MOVIES I HAVE WATCHED SEMI-RECENTLY
first: SPARTACUS.
this was an incredible, jaw-dropping capital-f Film that really captures in a bottle this era of 60's cinema that was obsessed with an ungodly amount of scale above all else. however, Spartacus stands head and shoulders above many of it's cohorts in the historical epic genre. and when i say epic, i mean truly Epic. the version i watched was three hours and change, and while that's not uncommon nowadays in mainstream films, Spartacus's pacing (plus the added delight of an overture and intermission!) was perfect and the time spent with the movie felt like it just blew past. i never once felt like Spartacus was outstaying its welcome, and was constantly entertained and awe-struck by the unending size of everything. there are scenes that have action going on in every part of the frame, even into the far distance. like any of the marching scenes of Spartacus's rebel army that consists of what looks like hundreds, if not thousands, of extras all marching in sync over hills and mountains. i have no idea how much of it is trickery but it was incredible to see everytime. just the idea of coordinating all of this so it looks completely seamless boggles my fuckin mind.
which makes it wild that Kubrick apparently hates this movie? it makes sense since he was brought on as more of a hired gun courtesy of Kirk Douglas (got that starring lead role AND executive producer bonus!) then someone who had a genuine artistic vision, but i still feel like despite these restraints (and all the fighting that it caused between Kubrick and screenplay writer Dalton Trumbo, cinematographer Russell Metty,) that boundary-pushing Kubrickness makes itself known throughout the entire film. while the world that Spartacus is still reluctant to go all in on a realistic portrayal of how hopelessly corrupt and awful the Roman Empire was, it gets really damn close to what the (possible) reality was of the time. it's pretty clear how much this is helped by original author Howard Fast's and Trumbo's experiences with being blacklisted and ostracised for their association with anti-fascist and communist organizations, with the story taking on an explicit theme of fighting for social justice at any cost. what's most interesting is that Spartacus is one of the movies that brought about an end to the Hollywood Blacklist by people like JFK crossing picket lines to see the movie. that's pretty cool, right?
the cast in Spartacus is absolutely fantastic across the board. the big players, namely Oliver and Douglas deserve special mention. Kirk Douglas plays the titular heroic in the most stoic and empathetic way possible, even allowing the character to break down towards the end as the outlook becomes grim. it's been said that Spartacus's portrayal is a bit too Perfect and i get that argument. he really has no flaws and is always on the right side of everything, but that's only something i noticed after the movie was finished tbh. while watching, i was completely enthralled by this dimple chinned motherfucker. Laurence Oliver perfectly plays the imperialist evil that is Crassus who alternates between war-mongering against Spartacus's revolt and being terrified of a single man giving slaves and lower classes hope and just as Spartacus is frightened at the idea of failing his believers, Oliver really sells the idea that Crassus understands that Rome already lost the war of ideas long ago but refuses to say that out loud as the empire rots away around him. i could write so many words about the rest of the amazing cast, though i do want to point out how i wish Jean Simmons got more to do other then 'be Woman' but....well, it's a Hollywood film from 1960 so what can you do? and shoutouts to Peter Ustinov for his fantastic portrayal of the over-sexed, overindulged yet wise and conniving Batiatus.
in short: Spartacus is amazing. it's a visual treat (especially in 4k!)
NEXT: MY BEST FRIEND'S WEDDING
this was....fine, i guess? i knew only one thing about this movie going in and that's that my mom hates this movie and HATES julia roberts because of it. so i was curious to at least see it! but honestly i came out of it having not......really a whole lot of thoughts on it?
like the movie objectively is Fine. it's not bad by any stretch. it kinda does some interesting things here and there. it's sometimes funny. it's sometimes sad. it's got a few memorable moments. it looks Nice but not Too Nice. the camerawork and cinematography is Adequate but nothing really sticks in the mind. maybe it was the mood i was in or my inability to pay attention to the movie for longer then 20 minutes before checking my phone for a few minutes then going back to the movie, but nothing stood out. it felt completely smooth, which i guess is a good thing when you're just making lightweight romcom pop entertainment for average crowds. but My Best Friend's Wedding attempts to have some serious edge to it, which makes it's lightness even more strange. maybe it's because Julianne Potter (Julia Roberts) is barely a person outside of her obsession with her best friend. i'm not saying the movie is bad because Julianne is evil or anything, it's just that it feels like that's all she is in the movie's eyes. she exists to be evil and then be redeemed. it's very basic.
her foil is also very basic, though i have to admit i loved Cameron Diaz as Kimmy Wallace in this as she is trying so so so hard to make everything possible work out for herself and her fiance Michael O'Neal (Dermot Mulroney) even as Julianne keeps setting her up for failure at every turn. she is so deeply, madly and completely in love with Michael that she will constantly roll with every punch and setback in their red-hot relationship if she can just keep Michael in love with her for as long as possible. there's probably a more interesting movie that examines how completely unhealthy such a relationship dynamic is, but the movie has zero interest in examining that. but god, Diaz plays it so well with her doe-eyed innocence and willingness to love everything about even her biggest haters. she is someone who has never had a negative thought about another human being, partly due to her insane privilege, but it's just so goddamn pure that you can't help but smile when she just keeps fighting to hold on to Michael.
Michael himself is....fine. nothing really stands out about him other then as to why he's so vulnerable to Julianne's machinations and how easily he falls for things over and over. i will say that one really great role, and everyone points out, is Rupert Everett as Julianne's openly-gay friend and editor George Downes who ends up getting embroiled in this war of romance on the side of Julianne by being recruited to pose as her fiance in the hope it makes Michael jealous. what results is one of the best parts of the movie where George goes Turbo-Straight and takes the idea of marrying Julianne to a completely absurd and fun place. Rupert's George also is really good at being the moral center of the story, and being there for when Julianne is at her lowest, though of course you wish Julianne would have listened to him sooner. though i guess if she did there would be no movie, and as Jay Bauman always says "eventually the movie has to happen"
i didn't hate My Best Friend's Wedding but i didn't love it either. i just sorta....liked it. When Harry Met Sally absolutely runs circles around this and i would recommend it over My Best Friend's Wedding in every instance, but if you are in the mood for romance through the lens of someone who is so afraid of being abandoned in the race of love that she is willing to risk it all, you can do WAY worse then My Best Friend's Wedding.
