing for actors to show their commitment to their role. It just emphasises what a true bred and pioneering actor De Niro is.

Overall deserving, I think, of a place in the top 250. But if I was asked to rank the movies in the top 250 myself I'm not sure I would put it in the top 150.

For more information about the film visit the imdb.com page: www.imdb.com/title/tt0081398/

Mad Max: Fury Road

Watched: 16th January 2016

Top 250 Position: 185 (161 when watched)
Rating: 8.1/10 (from 574,231 users)
Correct at 23rd October 2016

Who's in it:
Tom Hardy
Charlize Theron
Hugh Keays-Byren
Josh Helman
Nathan Jones
Zoe Kravitz
Rosie Huntington-Whiteley
Riley Keough
Abbey Lee
Courtney Eaton
Nicholas Hoult


Directed By: George Miller

Year: 2015

Duration: 2 Hours

Accolades: Won 6 Oscars and nominated for a further 4.
Won-

• Best Achievement in Film Editing
• Best Achievement in Costume Design
• Best Achievement in Makeup and Hairstyling
• Best Achievement in Sound Mixing
• Best Achievement in Sound Editing
• Best Achievement in Production Design

Nominated also for Best motion picture of the year, Best achievement in directing, Best achievement in cinematography and Best achievement in visual effects.

Plot:
The forth installment in the Mad Max franchise. Set in a future where gasoline and water are scarce commodities. Can anyone stand up to the tyrannical (and sex mad) self proclaimed leader?

Interesting Facts About the Film:

• There were roughly 470 hours of footage to edit; editor Margaret Sixel took three months to watch it all.
• Shot in sequence.
• This is the second Mad Max featuring Hugh Keays-Byrne He played the villain Toecutter in Mad Max (1979)
• As in the previous movies in this series, many characters' names are never said in full or at all onscreen and are only provided in the credits.
• The first Mad Max film where Max is credited by his full name Max Rockatansky.
• Counting the opening voiceovers and discounting any grunts, Max Rockatansky has exactly 52 lines.

Source IMDb.com

Review

Well.....
When I first watched this movie it had just been nominated for 10 Oscars, so I obviously had to see what all the hype was about.

I'll be honest I think the categories where it won were well deserved, it is a visually spectacular movie.

I got very lost in the plot which did affect my enjoyment of the movie and Wikipedia had to come to the rescue on more than one occasion. Having never watched any of the other Mad Max movies it would be hard to say to others interested in watching this movie if watching it's predecessors would help.
But for me I basically had very little clue of what was going on most of the time.

When watching movies I always keep a notebook to hand to help recall the movie when writing this blog. In my own words 'bit of a freaky looking bad guy'. Anyone having looked at the images of this movie would probably agree, and again backs up the fact that this movie won for best make up and hair styling and costume design.

The action scenes are packed to the rafters and visually everything is superb.

I'm not sure I would watch this again in a hurry (though I'm sure on a second viewing it would make more sense) as it isn't my usual cup of tea.

On a positive I don't feel like I've lost two hours of my life as you do with some other movies. 
I did watch this without realising how long it was, but the time skipped along and before you know it you've watched a 2 hour movie.

So all in all, a good all-rounder, just maybe needs a bit more plot explanation for us folks who aren't ofay with the world of Mad Max, either that or expect to have Wikipedia open on your phone while watching.

For more information about the film visit the imdb.com page: www.imdb.com/title/tt1392190/

Whiplash

Watched: 21st October 2016

Top 250 Position: 45
Rating: 8.5 out of 10 (by 417,238 users)
Correct at 22nd October 2016

Who's in it:
Miles Teller
J.K. Simmons
Paul Reiser
Melissa Benoist
et al.

Directed and Written By: Damien Chazelle

Year: 2014

Duration: 1 hour 47 minutes

Accolades:
Won 3 Oscars-  Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role (J.K Simmons), Best Achievement in Film Editing (Tom Cross) and Best Achievement in Sound Mixing (Craig Mann, Ben Wilkins and Thomas Curley).

Nominated for a further 2 Oscars, Best Motion Picture iof the Year anf Best Writing , Adapted Screenplay.

Plot:

Andrew (Teller) is a young drummer enrolled at prestigious Shaffer Conservatory in New York. One day while practising he is noticed by Fletcher (Simmons), a well know and demanding professor. Soon Andrew is invited to join Fletcher's Studio Band, even if it is as an alternate Andrew wants to make the most of this opportunity.
But how far is Andrew willing to push himself, and be pushed?

Interesting Facts About the Film:

• Part of the film is based on director/writer Damien Chazelle's experience as a band student in high school. In a Q&A after a screening, Chazelle stated he was intimidated by his band instructor's presence.
• J.K. Simmons has won 47 awards for his role as Fletcher.
• The film is one of the lowest grossing movies ever to be nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture.
• The film was shot in 19 days.
• Miles Teller During the more intense practice scenes, the director wouldn't yell, "cut!" so that would keep drumming until he exhausted himself.

Source IMDb.com

Review:

So this movie has been a long time waiting to be watched in the mountain of DVDs that I need to see. But instead of the dubiousness I have approached some of the movies I've watched with I was looking forward to this one.
I remember a lot of the hype around it when it was released and then won three awards at the Oscars.

It is rather intense in spots, but it has to be to show the demanding nature of Simmons' character. Without this you might just as well have a film about a lad who is good at drumming, and never has any challenges on this. That would be a pretty boring movie.

The movie shows the abusive nature of Simmons' character very well and he performs his part with expert ease. No wonder he won an Oscar. But then it begs the question as to why Miles Teller was never recognised in the same manner, his performance (including musical performances) as very well rounded, believable and performed well. His character sums up well what so many young people in music groups think, is he really good enough? What more does he need to do to be selected?
Trust me, as a person who spent a large majority of their teenage years in Orchestras I saw this in so many young people. I have to say I thought there were more important things in life, but this isn't the case for everyone. Andrew's character brings these thoughts and apprehensions to life.

The two main characters are polar opposites. Andrew is soft spoken yet talented at his chosen craft. Fletcher wanting to get the best out of his performers, with maybe not the most liked methods, but is he really deploying them for the wrong reasons? In his own words, 'there are no two words in the English language more harmful than "good job"'.

The final scene/performance is long, which I see a lot of people in reviews think is too long, but I think it needs it. It's a climax of the movie, like an overture building to something that will keep people on the edge of their seats wanting more of, or being unable to restrain themselves from a standing ovation when it finishes. It is the perfect way of showing where Andrew has come from and what he is and could be.

This movie isn't all doom and gloom and slapping and shouting. There are moments of subtle humour from all of then characters which helps to lighten this movie.

Overall I liked this movie. It begs the question; should you settle for not quite your best?

As for the position in the top 250? This is the only thing I might have some issues with. Yes it is a very good movie, but I'm not sure if I would include this in the top 50 of the 250. But then we all have our opinions.

For more information about the film visit the imdb.com page: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2582802/