= 5 stars

Starring Charlie Sheen, Willem Dafoe, Tom Berenger
Directed by Oliver Stone

Synopsis

Chris Taylor (Charlie Sheen), a willing American soldier in the Vietnam war, finds the entire experience more than he bargained for.

The Good

• Well-known actors in early roles: Willem Dafoe, Forest Whittaker, Charlie Sheen, and Johnny Depp. Sheen is particularly amusing as the naive newbie soon considered useless by his unit. It’s twisted casting as father Martin starred in the Vietnam masterpiece Apocalypse Now.
• Oliver Stone’s — who served in Vietnam — heavy handed, serious, and epic.
• Captures the sleep-deprived, constant paranoia of guerrilla warfare, with enemies real and imagined lurking everywhere, graphic violence, booby traps, and emotional shifts from nervous anticipation to sudden violence.
• More cohesive plot than Apocalypse Now and The Deer Hunter. The stress of war causes the platoon leadership to crumble and move toward paranoia, revenge and amorality, and innocent civilians become collateral damage.
• Soundtrack: Samuel Barber’s Adagio for Strings.

The Bad

• Occasionally comes across as Apocalypse Now light, usually during Charlie Sheen’s narration that takes one out of the grim proceedings.

Conclusion

What ultimately earned this film’s fifth star is a question posed near the end: why do men kill each other, and when is it justified? Irrational fear, self-defense, insanity, hate, revenge, and justice — it’s all here in spades. War may merely be a cover — a convenient excuse to justify unspeakable acts. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Platoon
Wikipedia: Platoon
Rotten Tomatoes: Platoon

= 5 stars

Starring Delphine Seyrig, Giorgio Albertazzi, Sascha Pitoeff
Directed by Alain Resnais

Synopsis

A man and a married woman may or may not have met and started an affair a year ago.

The Good

• Uniquely sumptuous, majestic visual style, located in a grand, ornate, baroque hotel / mansion with an Edward Gorey garden where impeccably dressed (some dresses designed by Coco Chanel) foreigners live out an isolated, decadent existence, posing for each other and the camera — sometimes frozen like mannequins — in some bizarre kabuki involving a romantic rendezvous. The mix of old and new results in a timeless feel, looking like nothing seen before and uncomfortably familiar.
• Incomprehensible plot, but not because Resnais is a bad director — the images never feel unintentional or randomly strung together. There’s a strong directorial hand hinting at some symbolic intent, even as one grows suspicious there is none. And the cool, detached glamourous style is undeniably planned and controlled. I soon gave up trying to follow things and merely became lost in the luxurious imagery and surreal mood. Everything seems symbolic of something else, some characters possibly unreal or imagined, others ghosts, apparitions, or death itself, the location itself a parallel universe, a movie being made, a dream, nightmare, life, purgatory, or whatever you bring to the experience.
• A slowly drifting camera plus deep focus, and black and white puts one in hypnotic, floating state, echoed by the other worldly performances of all involved.
• You’ll either love it or hate it — something I love in a film.

The Bad

• Makes no sense. Watching the scenes in a different order could even help matters. Subtitles could be turned off as they make little difference.
• The organ music is a little much.

Conclusion

While completely failing in terms of plot and explanation, the otherworldly mood and decadent visuals ultimately won me over. Film is a series of moving images, which although conventionally used for storytelling, can easily fall into chaos that takes one out of a movie. I was never put off or lost by this heady movie — rather, transported. There’s a careful balancing act here, between chance and meaning — something tantalizingly both present and absent simultaneously, and my interest is the dance between the two. Definitely not for everyone, but for those open to the inexplicable — it’s a Magritte painting come to life.

IMDB: Last Year At Marienbad
Wikipedia: Last Year At Marienbad
Rotten Tomatoes: Last Year At Marienbad

= 5 stars

Starring Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Melanie Laurent
Directed by Quentin Tarantino

Synopsis

In Nazi-occupied France, Jewish survivor Shosanna (Melanie Laurent) and American Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) seek revenge.

The Good

• Plot justification for Tarantiono’s trademark over the top violence: this is war and we’re killing Nazis. And with the addition of war time espionage, Tarantino’s penchant for overly long dialogue becomes all the more compelling — there’s a running theme of secrets and truth suddenly revealed.
• Several solid performances, from the broadly-painted Nazi “Jew Hunter” (Christoph Waltz) who grows increasingly interesting as the film continues, and his American, John Wayne-esqe nemesis, Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt) played as a classic American war hero, complete with jutting lower lip and uncultured mangling of foreign languages. Also notable are the introspective Shosanna and crushed glamour of the B-movie named Bridget von Hammersmark.
• About halfway through, I doubted Tarantino could pull off a good conclusion, but the four, loosely connected short stories come together satisfyingly at the end — yes, it disregards historical accuracy but becomes a twisted yet cathartically satisfying modern day revenge fantasy, with Americans, Jews, and African-American characters become symbolic of entire populations trying to wipe away distasteful history.
• No show-stopping, egotistical Tarantino cameo.
• Amusing spaghetti western references.
• Favorite segments: a tense meal where a someone recognizes a Nazi and is forced to eat strudel, and a long painful bar scene where American soldiers disguised as Nazis make awkward small talk with fear of being found out.

The Bad

• Some odd musical choices, namely a period-inappropriate David Bowie song and some crunchy guitars. Nothing seemed personally as relevatory as Pulp Fiction’s Dick Dale string work.
• Unnecessary bits: documentary-style explanations (narrated by Samuel Jackson), Mike Meyers, and overlaid names and arrows. Someone needs to trust the intelligence of his audience.

Conclusion

Succeeds, due to Tarantino’s inspired idea to place his trademark talky violence in World War II, stand out performances, and his ability to weave several plot elements into a satisfying conclusion. First-rate entertainment — despite blatant disregard for historical accuracy.

IMDB: Inglourious Basterds
Wikipedia: Inglourious Basterds
Rotten Tomatoes: Inglourious Basterds

= 5 stars

Starring Jack Lemmon, Shirley MacLaine, Fred MacMurray
Directed by Billy Wilder

Synopsis

Lowly office worker C.C. Baxter (Jack Lemmon) scales the corporate ladder by loaning his apartment to womanizing executives.

The Good

• Fun peeks into sixties office life: married businessmen and their extramarital affairs, heavy drinking during office parties, and boy’s-club executives who excel at doing nothing all day.
• The vast, dehumanizing distance between executives and their underling, average workers is represented by an institution-like, anonymous office building with identical desks for drones and private offices and a bathroom key for the higher-ups. The upper floor where managers play seems like a tantalizing brass ring, but the film ultimately questions the value of corporate-ladder-climbing when morality is the price.
• Lemmon’s variety-filled performance, from nervous fighting of a cold, to a bowler-wearing, sulky drunk. He’s magic with simple props like TV dinners and Kleenex.
• The apartment location allows for some colorful neighbors — a Jewish doctor who comes to Baxter’s aid provides a needed moral compass.

The Bad

• MacLaine nails elevator girl Fran Kubelik, focusing on the sadder side of her character (one scene where a co-worker slings not-so-subtle insults is particularly withering) but something about Fran’s change of heart in the film’s final, crucial stretch felt a bit off.

Conclusion

Despite a slightly unsatisfying conclusion, the vast majority is spot on with an interesting statement about work taking precedence over happiness. Plus, my present Mad Men love brings out dusky, serious undertones, improving this film immensely on second viewing. Highly recommended.

IMDB: The Apartment
Wikipedia: The Apartment
Rotten Tomatoes: The Apartment

= 5 stars

Starring Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorey, Genevieve Page
Directed by Luis Bunuel

Synopsis

Reserved newlywed Severine (Catherine Deneuve) acts on her sexual fantasies by becoming a daytime prostitute while her husband is at work.

The Good

• Although the above synopsis sounds like a skin flick, there are no explicit sex scenes and hardly any nudity. Despite that, I still found everything extremely erotic and sensual, with the feelings being more situational and psychological. It had me thinking about power; who gets to do what whom and whether the receiver wants them to. And some of the most titillating content is through surreal images: a woman in white violently splattered with mud, a box containing something buzzing that is never revealed, an obviously phallic cane that becomes destructive, or the mewling of cats and ringing sleigh bells.
• Dreams are the foundation, and Severine’s are violent and masochistic, in contrast to being shy and reserved in real life. But her waking life begins to be informed by her dreams to where they blur together, and oddly enough, this could be a female version of Inception — there is suggestion that the entire exercise is an erotic dream itself.
• Highly symbolic, flat, cipher-like characters: the blonde Severine becomes any stifled woman / reluctant sex object, her clueless husband any man, and an Italian thug lust itself. Severine’s upper-class wealth may have desexualised her.
• Bunuel’s direction plays the part of the voyeur, leading to some Hitchcock-like moments; Severine’s dragging feet resemble The Birds, her taut hairdo upon first entering a brothel reminiscent of Madeline’s in Vertigo, and Deneuve evokes Hitchcock’s trademark icy blonde. There are perfectly-framed moments where the position of the characters in foreground and background sum up their relationship and even the film itself.

The Bad

• Nonsense plot; Severine’s reckless journey is sure to be discovered. Although, perhaps she wants her transgressions to be revealed — and punished for them.

Conclusion

Despite its so-so plot, contains scenes that will haunt me forever. Godard once said “all you need for a movie is a girl and a gun.” This film has its Belle, but what I believe to be the gun, is left to your own twisted imagination. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Belle De Jour
Wikipedia: Belle De Jour
Rotten Tomatoes: Rotten Tomatoes

= 5 stars

Starring Bruce Willis, Haley Joel Osment, Toni Collette
Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Synopsis

Child psychologist Malcolm Crowe (Bruce Willis) takes on the unusual case of a shy, frightened boy Cole (Haley Joel Osment).

The Good

• More emotional resonance than other horror-movies-with-gifted-kids films, mostly due to solid acting by Osment and Collette. Their last scene where the Malcolm comforts his mother is sold through performance alone; despite dialogue laden with hokey traps.
• The “twist” is genuinely surprising and satisfying, achieved through skillful distraction — Cole’s story isn’t the only one being told. Also amusing that the evidence was before our eyes the entire time.
• Once the “twist” is revealed, it’s clear the first scene’s purpose is to present as a past example of a child with the same gifts. The initial scene has a different resonance once the “twist” is known.
• Nice directorial touches, reminiscent of Kubrick and Hitchcock; the camera sliding to the left before a character shoots himself, a stuttering teacher filmed from Cole’s point of view, a balloon drifting up a Vertigo-like staircase. The world of the non-living is indicated by the color red. Many creepy moments are simple, visual thrills — a brief image of a something surreal and scary, without any crazy CG effects. Personally the scariest moment features Malcom merely up the sound on an old recording trying to hear something unusual — our imagination fills in the blanks and causes the chills.

The Bad

• So good that Shyamalan received the freedom to make many subsequent, and progressively worse films, none living up to the promise of this instant classic.

Conclusion

A rare movie where the “twist” literally turns it into a completely different experience on second viewing. It’s like a horror and love story simultaneously, and easily Shyamalan’s best.

IMDB: The Sixth Sense
Wikipedia: The Sixth Sense
Rotten Tomatoes: The Sixth Sense

= 5 stars

Starring Ned Beatty, Ronee Blakley, Keith Carradine
Directed by Robert Altman

Synopsis

Third party presidential candidate Hal Phillip Walker campaigns in Nashville, where a cadre of individuals connected to the town’s music industry make their home.

The Good

• Epic in scope, the cast of twenty or more unique characters encompasses so many levels that it could be a Studs Terkel like slice of America itself. This is the reason why films with numerous characters and intercutting plot lines are often referred to as “Altman-esque.” Sprawling, cutting between each story in a way that one might have to watch it several times just to get all the stories and relationships between characters straight. The standouts this time around were the fragile singer Barbara Jean (Ronee Blakely), news reporter Opal (Geraldine Chaplin) and womanizing musician Tom (Keith Carradine).
• Occasionally stunning direction, a mix between calculated movements and organic improvisation, shot in a nearly documentary style at times. Particularly interesting are Altman’s trademark zooms, and funny ways of linking scenes together — a man’s sobbing transitions into another character’s laughter, a junkyard pile of cars precedes another featuring a racetrack. Dialogue collides into each other reflecting the way people actually talk. One wonders what was scripted vs. improvised vs. worked out in editing.
• Tons of music, so much that the film could be seen as a musical, as the choices of songs are appropriate to what the characters are going through. Through that viewpoint, it’s a completely naturalistic one, where many of the actors are musicians and they blend seamlessly together. Actors and musicians both fade into the mix of normal people and seem like organic parts of everything around them.
• Nearly three hours long, but the ending proved worth the wait. There are two amazing film moments near the end, first where three women each think a performer is singing about them, and second, a fly wanders into one character’s performance, indicating something random is about to happen.
• Held my interest despite being no big country music fan, I came to appreciate the directness of the lyrics and their resulting emotion.

The Bad

N/A.

Conclusion

Earlier I mentioned my love of Easy Rider and its vision of America. Nashville is like a superior sequel (the Jeff Goldblum character drives an Easy Rider style motorcycle), the town of Nashville being a metaphor for America itself, touching on our uneasy relationship with fame, the media, the abuse of talent, and always hoping for a better tomorrow despite the terrible things endured each day, in a way that seems more relevant today than it may have during the seventies. The film is so big, I can’t even write a review that encompasses my feelings. I guess I’ll just listen to the soundtrack until inevitably watching it again.

IMDB: Nashville
Wikipedia: Nashville
Rotten Tomatoes: Nashville

= 5 stars

Starring Jean Pierre Leaud, Claude Jade
Directed by Francois Truffaut

Synopsis

Discharged from the army, Antoine (Jean Pierre Leaud), finds work as a private investigator while balancing a relationship with reluctant violinist Christine (Claude Jade).

The Good

• Jean Pierre Leaud as Antoine remains wholly fascinating, maturing from the sullen rebellious boy to an awkward, slightly naive young man with odd comic timing — both character and actor have grown in matters not entirely in Truffaut’s control. Also mesmerizing is Claude Jade who provides a well-mannered, quiet, but knowing contrast and balance to Antoine’s quirks.
• Truffaut’s trademark visual inventiveness with breathtaking efficiency: Christine sneaks out of a basement, diminishing in size as she visually moves in the opposite direction of Antoine’s entrance — and we sadly realize she is avoiding Antoine. The boss’s attractive blonde wife is introduced aurally, and we follow Antoine’s point of view as he follows the sound to discover her trying on shoes — the visual hide-and-seek adds to the sexual tension. Antoine has a rendezvous with Christine’s photograph on the wall, portending her visit. Practically every camera move, scene pacing, or scene transition has meaning in regards to the plot.
• Antoine’s hunt for a suitable profession and eventual job as a detective results in an unpredictable plot containing unique situations and characters. An initial languidness leads to a great final stretch.
• Small smile-inducing references to previous installments: Loving shots of the streets of Paris, Antoine runs into Collette and her new family, records / phonographs recall his previous job in a record factory, and Antoine’s claustrophobic apartment recalls his family’s cramped quarters in The 400 Blows.

The Bad

• Scene where Antoine recites names before a mirror.

Conclusion

Love, for several reasons: Pierre-Leaud and Claude Jade’s natural, raw talent, the unusual plot commenting on adult life and love, Truffaut’s visual inventiveness, and its success as a sequel considering how different it is from The 400 Blows. Next Antoine Doniel installment, please.

Note: Christine’s mysterious stalker may be an echo of Antoine’s obsessive dalliance with the boss’s wife, or his previous, stalker-like behavior from Antoine And Collette - neither of which Christine knows about by film’s end. His secretive behavior may foreshadow Antoine’s infidelities in the next two installments.

IMDB: Stolen Kisses
Wikipedia: Stolen Kisses
Rotten Tomatoes: Stolen Kisses

= 5 stars

Starring Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Kathy Bates
Directed by Woody Allen

Synopsis

While visiting Paris with his fiance (Rachel McAdams), writer Gil Pender (Owen Wilson) travels back in time to the 1920s.

The Good

• Allen himself doesn’t appear (a personal pet peeve).
• A lavish picture-postcard to Paris, the “city of light,” from the opening montage of landmark stills (recalling Manhattan) to the romantic magic that occurs after hours, with welcoming offers of drink and the hope of fulfilling artistic and amorous ambition. Gil dreams of abandoning America and moving there, and frankly, you can see why.
• Nice acting surprises. Wilson deftly serves as the obligatory Allen stand-in, slowing his line delivery, somehow making the dialogue his own. Gil comes across as less cynical whiner and more wistful, intelligent dreamer — so much so that this may be the best I’ve seen Wilson since Bottle Rocket, and could possibly open the door to dramatic roles. Also solid are a litany of stars exquisitely nailing their small roles: Marion Cottilard, Rachel McAdams, Kathy Bates, and Adrien Brody.
• The time travel aspect (a fairly common movie artifice) is handled in a refreshingly nonchalant manner, both in direction (no CGI) and plot — it simply occurs at midnight, never explained (it could be red wine, Valium, or a brain tumor) nor dwelled upon. The plot device allows Allen to break out of his usual mode of sex-crazed neurotics, paying homage to personal inspiration, and evokes some of Allen’s best (The Purple Rose of Cairo, Bullets Over Broadway). There’s even some Inception–like (also featuring Cottilard) dreams within dreams.
• Some wistful armchair philosophy: whether the past was really better than today, an appealing thought in today’s stagnant economy and political uncertainty.
• A blunt and abbreviated ending that left me with a rare movie-going feeling: “that’s it?” in the best way. I wanted more.
• I’ll admit to not being as familiar as I should with some of the writers, but the art side featured some personal favorites, specifically Bunel. I wish more time was spent with the surrealists.

The Bad

• The first stretch before the time-travel is standard Allen meandering with jabs at a wine-expert “pseudo-intellectual” and a Republican father-in-law to be. Thankfully, these stock characters are casually brushed aside.
• A bit superficial on further thought — Paris as seen through the eyes of a tourist, plus you can’t seriously consider relocating to Paris of the twenties with knowledge of the approaching great depression and World War II.

Conclusion

Despite being a long-time Allen fan, my disappointment with Whatever Works caused me to ignore You Will Meet A Tall Dark Stranger completely — and I wasn’t expecting to enjoy this annual Allen outing much as I eventually did. So the personal midnight magic here, is restoring my faith in Allen as a writer / director. I’d even rank it one of his best, at the very least, since Match Point. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Midnight In Paris
Wikipedia: Midnight In Paris
Rotten Tomatoes: Midnight In Paris

= 5 stars

Starring Bruno Ganz, Alexandra Maria Lara, Juliane Kohler
Directed by Oliver Hirschbiegel

Synopsis

During the final days of World War II, Hitler and his inner circle come to terms with their inevitable destruction.

The Good

• Surreal yet compelling, tense mood: as the Allies approach and Hitler’s dream of a Third Reich collapse, from the German point of view it is the end of the world. We see the realization of doom wash over people in different ways and times — some celebrate, others commit suicide. Many are committed to following orders until the bitter end; past the point of common sense.
• Ganz’s performance as Hitler seems like a genuine person instead of the usual, cartoonish caricature of pure evil. Hitler is portrayed as a man so absolutely corrupted by absolute power, his way of thinking is inevitably right, that he truly believes the world will be worse without him. Later, as his power slips away, his megalomania is replaced by the sad hopelessness of someone refusing to admit defeat. Hitler’s effect on his closest followers becomes a mesmerizing psychological portrait of delusion and cultish leadership. And through all this, Ganz humanizes Hitler, making the Nazi leader’s motivations and emotional state clearer, but not so much that Hitler becomes a sympathetic figure. It’s a tricky balance and Ganz pulls it off.
• Understated but powerful imagery: a rather magical final sequence, presenting the future of Germany in a few images. Another interesting visual motif is a continual return to the long bunker hallway, underlining the claustrophobic feeling surely felt by those within, dreading the end.
• Countless Hitler parody videos didn’t diminish its impact.

The Bad

• Depressing.

Conclusion

A truly great end-cap after viewing several solid World War II movies, as the wizard behind the curtain — the man behind the madness — is exposed. At the end of Bridge On The River Kwai, Colonel Nicholson’s deluded behavior evokes the description: “madness.” And here it is.

IMDB: Downfall
Wikipedia: Downfall
Rotten Tomatoes: Downfall

= 5 stars

Starring Groucho Marx, Harpo Marx, Chico Marx
Directed by Leo McCarey

Synopsis

The bankrupt nation of Freedonia appoints Rufus T. FIrefly (Groucho Marx) as their dear leader, despite his utter incompetence. Hilarity ensues.

The Good

• Wise-guy Groucho Marx contains the roots of Woody Allen’s movie schtick, most obviously Groucho’s satirical, irreverent one-liners, but also in film technique. Groucho displays awareness of the audience — sometimes addressing it directly — and as an inept ruler, plays the odd fish out of water trapped in an unusual situation, not unlike Allen as clueless revolutionary in Bananas.
• If Groucho’s nonsense witticisms aren’t your cup of tea, add Harpo and Chico’s slapstick, physical comedy.
• Several must-see scenes: Harpo and Chico abuse a lemonade salesman (building up to a three-card-monte with hats), a Groucho impersonation involving a non-existent mirror, the absolutely nut-ball declaration-of-war musical number, and the climactic battle scene — which can only be described as a Will Elder spread come to life.
• Much humor springs from contrast: the Marx Brothers’ style is improvisatory and irreverent, while all other actors play things traditionally straight. The result is a theater troupe constantly interrupted by merry pranksters.

The Bad

• Zeppo, with hardly anything to do, comes off as the pointless, forgettable Marx brother.

Conclusion

The plot is secondary; a mere backdrop to non-stop Marxist antics. This is satisfying subversive humor, as if four clowns invaded a studio, and set about systematically burning every film convention to the ground, using broad comedy as fuel. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Duck Soup
Wikipedia: Duck Soup
Rotten Tomatoes: Duck Soup

= 5 stars

Starring Alec Guinness, William Holden, Sessue Hayakawa
Directed by David Lean

Synopsis

World War II Burma: Captured by the Japanese, British and American soldiers are tasked with building a river-spanning bridge.

The Good

• David Lean’s trademark, epic direction — loads of breathtaking camera movement and objects in the foreground and background to depict vast scale.
• The Japanese enemy — led by Colonel Saito (Hayakawa) — receives a relative amount of humanizing respect.
• The crafty battle of wills between British officer Colonel Nicholson (Guinness, in possibly he best role) and Colonel Saito. Since the prisoners are unarmed, the conflict is psychological as to who is the more honorable leader — epitomized when Nicholson is placed into the “oven,” a cramped isolation chamber to bake in the hot sun.
• The awesomely constructed final moments, as Colonel Nicholson’s enemy-aiding bridge building and American officer Major Shears’ (Holden) mission combine, underlining the madness of war that drives men to irrational things. The war movie staples of battle and gunfire feels all the more satisfying after the men’s long journeys.
• Unforgettable musical theme — thankfully, nowhere near as annoying as Lara’s Theme.

The Bad

• Not as fond of Major Shears’ parallel journey back to the British side, although it eventually proves necessary to the film’s final moments.

Conclusion

An epic I had to see twice to fully appreciate. Echoes of this war flick reverberate through Lawrence Of Arabia, Apocalypse Now and even the recent Rescue Dawn. Highly recommended.

IMDB: The Bridge On The River Kwai
Wikipedia: The Bridge On The River Kwai
Rotten Tomatoes: The Bridge On The River Kwai

= 5 stars

Directed by Richard Berge, Bonni Cohen

Synopsis

During World War II, Hitler secretly plundered Europe’s art masterpieces in a plot to create the world’s greatest museum.

The Good

• Big irony: Hitler and his generals — agents of brutal destruction — were avid collectors of beautiful art. But all of the masterpieces clandestinely transported to Germany avoided wartime destruction.
• Fascinating stories behind individual collections and pieces — believing Nazis were hiding inside, Allieds bombed a priceless Italian mountain top monestary. Hitler hated modern art and ordered Picassos and Kandinskys burned. The Nazis considered Poland and Russia inferior nations, and therefore destroyed countless artworks and architecture during the scorched-earth invasions of both nations.
• Big question: is an artwork worth more than a human life? During war, the answer is not entirely clear, but often the historical importance or rarity of an object outweighed human lives, and was definitely worth more than the enemy forces who were to be killed on sight. That individuals on both sides worked so hard to preserve artistic treasures while simultaneously killing each other just underlines the truism that war is madness.
• The movie isn’t over: to this day, stolen or missing pieces occasionally surface. Recently, the Hermitage in Russia revealed 70 odd paintings taken from Germany during the final invasion of the war.
• TIght pacing for a documentary, even at nearly two hours, it spans the entire war, providing interesting counterpoint to all the classic war movies like Saving Private Ryan to Downfall, which shows Hitler’s secret architectural model of his dream city.

The Bad

• Documentary; no actors (save for narration by Joan Allen) or dramatizations.

Conclusion

Forces a new perspective on art using a different light, with my biggest pondering the circumstances under which an object becomes valued over a human life. Perhaps art becomes revered because it is always an innocent victim — it can’t fire a gun. Recommneded.

IMDB: The Rape Of Europa
Wikipedia: The Rape Of Europa
Rotten Tomatoes: The Rape Of Europa 79%

= 5 stars

Starring Charlie Chaplin, Georgia Hale, Mack Swain
Directed by Charlie Chaplin

Synopsis

The Tramp (Charlie Chaplin) finds more than he bargained for while searching for gold in the Alaskan wilderness.

The Good

• Amazingly tight film structure: meet the gold-seeking Tramp, then the hapless girl, return to the gold-hunt, tramp and girl reunite for a happy ending. The search for something — be it wealth or love — forms a rock-solid plot foundation that transcends decades.
• Despite the absence of color and sound, the story is told with breathtaking efficiency. Chaplin’s Tramp character is essentially a mime, and his mustache, pale white face, and exaggerated, symbolic mannerisms communicate emotion and comedy through simple movements through the grey screen, like caricature sketches on blank paper. It’s all summed up in the Tramp’s classic, wordless shoe dance with forks and rolls and a shoe dinner.
• Brilliant comedy and timing, the running joke of repeatedly sitting on a hot stove, the wandering dog and bear that hilariously return at the worst moments, and a rickety house featuring two doors used in a wildly inventive manner. But the biggest running joke is the Tramp himself, who illogically ventures out into the cold wilderness in his standard, completely impractical clothes, unaware that he’s the fish out of the water, leaving the frying pan for the fire.

The Bad

• My review version was from 1942, featuring music and narration later contributed by Chaplin himself. While the music is fine, I considered turning off the narration, which occasionally felt unnecessary.

Conclusion

The Gold Rush is chock full of visual inventiveness, broad gestures, and efficient storytelling, and held my interest in today’s world of HD, THX, and CG. It’s a shining example of Chaplin as master of silent film. This is yet another film classic I put off seeing because of the fear I’d be bored to tears. Boy, was I wrong; this is cinematic gold.

IMDB: The Gold Rush
Wikipedia: The Gold Rush
Rotten Tomatoes: The Gold Rush

= 5 stars

Starring Henry Fonda, Jack Klugman, Ed Begley
Directed by Sidney Lumet

Synopsis

A jury decides the fate of an accused murderer.

The Good

• Jumps right into jury deliberations, therefore details of the case are revealed through their discussion, making things more interesting.
• The twelve men are of various walks of life and personalities. Henry Fonda plays the initial hold out who doesn’t want to decide on the accused’s guilt too soon. Jack Klugman is a quiet guy from a bad background. There’s one hot head, and an ad man, completely uninterested in the case, who provides comic relief. Really makes you wonder about the fairness of being judged by a “jury of your peers” — none of the people are from the same walk of life as the accused murderer (eighteen year old kid from the slums). Important to note is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
• Eventually discussions break down and like The Lord Of The Flies, different personalities and opinions jockeying for power, unable to agree, and flailing about trying to convince others of their perspective, and failing.
• More impressive considering it takes place in a limited setting, just a court house meeting room and a bathroom. The events seem to take place in real time — no flashbacks, cuts eliminating time, and certainly no CGI creatures killing dull people.
• Surprisingly compelling plot, considering at the onset, all the jurors are pretty convinced of the perpetrator’s guilty. How minds are changed and why is all the dramatic thrust needed. And our minds are changed also, as I found myself feeling more aligned with certain people’s viewpoints of the case.
• Agitates controversial political subjects: bleeding heart liberalism, bigotry, immigration.

The Bad

• No women jurors.

Conclusion

Well-defined characters, strong writing and acting, and a slowly-revealed mystery plot make everything work, and rather amazingly, despite a limited amount of locations and directorial variety. It’s almost like watching twelve movies simultaneously, each a character study of an individual, angry man. Highly recommended.

IMDB: 12 Angry Men
Wikipedia: 12 Angry Men
Rotten Tomatoes: 12 Angry Men

= 5 stars

Starring Natalie Wood, Russ Tamblyn, Rita Moreno
Directed by Robert Wise, Jerome Robbins

Synopsis

Tony (Richard Beymer) and Maria (Natalie Wood) are falling in love, unfortunately they are associated with rival New York City street gangs — the Jets and Sharks — that totally hate each other.

The Good

• Wonderfully aggressive, colorful direction featuring constantly moving cameras and characters bursting into dance at any convenient moment. The cinematography makes ample use of the wide screen.
• Stunning dance numbers: a nearly wordless introductory sequence establishing the gang rivalry between the Jets and Sharks, color coordination at a dance (reds, blacks and purples, vs. yellow, blue, and orange), the way time stops when Maria sees Tony for the first time, and of course gang-on-gang violence.
• Amazingly memorable, inventive, and layered music by Leonard Bernstein, with lyrics by Stephen Sondheim. Familiar songs pile on relentlessly — Maria, America, Tonight, I Feel Pretty — you’ve heard these before even if you’ve never seen this film.
• Stars Russ Tamblyn and Richard Beymer, who would later appear as Dr. Jacoby and Ben Horne in Twin Peaks respectively.
• Loosely based on Romeo And Juliet, it wisely retains an absolutely crushing ending — love doesn’t conquer all, underlining unintended casualties of senseless violence.

The Bad

• Awkward racial elements: the Sharks are Puerto Rican. Typical of 1960 cinema, many of the actors sport make-up to make their skin look darker, and there’s an implication that people must belong to some group (American, immigrant) to belong.

Conclusion

Despite the slightly awkward plot, contains just about all you could ask for in a Hollywood musical. And the no-nonsense finality of its ending makes it a must-see movie.

IMDB: West Side Story
Wikipedia: West Side Story
Rotten Tomatoes: West Side Story

= 5 stars

Starring Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds
Directed by Gene Kelly, Stanley Donen

Synopsis

It’s 1927, and Don Lockwood (Gene Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Jean Hagen), cinema’s biggest stars, are forced to adapt their talents to the latest movie technology: sound.

The Good

• Solid music and dance numbers in every combination imaginable: Gene Kelly and Donald O’Connor performing duos, adding Debbie Reynolds for trios, and Kelly’s classic, heart-tugging “Singin’ In The Rain” solo number. There’s also a late, nearly abstract wordless number (Broadway Melody) featuring a proto-nerd saying “gotta dance!” repeatedly, paired with the mysterious Cyd Charrise in an outrageously-cut green dress. Several of Kelly’s movies feature a pure dance number which abandons the plot near the film’s end. All have an amazing minimalism, making magic out of simple props like a sofa or an umbrella, that required actual, physical talent rather than layers of CGI nonsense. The numbers “Singin’ In The Rain,” “Make ‘Em Laugh,” and “Good Morning” are cinematic history.
• Funny bits that still hold up after multiple viewings: the initial meeting between Kelly and Reynolds, ending with her jumping out of a cake, the crew’s disastrous experiments with sound (the realization that Lina Lamont [Jean Hagen] has a terrible voice — the microphone is in the bush!), the aforementioned “Make ‘Em Laugh” number, and slapstick details sprinkled throughout.
• Rock solid performances by Kelly, O’Connor, starry-eyed, sunny Reynolds, and special mention for ditzy, snooty grump Jean Hagen of the annoying voice. They can all act, dance, and sing to different degrees but their combination is often marvelous.
• Some social commentary still applicable today. The fickle nature of celebrity is amply skewered, from the opening satirical movie premiere sequence to Lamont’s desperate clinging to fame. Techies can find some interest in technology changing business models — the stars struggle in adapting to the inevitable leap from silent to sound. The film in total provides an entertaining overview of entertainment history from vaudeville, Busby Berkeley, The Jazz Singer, to behind-the-scenes peeks at the movie-making process.

The Bad

• N/A. Only a heartless bastard could find anything to dislike.

Conclusion

Works on multiple levels: musical, romantic comedy, social satire, and mood enhancer — each viewing puts me in a good mood, as it reminds me of the joy of movies and life itself. Another movie everyone should see before they die.

IMDB: Singin’ In The Rain
Wikipedia: Singin’ In The Rain
Rotten Tomatoes: Singin’ In The Rain

= 5 stars

Starring Peter O’Toole, Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif
Directed by David Lean

Synopsis

Follow the epic Arabian adventures of British officer T.E. Lawrence’s (Peter O’Toole) Arabian adventures during World War I.

The Good

• Litany of solid performances: Peter O’Toole, Alec Guinness, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Claude Rains, Jose Ferrer. O’Toole is mesmerizing as the wide-eyed, fearless, and ultimately enigmatic and contradictory Lawrence who dives straight into war out of heroism but finds his moral sense tested — nearly sinking to the level of a homicidal killer. He’s like Solo and Skywalker in one.
• Continuing on the Star Wars comparison, one can guess Lucas finding material here, for his own desert planet of Tatooine to the adventures of Indiana Jones. It’s also worth seeing Alec Guinness in a role truly showcasing his acting prowess as opposed to the dry, jaded Jedi Obi Wan.
• Some classic, unforgettable scenes, namely the long shot of a man emerging from the desert (large screen required, otherwise you’ll stare inexplicably at nothing for a time). Nearly every scene justifies Panavision: characters talking to each other from far sides of the frame, huge armies running from left to right with action happening at every depth, a desert sunrise revealing sweeping dunes populated by tiny humans. There’s contrast between deserts vs. ocean, individual vs. the collective, and the minimal Arab life vs. the ornate British empire — a wide sweep requiring a large picture to contain it all.
• Winding, epic plot: begins like Citizen Kane with a reporter investigating Lawrence’s life, and moves to Lawrence aiding Prince Faisal (Guinness) in his fight against the Turks. Part two introduces another reporter witnessing Lawrence becoming more violent in the name of his cause. Seeing one man’s life intertwining with nation-changing events, an interesting circle forms: one man changing the world, but ultimately, the experience changes him.
• Solid soundtrack by Maurice Jarre, nowhere near as cloying as Doctor Zhivago’s incessant Lara’s Theme.

The Bad

• Certainly a guy movie: amid endless war, international politics, and a litany of locations and situations — I don’t recall a single woman.

Conclusion

There’s a handful of truly “epic” movies with a global scope and justification to be seen on a big screen: Gone With The Wind, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Lawrence Of Arabia is unquestionably among them. Please don’t be scared off by its near four hours running time — as with Gone With The Wind - break it up over two viewings if necessary. A must see before you die.

IMDB: Lawrence Of Arabia
Wikipedia: Lawrence Of Arabia
Rotten Tomatoes: Lawrence Of Arabia

= 5 stars

Starring Michelle Williams, Ryan Gosling
Directed by Derek Cianfrance

Synopsis

Witness the collapse of Dean (Ryan Gosling) and Cindy’s (Michelle Williams) marriage.

The Good

• Complex characters in an interesting situation; no question Dean and Cindy were once in love, they both love their daughter, Frankie — but it’s soon clear things have gone disturbingly wrong. Dean has a good heart but is unambitious. impulsive, and possibly alcoholic, while Cindy’s frustration comes across as petty and unappreciative. Through flashbacks to their initial meeting, a picture emerges that Dean’s once-endearing quirkiness has slowly grown into a frustration, despite a choice to stand by Cindy when she most needed him. Then add their less-than-ideal upbringing (Cindy’s father’s temper; Dean’s absent parents) and economic pressures (high-school drop out Dean seems fated for dead-end jobs, leaving Cindy the burden of sole breadwinner) — Cindy wants more while Dean remains content. Neither is clearly wrong or right, and the ambiguity feels honest and genuine — real people are a muddle of tendencies and percentages.
• Two strong performances from Williams and Gosling (loved the former in Wendy And Lucy and the latter in Lars And The Real Girl), lending weight to uncomfortably real and seemingly improvised dialog, but a constant implication of other emotions just beneath the surface –Dean’s accusatory tone at leaving a gate unlocked or childish behavior evokes a wearied, tight-lipped frustration in Cindy, implying this behavior has gone on for years. Gosling channels Brando, Dean, or Cage — the only misfire an over-reliance on props (cigarettes, a hoodie, ukelele, omnipresent sunglasses).
• Unusual cinematography, present-day scenes feature extreme close ups and a lack of deep focus often resembling tilt-shift photography, while flashbacks are filmed more traditionally (Note: turns out present-day scenes were filmed with the HD Red One camera, and flashbacks with 16mm). The visual style eventually makes sense: a past scene where Dean serenades Cindy features their entire bodies, but as their relationship splinters — and Cindy and Dean are too emotionally flustered to participate in the world around them — little comes within their frames. In a shower scene and another in a hospital window, the camera focuses on their disembodied reflections. In the film’s final scene, characters move from the foreground to the background, and the camera struggles to focus on both simultaneously. It’s an apt visual metaphor for their dissolving relationship.

The Bad

• A rough ride; several unhinged arguments, non-arousing sex scenes, and one cringe-worthy hospital examination. A second viewing would be tough.

Conclusion

As Once blew apart and reassembled the movie musical in a more realistic, honest manner — resulting in a musical for people who don’t like musicals - Blue Valentine does much the same with the romantic comedy. It’s a distillation of 500 Days Of Summer — or its predecessor, Annie Hall — for the art house set. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Blue Valentine
Wikipedia: Blue Valentine
Rotten Tomatoes: Blue Valentine

= 5 stars

Starring Tom Hanks, Matt Damon, Adam Goldberg
Directed by Steven Spielberg

Synopsis

After the Allied invasion of Normandy during World War II, a small battalion under the command of Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) is sent on a strange mission to retrieve Private Ryan (Matt Damon), whose brothers were killed in action.

The Good

• The tour-de-force, first half hour depicting the storming of Omaha Beach in the Normandy invasion. The unrelenting, visceral violence shot documentary style literally makes the audience a participant, and is wholly effective at communicating the horrors of war. It’s framed by the introduction of John Miller (Tom Hanks) in a wordless, simple manner — his shaking hands until he fiddles with his water canteen — this officer must maintain his composure no matter what hell experienced, in order to provide leadership to the younger soldiers who have no idea what they’re in for.
• After the initial battle, Miller leads a small group of young soldiers on a mission to extricate Ryan. We get to know each soldier and his particular quirks, but this being war, their fates soon prove unpredictable and not always deserved. Through most of the film, Ryan proves a macguffin of sorts, we doubt if he will ever be located, or if he even exists. As the body count rises, we question effort to save one man, and the folly becomes a metaphor for the war itself.
• A long roster of familiar faces: Adam Goldberg, Matt Damon, Giovanni Ribisi, Jeremy Davies, Barry Pepper, Paul Giamatti, Vin Diesel — and even Nathan Fillion as a soldier mistaken for the elusive Ryan.

The Bad

• The introduction and ending set present day is a little maudlin and superfluous.

Conclusion

After doing the holocaust justice through Schindler’s List a few years earlier, Spielberg told the American side of the story equally capably. The first half hour is an absolute must-see, as personally horrifying and effective as Hitchcock’s Psycho shower scene. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Saving Private Ryan
Wikipedia: Saving Private Ryan
Rotten Tomatoes: Saving Private Ryan

= 5 stars

Starring Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland
Directed by Victor Fleming

Synopsis

Scarlet O’Hara (Vivien Leigh) finds her cushy, idyllic Southern life torn apart by the Civil War.

The Good

• Strongly drawn characters, the petty, spoiled, self-centered Southern brat princess Scarlett O’Hara, and the gruff, no nonsense — and equally selfish in his own way — Rhett Butler. A clear mismatch whose character arcs bring them together with highly entertaining results. Both are indelibly brought to life through amazing performances by Leigh — her wide eyed, expressive face moving from sulky pout to sadness, and determination — and perpetually smirking Gable.
• Epic romance with the backdrop of the Civil War. Say you don’t give a fig about Scarlett’s mopey confusion and unrequited love; there’s effects of war on the doomed South, unforgettably depicted through the aftermath of a battle where the camera pulls back to show scores of injured soldiers, and the once beautiful mansion that once hosted parties burned and abandoned. The sometimes sappy love story is tempered by the acid bite of the wartime events.
• The running time is a seemingly prohibitive three hours, yet each time I put the effort into watching it the whole way through, it doesn’t feel that long. There’s an epic sweep of events within these three hours.
• Classic lines and scenes. “Whatever shall I do; wherever shall I go?” “Frankly, I just don’t give a damn.”
• Interesting visual theme of characters in silhouette; large black shapes lit from behind.

The Bad

• Prohibitively long running time. I’d recommend breaking it up into two films, part 1 and 2, and watch over two evenings.

Conclusion

Awesome film, which matches epic world-changing events with two boldly drawn characters. There are only a handful of films with a similar mix of epic sweep, romance, and acting: Casablanca, Titanic, and Dr. Zhivago — and a much longer list of pretenders that don’t come close. A must see.

IMDB: Gone With The Wind
Wikipedia: Gone With The Wind
Rotten Tomatoes: Gone With The Wind

= 5 stars

Starring Judy Garland, Frank Morgan, Bert Lahr
Directed by Victor Fleming

Synopsis

After Dorothy’s mean neighbor vows to send pet Toto to the pound, a tornado transports Dorothy (Judy Garland) to the bizarre fantasy land of Oz.

The Good

• Inspired use of color. Dorothy opens a door, and the abrupt transition from the real, black and white world, to the cartoonish color of Oz remains stunning no matter how many times I see it. Oz’s crazy events are vividly painted, the Wicked Witch is inky black with green skin (who disappears in vibrant red smoke), Dorothy’s ruby-red slippers, metallic gray of the Tin Man, and the horse of a different color.
• The classic song Over The Rainbow with its sweeping, arc-like melody — just like a rainbow.
• Iconic characters, impossible to separate from our collective experience: good / bad witches, munchkins, a cowardly lion, tin man, and scarecrow. All contribute universally understood lines: “I have a feeling we’re not in Kansas anymore,” “Ding, dong, the witch is dead,” “I’ll get you my pretty …and your pretty litle dog, too!” “Follow the yellow brick road,” “Lions and tiger and bears…” etc. A personal favorite is the “wizard behind the curtain.”
• Known as a kid’s film, but holds up quite well when viewed as an adult. The initial, “real world” segment — ignored in my youth — now has more gravity, as the people in Dorothy’s life become the characters in her fantastical fever dream (perhaps the chickens become the munchkins?) Everything in Oz takes on symbolic meaning if you consider it products of Dorothy’s imagination, particularly the good / bad witches / women, her friends searching for missing body parts to make themselves whole, or even falling asleep in a poppy field.
• The symbolic richness may explain the endless remakes and references (The Wiz, SyFy, David Lynch). There are also odd connections to the music world, from that Elton John song to the urban legend that the film syncs with Pink Floyd’s The Dark Side of the Moon (yes, I’ve tried it, pretty cool).

The Bad

N/A.

Conclusion

My younger brother was obsessed with The Wizard Of Oz and seemingly watched it weekly for nearly a year. Like Star Wars, I’m essentially biased and unable to separate it from my soul. I may spend the rest of my lifetime trying to figure out exactly why.

IMDB: The Wizard Of Oz
Wikipedia: The Wizard Of Oz
Rotten Tomatoes: The Wizard Of Oz

= 5 stars

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor
Directed by John Huston

Synopsis

Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) is hired by to search for a woman’s missing sister, and the trail leads to unusual, unexpected places.

The Good

• Bogart as the cynical detective Sam Spade, equal parts hero and cad, keeps the plot appealingly unpredictable. His loyalties shift depending on whom he’s talking to, and it’s always unclear whose side he’s on other than his own (looking for a “fall guy” to keep his reputation clean).
• Oddball, shady characters Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre) and Caspar Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet), whose desperate pandering and grubby hands clawing at an object of desire make movie history. And then there’s the duplicitous femme fatale Ruth / Brigid (Mary Astor), who even by film’s end, it’s unclear which of her scenes were sincere or further manipulations.
• Every character is not what they initially seem, and even the nature of the jewel-encrusted Maltese Falcon itself is kept (literally) under wraps.
• John Huston employs a Hitchcock-esque level of simple direction, where stark black and white imagery, unusual camera angles, and a careful awareness of what to reveal vs. keep hidden, consistently underline this shady, distrustful world.
• The final scene where Spade decides where his loyalties lie, containing just Bogart and Astor — you can see Bogart’s wheels turning in his head as he chooses his next course of action and proceeds with conviction.
• Takes place in San Francisco; references to Bush and Stockton streets.

The Bad

• Extremely dialog heavy; not much action. The various characters’ intertwined interests and deceitful manipulation is sometimes convoluted and confusing.

Conclusion

There’s a crushing scene where certain individuals board an elevator, destination down to purgatory. Spade’s only comment is “the stuff that dreams are made of” — is this in reference to the treasure or the girl? We’ll never know — the effect of the bleak events is barely hinted at on Spade’s face — and further transforms him into the epitome of the “hard boiled detective.” Highly recommended.

IMDB: The Maltese Falcon
Wikipedia: The Maltese Falcon
Rotten Tomatoes: The Maltese Falcon

= 5 stars

Starring Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich Von Stroheim
Directed by Billy Wilder

Synopsis

Down on his luck, barely employed screenwriter Joe Gillis (William Holden) lands unusual but lucrative work writing a “return” picture for faded, delusional star Norma Desmond (Gloria Swanson).

The Good

• Starts with the discovery of a dead body floating in the swimming pool. Oddly, the narrator is the dead individual. So we know he’ll eventually die; the question is how.
• Contrast of sunny Los Angeles in black and white, similar to Double Indemnity.
• Swanson as the burned out, delusional former silent star Norma Desmond, once immensely famous but presently discarded by the Hollywood machine. She lives in a crumbling, ornate mansion as larger than life, out of date, and obsolete as her career. Swanson’s performance is rooted in silent film, all exaggerated physicality and mugging for the camera, once essential for attracting the eye in the absence of sound. Her one line sums it all up: “I am big, it’s the pictures that got small.”
• Norma and Joe are brought together for obvious reasons; he’s desperate for work and she’s rich, each thinking they can take advantage of the other. But things get infinitely creepier as Norma takes their relationship to another level, eventually losing herself in her own reflection.
• Comments on the fickle, cruel nature of Hollywood fame, most clearly through the sad example of Norma, but also Joe’s desperation for work. There’s also a script reader and the director Cecil de Mille, working at Paramount Pictures, who struggles to reconcile Norma’s dreams of starring in another movie with the reality that the world has moved on.
• Some overlap with real movie history, as Swanson was a genuine silent star whose popularity had faded by the time this film was made, and cameos by Buster Keaton, Erich von Stroheim, and Cecil B. DeMille.

The Bad

• Norma proves so mesmerizing, Gillis vanishes into the omnipresent shadows.

Conclusion

Sunset Boulevard is engrossingly layered, a different experience on each viewing. It works as a mystery, a horror flick, a black comedy, or tragedy, all stemming from the core concept on the ill effect the Hollywood machine can have on its participants.

IMDB: Sunset Blvd.
Wikipedia: Sunset Blvd.
Rotten Tomatoes: Sunset Blvd.

= 5 stars

Starring Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid
Directed by Michael Curtiz

Synopsis

Caddish Rick (Humphrey Bogart) runs a Casablanca nightclub where Americans await passage back home, fleeing from Europe engulfed by World War II. But old flame Ilsa (Ingrid Bergman) turns up, complicating Rick’s already fragile world.

The Good

• Exotic, lawless environment populated by shady characters that I’d bet formed some inspiration for Raiders Of The Lost Ark.
• Bogart and Bergman as the ultimate romantic couple Rick and Ilsa. Rick is satisfyingly unpredicatble; his loyalties unclear — Only Bogart could play a hero and a cad simultaneously (I stick my neck out for nobody). A French friend asks Rick to deny a visa to Victor Laszlo, whose fiance is Rick’s old flame, and it’s unclear what he’ll do until literally, the very end. Bergman, meanwhile, is a compelling mix of brains, beauty, and hopeless romanticism; Ilsa’s entrance into her former flame’s bar worth the price of admission alone.
• Love how the story unfolds; Rick and Ilsa’s past romance concisely depicted in flashback form, with their current relationship mired in post-break-up, wondering if they should rekindle their lost love. And so we get deeply felt, melancholy romance, from Isla’s note that literally melts in the rain, her heart-breaking choice between Victor and Rick, and the perfect ending that so many modern movies seem impotently capable of achieving, choosing the happy ending rather than remain true to the characters.
• On this viewing, I took note of interesting black and white contrasts — palm frond shadows on the wall of Rick’s cafe of palm fronds could be prison bars. Shadows fall over characters’ faces when concealing their true feelings.
• Endless number of classic lines: “Of all the gin-joints in all the towns, why’d she have to walk into this one?” “Here’s looking at you kid,” “Play it again, Sam,” and the classic final monologue where Rick explains everything that must happen — and then actually has the balls to do it.

The Bad

N/A.

Conclusion

Casablanca is one of those timeless, classics that literally has it all: war, romance, music, well-written dialogue, a complex, unpredictable plot, great characters, and great performances. It lives up to its reputation, and on every viewing, new discoveries are made. It’s no understatement to say I’ll always be partly lost in Casablanca each time the lights go down and a movie begins.

IMDB: Casablanca
Wikipedia: Casablanca
Rotten Tomatoes: Casablanca 97%

= 5 stars

Starring Anthony Perkins, Janet Leigh, Vera Miles
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

Synopsis

Office worker Marion (Janet Leigh) leaves town after stealing 40K from work, spending the night at the Bates Motel, run by the nervous Norman Bates (Anthony Perkins).

The Good

• Suspense everywhere: Marion’s fear of a sunglasses-wearing policeman, voice-overs representing conscience in her head as the rain gets stronger, her sister’s gutsy exploration of the Bates family home up on the hill.
• By Hitchcock standards, the direction is amazingly direct, minimial, and nearly like a television episode. Following the choice to film in black and white (red blood shows as jet black, which is somehow, creepier), the primary sets are a run down, ordinary motel overlooked by an iconic, odd Victorian style house. With such subdued visuals, the music becomes another layer, featuring relentlessly churning strings, occasionally leaping into an unbearable, squeaky upper register during scary moments.
• Anthony Perkins, pitch perfect as the gangly, overly-friendly, Norman Bates, whose constant nervousness indicates a distracted mental state. His room is filled with odd bird taxidermy, and he tellingly comments that Marion eats like a bird. Perkin’s odd performance hits its peak during a nervous interrogation by an investigator.
• The infamous, wordless shower scene as a tour de force of editing. The camera shifts between Marion and Norman’s point of view, what we want to see and don’t. The slashing rhythm is echoed by quick cuts. The victim clings to the curtain as if to life itself, and as life slowly fades, the camera follows while blood flows down the drain, with its inky depths echoed in the victim’s dead pupils. It’s a masterpiece of tension and release, fast and slow, and imaginative visual metaphors.
• Strange structure: does the amoral main character deserve her eventual fate, with the psycho killer enacting sick justice? Or is this merely our attempt to weakly explain random, senseless violence? After a murder, there is a long wordless sequence where Bates cleans up the evidence, and Norman becomes the main character, as we worry about the identity of Norman’s mother.

The Bad

• The amazing shower scene is the high point, and things meander afterward, concluding with an odd, almost useless explanatory scene where a psychiatrist analyzes Norman’s mind. He was nuts; that’s all I need to know.

Conclusion

Beside the creepy plot and characters, Psycho feels like a peek into the characters’ minds (specifically Marion and Norman) and ultimately the dark, hidden places deep within the human psyche. Psycho’s characters are often shown alone, pondering, contemplating their next move, with no awareness of others, let alone an audience. This flick is a great example of a director (and therefore the audience) as voyeur, with that unsettling feeling of witnessing things not meant to be seen.

IMDB: Psycho
Wikipedia: Psycho
Rotten Tomatoes: Psycho

= 5 stars

Starring Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes
Directed by Steven Spielberg

Synopsis

German businessman Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) hires Jewish workers, sparing them from certain death within a concentration camp run by sadistic Nazi Amon Goeth (Ralph Fiennes). Based on a true story.

The Good

• Classical direction in black and white, as if made in the fifties, but with thoroughly modern subject matter — Spielberg loses his family-friendly sensibilities and serves this story up straight. There’s a mix between documentary style and homage to classic movies (Schindler’s introduction). The result is a timeless feel, never dated, and will therefore always be remembered.
• Neeson is excellent as the morally conflicted and loyalty-ambiguous Schindler, who initially works with Nazis and seems after personal profit, but eventually saves thousands of Jewish lives. An early scene where Schindler skillfully manipulates young Nazi officers to pluck his accountant Stern (Ben Kingsley) off a train, foreshadows the entire plan to come. Reminds me of a great quote from Ghost World — become part of the system so you can screw it up as much as possible from the inside. Also great is Ralph Finnes as the sadistic, pompous Nazi commander Goeth, and Embeth Davitz as a Jewish prisoner.
• Powerful undercurrent of racism and the sinking feeling of a world going progressively wrong. We start with the eviction of the Poland Jewish population, driven from their homes and stripped of possessions, then a cruel “liquidation” where Nazis invade a Jewish ghetto, and the eventual survivors are carted off to concentration camps to meet even worse fates. No violence at any stage is hidden from view; we’re often forced into the moment as if experiencing the turmoil alongside the victims.

The Bad

• Small complaint about the last color segment featuring actual survivors which feels a bit tacked on.

Conclusion

This is Spielberg at the top of his game, masterfully telling a complicated story with emotionally charged subject matter, plus several solid performances. But what’s ultimately interesting is how the personally best moments aren’t the sudden instances of extreme violence, but rather those with a stark simplicity: thousands of suitcases emptied to create piles of glasses, photographs, and teeth of unknown origin. A family swallows jewelry hidden within pieces of bread. A child hides in a toilet, looking up at the brightness above. And one lone, girl with a red coat, the only dash of color or even hope within this war-torn world. It all adds up to a timeless experience I won’t soon forget — which is good, because we never should.

IMDB: Schindler’s List
Wikipedia: Schindler’s List
Rotten Tomatoes: Schindler’s List

= 5 stars

Starring Richard Dreyfuss, Roy Schieder, Robert Shaw
Directed by Steven Spielberg

Synopsis

Police chief Martin Brody (Roy Schieder), scientist Matt Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss), and fisherman Sam Quint (Robert Shaw) are enlisted to stop a monster shark terrorizing the beaches of small-town Amity.

The Good

• More logic than most horror plots featuring clueless teens: the town of Amity has financial motivation to keep the shark secret, as they rely on summer tourisms. Chief Martin (Roy Schieder) is the lone voice of reason amid greedy businessmen and town officials.
• Spielberg’s efficient direction, drawing on Hitchcock (The Birds, Lifeboat, plus a few Vertigo zooms) — many scenes have an playful tension where people float leisurely in the sunny water, blissfully unaware of the danger lurking beneath. The camera switches from human to shark point of view, and the shark is rarely seen in its entirely — in fact, it barely makes an appearance through the first half.
• Eventually builds to a wholly effective, scary monster hunt with Quint, Brody, and Hooper on a boat in the middle of the ocean. Brody sports a particularly inconvenient fear of boats and water, and it’s soon clear Quint isn’t the most suitable fisherman to be trapped on the high seas with. Spielberg manages to keep this final stretch entirely compelling despite the limited setting.
• Some humor balances out the scares in the form of small-town denizens, looney reward-seeking fishermen, and the wise-cracking, braniac Hooper.
• John Williams music featuring simple, efficient, low string bass notes whenever the shark nears — the opposite of Psycho’s high strings.
• Spielberg is largely credited as inventing the “summer blockbuster” here, and would obviously go on to direct several more.

The Bad

• A bit unfair, but Spielberg’s next few films are even better.

Conclusion

Jaws is best known as Spielberg’s first “summer blockbuster” which would become a genre unto itself in the years to come, but what I love most is its deft use of suspense over relentless, shocky gore. Highly recommended.

IMDB: Jaws
Wikipedia: Jaws
Rotten Tomatoes: Jaws 100%

Starring Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens
Directed by Stanley Kubrick

Synopsis

Due to a rogue commander and a series of tragic events, the US finds itself on the brink of nuclear war.

The Good

• Peter Sellers in a triple role: bewildered RAF captain Mandrake, calm yet increasingly frustrated President Muffle, and nutty Dr. Strangelove. Some may be surprised to learn they’re all the same actor.
• Increasingly, hilariously ridiculous as ever-more incompetents try to solve the worsening situation, and the already unstable deteriorate. Examples: the progressively disturbing, conspiracy-theory hobbled General Ripper, the aggressive bewilderment of General Buck Turgidson (George C. Scott), and the plucky, uncalled-for initiative of B-52 pilot Major Kong, who goes to extreme lengths to complete his bomb-dropping mission.
• Spiky satirical writing, with great one-liners like “precious body fluids,” “I think General Ripper found out about your ‘preversion’,” and the classic “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here; this is the War Room!” Love the ridiculous names — Colonel Guano, Buck Turgidson, and the sour-faced Russian Premier Kisov (pronounced “kiss off.”)
• This bleak, dark comedy of errors contains the deep dark fear that the government and military consists of simpletons crippled by bureaucracy, and will lead civilization to its doom.
• The starting sequence of sexually-suggestive military aircraft refueling contrasts well with the ultimate fruits of this mating presented at the end: stock footage of mushroom clouds.

The Bad

• N/A.

Conclusion

Love. I wish Kubrick had made more comedies.

IMDB: Dr. Strangelove
Wikipedia: Dr. Strangelove
Rotten Tomatoes: Dr. Strangelove

= 5 stars

Starring Clark Gable, Claudette Colbert
Directed by Frank Capra

Synopsis

Wealthy Ellie (Claudette Colbert) abandons a life of privilege, only to find herself completely unprepared for the common world. Reporter Peter (Clark Gable) takes her under his wing.

The Good

• Stock story of boy meets girl, total opposites, but this early example feels genuine and rarely forced. The standard story and subsequent imitators means many scenes feel familiar: The odd couple pretends to be married to throw off detectives, a hitchhiking scene where Colbert one-ups Gable’s unsuccessful thumb with a bare leg, the pair sleeping in the same room with a makeshift curtain separating the two, and the latter stretch where the couple is separated, each thinking the other has moved on without them, culminating in a wedding where the change of heart comes at nearly the last possible, nail-biting moment. But what sells things is the core relationship of Ellie and Peter, sold through Gable’s caddish acting and Colbert’s mannered naivete. The pair make conscious choices to be together, rather than stereotypical pawns moved into places by the plot.
• Directed by Frank Capra (It’s A Wonderful Life, Mr. Smith Goes To Washington) and is an early example of the optimism film-termed “Capra-esque.” Mostly light comedy: Peter’s common advice on how to dunk a donut, the art of piggy back rides, and hitchhiking, but with grim, serious economic undercurrents just beneath.
• Abrupt, nothing-more-needs-to-be-said ending.

The Bad

• The simple story sometimes feels unoriginal, but this is the original, real deal.

Conclusion

Biggest reason to watch is Gable, whose aggressive acting sells the simplistic story. Following that, you can see the inspiration for thousands of romantic comedies in the decades since. Recommended.

IMDB: It Happened One Night
Wikipedia: It Happened One Night
Rotten Tomatoes: It Happened One Night 97%