review: Sullivan's Travels

I'll start with the rating and go from there.
4 stars.
Included in the National Film Registry as well as 3 AFI lists.
Respectable, I would say. I liked this movie a lot. But for the life of me, the last thought I had about this movie is: so why is Veronica Lake such a big deal?
Not her acting - she is a fine actress in this movie. I just don't get why the iconic image of this film (not the one I posted, obviously) is a line drawing of her. She's a big character, but not that big, and certainly not central. The moral of the story is almost overshadowed by the fact that everyone made such a big deal about her.
That aside - I really did enjoy this movie. Good story, funny, good acting, and some truly touching moments. The scene in the country church was inspiring. Very inspiring. If only more people used religion that way. To remind us of our humanity.
What I wrote above aside, I really liked Miss Lake. She played the role quite well and brought a real girl next door kind of feel to her character, when she could have easily let her beauty overshadow everything. Joel McCrea was wonderful as well. I really want to see what else he is in. He looked familiar.
All in all, a delightful film which I recommend that people see. But don't judge a movie by its poster.
(I would like to mention that I like the poster, I just think the marketing guys were too busy trading on Miss Lake's good looks to premote the story)

review: In the Heat of the Night

Wow! Good film! Won a slew of Academy Awards, is on 4 AFI list (one of course for the famous "They call me Mister Tibbs!" line), and even without those things, this film is amazing. I don't need an organization to tell it to me.
Its about a Philedelphia Homicide Detective who gets caught up in a small town murder in the south. The racist south. It's not a happy story - it's dark, its complex, its disturbing. The people are ... less than good.
What really gets to me is the incredible racism in this film - all the different kinds, I mean. There is the subtle "we're just not used to blacks" uncomfortable kind of racism, and then there is the plain, outright, almost KKK kind of racism - and every kind inbetween. Which makes for some wonderful acting ... the range, I mean, not the racism. And Poitier is brilliant. Strangely enough, the only time I did not like him is in that classic line. Maybe it was just that I have seen it out of context so many times that it just seems like a strange shift in context. But still, he's a powerful actor in the moment with a powerful voice making a powerful statement. So I don't mind if the delivery seems a little over the top.
I'm not going to say too much more on this subject.
Great acting, great directing, wonderful story. See it!
4 and 1/2 out of 5 stars!

review: Sunrise

I will say this: it is a gorgeous film. Gorgeous in its simplicity and in the beautiful sweetness of the story. That being said - this film would never be able to be made in this day and age.
This 1927 Silent film is a little gem. It is one of the movies listed on AFI's Top 100 list, as well as winning Oscars at the very first Academy Awards ceremony ever presented, and is on the National Film Registry and adopted into the Library of Congress collection. The only sad part is that the true original film is lost to us. The original was destroyed in a nitrate fire in 1937 - so what is presented today is only a piecing together of something close to the original. It works still, but you have to wonder what the differences are.
The story revolves around a man and his wife. The man is cheating on his wife with this vixen from the city, who proposes that he drown his wife - and of course, men being the way they are - he sets the plan in motion. However, at the critical moment, he can not do it. The wife runs away, and catches a trian to the city. He follows her. They make amends, spend a glorious day in the city, rekindling their old, fun-loving romance, and head back. I stop here, so as not to ruin the movie completely for you.
Like I said, the story just would not work. A man tries to kill you, and then an hour later, you're getting your portraits taken together? Wouldn't work in this day and age. But somehow, it just does in the movie. The poor wife is the sweetest thing, and of course, she looks like an angel - so why he is unhappy at home never really gets explained. The vixen is obvious enough - a typical 1920s vamp flapper with dark bob and eyeliner to match.
The music, the design, and the lighting work together so well. The director was a German and very much influenced by German Expressionism. And you can see that - without being beaten over the head with it. The only room that looks a little misconfigured in the beginning is the bedroom. Other design aspects are in place, but you don't really notice them unless you are looking for it. Look for the forced perspective in the city scenes. Almost flawlessly done. It's just gorgeous, reaally. It really does seem like a visual song of the life of these two humans. It's sweet. Might be too sweet for some, but it is definately worth a watch - if for nothing else than to think back to a different time.
4 out of 5 stars

Review: Pulp Fiction

I'm not even going to go into the all the accomplishments or the significance of this film, because, let's be honest - if you don't know at least a little something about this film, then you have been living under a rock. The movie was such a phenomenon when it reached the screens. That's putting it lightly.
I've been very hesitant to watch this because it is not my usual cup of tea. Mostly it was the drugs and the violence. But its on the top 100 - and you have to respect something that can make it onto such a culturally significant list.
What did I think? Well, apprently, I am a traitor to my generation. I get it, and I really don't. There were a lot of aspects of the film that I enjoyed. Some of the humor was pretty good. Dark, but good. Dialouge structure and content was phenomenal. Storytelling techinique was quite unusual for a film, at least in its day. Good acting. Realistic.
I understand the significance. I see the brilliance and some of the morals. I am fascinated by what the hell was in the briefcase.
But I just didn't care for it.
You can't look at this film and expect to see a complete story. Because there really isn't one ... well, actually, I can't say that. Maybe there is. I just didn't see it. It was three inter-related stories that connect, and yet, have nothing to do with one another. (I know that doesn't really make sense, but that is what I am left with after the end of the film)
I know this is incredibly harsh, and you would think that I would be more open-minded, considering that I do work in theatre, in the arts, in the entertainment industry - but at the end of it, I didn't know why I watched it in the first place. What did I get out of watching this? A couple hours of something to do, yes; I wouldn't go so far as to say "entertainment" because it took me about 3 tries to get through the movie.
Like I said, I think, in the last bit, there was a bit of a moral, there was a sense of a story, the start of a conclusion that wasn't really there. But that wasn't enough for me.
Someone has to explain this movie to me. It's not that I don't get it. It's just that I don't get anything from it.
Actually, no, that is not true. I did learn a couple things: Royale with Cheese and don't do drugs.
I feel like I should apologize for not liking this film. I respect it, but I just don't like it. The only reason I would ever recommend this to someone is because it is a classic, it was a milestone, it was innovative and provoking. I will be the first to admit my ignorance on this movie. Like I said, I do respect it despite everything.
But respect is not enough to make me like this film.
2 out of 5 stars

review: Easy Rider

I did not expect to like this movie. All I had ever about it was the drug use.
Here is what I think now: I think the making of it was all about the drugs and I think that the drugs is only a part of the story.
What is the story? Two drug dealers with amazing bikes make a journey from LA to Mardi Gras. Along the way, things happen to them, they do things, and see places. That is it in a nutshell - without giving away too much.
Aside from the bit at the commune, and the insane bit at Mardi Gras, I rather liked it. And I didn't like those parts because I didn't get them. This is why I need to watch it with someone smarter than I am.
Overall, this movie is really interesting. I am niave, I will admit that. And I am niave because I can not imagine the people are like that (the "rednecks" in the film). I just can't wrap my head around that. Thank goodness there is the scene with the man with his huge family. Otherwise, you would think all country people are that biggoted and bloodthirsty.
The acting is pretty good. I was shocked by Jack Nicholson. Amazed - considering the body of his work that I am familiar with. This character is so different. You really came to love this character. Hopper and Fonda are strange companions, but it makes a better picture of who they are; keeping in mind that we know nothing about them.
Art direction is amazing. Except for that bit in New Orleans, which looks incredibly different from everything else. Some of the most beautiful shots of America - and then you contrast that with how most of these townspeople who think themselves as the heart of america, treat these men. That is what gets me the most. The beauty of the country and the happiness and the freedom against the drugs, the bigotry, and the hate. In this way, I think the film is genius.
Also the music is amazing.
This movie was nomiated for only 2 Oscars, but it is the social significance that makes this movie a classic. It is included in the National Film Registry and is on 3 AFI lists.
Watch it with someone, but I don't think this is one of those films that you should watch while under the influence of anything stronger than liquor. It just wouldn't work.
4 out of 5 stars

review: On the Waterfront

I had seen this movie before - when I was in high school - and I did not appreciate it then. I didn't understand its brilliance at the time.
I watched it tonight - and I understood.
There is a reason why this movie is a classic. There is a reason that the "contender" scene has become ingrained in our culture. I guess it has become rather flip now - but watching this scene; its so powerful.. It is the best moment of that story. Two brothers in a secluded taxi cab arguing with life and death, pride and honor at stake. It is beautiful.
Everything in this movie is superb. It is so realistic - so gritty, so hard. The actors are so phenomenal, they just amplify the story and spark the screen. Karl Maden is the toughest priest I have ever seen, and that moment where he is asked if he was willing to go all the way is so powerful. And Lee J Cobb just explodes.
This movie is incredibly respected. It is in the National Film Registry, the Vatican included this on their list of greatest movies of all time. It was nominated for 12 Oscars, winning 8 of them - and is on 6 AFI lists.
But one of the unsung heroes in this film is the screenwriter. Yes it is beautiful acted, beautifully shot, beautifully directed, but the story came first - and Budd Schulberg gave them a wonderful story to tell. He gave them a world in which to work in, names, backgrounds, lives. Sometimes people really forget that what they see on screen is a story someone is making for them.
The political underside to this movie is interesting too. True or not, this movie does give the impression of being a parallel to Kazan's naming names in the Communist hearings. It seems like this is his attempt to explain why and how it felt for him. Not knowing the circumstances, I can't really comment on his actions. But I do think it is also interesting to note that Arthur Miller, who did not give names at these hearings, is also said to have put his views in several of his plays - one being the famous The Crucible and another being his own longshoreman story, A View From the Bridge. I can't help but think that people benefit when there are battles with art.
That aside, all I can say is this movie is one that you just have to see!
5 out of 5 stars

review: Mr. Deeds goes to Town

Oh Frank Capra - how I adore the work you do! Capra is a director for the "real man" - most of his work is about real people in extraordinary circumstances. This is no exception.
The basic plot is that a small town man inherits $20mil from a distant relative. Suddenly everyone has heard of this local yokel and everyone wants a piece of him. Enter a cynical newspaperwoman who goes undercover to write sensational articles about the man. As par, she falls in love with him. Then things take a turn for the worse and ... well you'll see.

The thing about Capra's films is that they are not considered artistically beautiful. More like, simplisticly beautiful - in every aspect. No outshining stars, no overtly complicated anything - but simple, honesty with a small touch of realistic fantastic.

There is not much to this movie. It's just fun - and you find yourself rooting on the little man. Which is the genius of Capra's work. Especially in the 1930s when it was so important for the common man to feel a little good about who they are and what they do. During the Depression, movies like these brought people hope. It took them out of their troubles, gave them some good times and much needed laughter, gave them someone to identify with, to cheer for. - gave that someone onstacles, and showed them triumphing. It was inspiring.
Sorry, I realize that was a little dramatic, but I have a soft spot for Depression era culture and the effect it had on people.
It was reviewed reasonably by critics and box office, won 2 of the 5 Oscars it was nominated for. It is also honored on 2 AFI lists.
Good watch; real cheer value!
3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

The Maltese Falcon

My actor crush on Bogart continues to grow. I've seen this movie before, but it seems like a perfect night to rewatch a classic with one of my all-time favorite leading men.
This is considered by many to be the gem of all film noirs. I can't say for sure if it is the best, but it is certainly a jewel in the crowning glory of the genre. It certainly was acclaimed in its own time, being nominated for 3 Academy Awards. It has registered its long time fame also, being included in the National Film Registry as well as 5 AFI lists.
You just can't get much better in anything. Acting, design, cinematography, etc, etc. Some of the shots in this movie are utterly amazing. Bogart being as amazing as he is, Lorre - I can't say enough about how much I love him as an actor. Sydney Greenstreet in a role that just epitomizes the type of character that he is remembered for. Astor does very well at being a tricky actress. You can hardly ever tell when she is lying and when she is not - until she really puts on an act. That isn't easy to do, and she does it pretty well.
But the star of this movie is the story: so many twists, and the best part is, you'll be shocked at the ending - it just blew my mind the first time.
Not much else I can say except that the movie speaks for itself.
4 out of 5 stars

12 Angry Men (1957)

I love this movie! I love the play. I love the type of story - put a bunch of strangers in a space together and something is bound to happen. The specifics of why they are there always differ, but I have hardly ever been disappointed by this type of story.
This movie is a gem. I don't know what exactly it is; I don't think it is one element, but all of them. The acting is wonderful - All of the amazing character actors and Henry Fonda at his best. It is incredibly important that all of these personalities be as varied as they are. And because that have to be that different, each actor has to make them as real as they can be - especially in a movie where belief and indecision are so vital.
I have a cinematic weakness for this story.
The stage version vs filmed versions is a bit of a topic. On one hand, the stage version is better because of the live intensity. You can't match that in film. Also, if staged right, the enclosure of the space and the intimacy can give a real sense of the atmosphere. On the other hand, staging can also be very awkward in the wrong space. Presenting this in proscenium in a big problem. in film, you have the elegance of camera angles and film edits. This is part of the reason why I love this film. In a movie where space is everything, the use of close-ups, medium and long shots become art. Being able to zoom in on a person's eyes while realization creeps over them. That is gold to a movie like this.
So yeah, I kinda like the movie. And a lot of people agree with me. It is honored by inclusion in the National Film Registry. It also has a place on 5 AFI lists, as well as Fonda being on one of their 100 Stars list. It was nominated for three Oscars, but lost to 'Bridge on the River Kwai' (see review) for all three, which also is a classic, so it was in very good company.
A BRILLIANT film
5 out of 5 stars

Bringing Up Baby

Utterly delightful!
It is amazing that this movie was a box office bomb when it came out. Hepburn was labled 'Box Office poison' and Hawks was fired from the next movie he was going to direct also starring Cary Grant, Gunga Din (see review). However, as with many greats, it was only a matter of time before it would be realized for its true potential. This movie was so wacky, it was way ahead of its time.
Trying to explain the story does the movie no justice because the plot is just utterly ridiculous (and I mean that in a wonderful way) To boil it down a scientist (Grant) meets up with a mad-cap heiress (Hepburn) and has a series of misadventures incolving a brontosaurus' bone, a dog named George, and a leopard named Baby.
It is just utterly fantastic! You have to see this one! It's a typical screwball comedy with a particularly wacky story, fantastic acting, and a good ole time! It has therefore been awarded many honors including selection for the National Film Registry as well as being included on 4 AFI Top lists!
Trust me, it is worth it!
5 out of 5 stars

Fantasia

Can I really say enough about this masterpiece? Nope!
I love this movie! When I was little I just sort of liked it, but now that I am older I can more fully appreciate its beauty and genius. This was a standard in Elem School, watching sections 3 or 4 times a year in Music Class. We also watched the dinosaur portion when we were studying the prehistoric age in science. So, yeah, I know it well.
It wasn't until I watched the featurette on the making of it that I realized the social significance of the piece during its time. I won't go into all of it, but Disney at the top of his game teamed up with Leopold Stowkowski (who was a rock star of the classical world at the time) and music critic Deems Taylor, who was the music parrallel to the best sports commentators of today.
You would think this would be instant magic. And it was, but it was a limited popular success. Still, it became a classic later down the line with its subsequent releases (thank goodness for that!) What fascinates me is that all of this began as just another Silly Symphony. But after a little while it became clear that the cost would be too much for a short, so they decided to make it a feature concert.
It won 2 Special Academy Awards (one for Disney and one for Stowkowski) It was selected for preservation by the National Film Registry and AFI honored it on its original Top 100 list as well as naming it #5 of the Top 10 Animated films.
The music selections are brilliant, the art is beautiful, and most of it is just fun! I take exception to the dinosaur part and Night on Bald Mountain - which, even after years, I still don't like - it freaked me out as a kid, and I guess that sticks with me. Although, I will admit that I can at least appreciate it now - and I do.
My personal favorite will always be the Nutcracker Suite. They are all so brilliant and beautiful. And who doesn't like the pastoral selection with the baby pegasus' and a fat, drunken God on a donkey? And the whole, meet the soundtrack is utterly brilliant! But the most beautiful is the ending with the Ave Maria. I'm 23 years old and it still brings me to tears.
Really, with this movie you can not go wrong. And this is something EVERYONE should see at least once. Sometimes when I hear a good piece of music or listen to a beautiful concert, I think: maybe if people had exposure to things like this, there would be more love of beauty, and therefore, more peace. Has that ever happened to you? Just sitting back and listening to something so beautiful that you can't imagine such things as war, pain, hunger, want, fear, and things like that. It's the best feeling in the world to be overtaken with beauty in art, and Fantasia is the best example of that.
5 out of 5 stars

review: Network

Wow. After that, I don't think I ever want to watch tv again.
Not really, but it certainly doesn't help the way I feel about talk shows and news.
The movie begins with the firing of a man, and his radical on-air claim that he will kill himself next week. That both saves and damns him. From there, the Network, UBC, goes a little crazy, and the people go a little crazy, and at the end, you watch this group of execs in a board room discussing something (I won't say what) and you just sit there and think: How the hell did it come to this?
This movie is a very powerful (very dark) satire about networks of television, but it isn't that funny really (and by that I mean, that this is not the kind of humor you laugh at), and it is also is very cynical and a little scary. Not like horror movies or thrillers are scary, but terrifying in the way it looks at our lives and you don't like what you see.
The most famous bit of this movie is the broadcast where the newsman goes a little crazy and screams for the people to open their windows and shout "I'm as mad as hell, and I'm not going to take this anymore." What really got me is that moment, its effects, and the way the network used a meaningful moment and turned it into a meaningless slogan. The next time you hear the phrase is it being shouted by the audience like "What's my line?" and it loses all the power that moment held. I guess that is the moral. Television is a transient thing, nothing can stay "real" for long on it.
This movie won 3, 3!, Oscars for acting: Best Actor (Peter Finch), Best Actress (Faye Dunaway), and Best Supporting Actress (Beatrice Straight). That has only happened for one other movie in history: A Streetcar Named Desire. So that gives you an idea of how amazing the acting really is. Finch shows us a man who goes from an everyman who throws away inhibitions because he is fed up (and you cheer him) to a madman. He goes crazy, but you don't see it that way. You see him as a fighter, a rebel, a man bucking the system. Only when it gets too far do you realize that this is not a freed mind, but a disturbed one. What is somewhat creepy about that is that Finch, much like Heath Ledger, died before he could win the Oscar for his performance. This was the first instance of an actor being honored with a win posthumorously. Faye also shows us the rise and fall of a mind, but in a different way. She is best described in the movie as "television incarnate" She has a rises to be a very powerful person, but her complete rejection of any reality but television and ratings makes her cold, calculating, and on her own way to damnation. You almost feel sorry for her, but then she continues on her same path willingly, and then you know there is no hope for her and she will be one of those miserable people. Beatrice Straight is an interesting choice for winner of the Best Supporting. Her part is so small, but in it is packed the best speech ever given by the wife of an unfaithful husband. She is fantastic - and while you realize her part has to be that small, you want to see more of here, and you wish there were more like her. No kidding, her screen time totals 5m40s, and as of today she holds the record for the shortest screen performance to win an Oscar. Less than 6 minutes of time, and she does it so well that she wins one of the highest honors in acting for it. Impressive, I would say. Network was also nominated for 6 other Oscars, including Best Actor for William Holden, who, let me tell you, is brilliant in his role as well as Finch is.
The movie is also in the National Film Registry and is honored on both AFI top 100 lists as well as being honored in the #19 spot on the top 100 Quotes.
Despite the utter depressingness of this movie, I rather liked it, and I certainly think that this is one that everyone should see - especially people like me, who have grown up with television. I'm no slave to watching tv, but I am a child of the age, and there are some lessons to be learnt by people of this age from this movie.
4 out of 5 stars

review: The Wild Bunch

Less than 20 minutes in and I already have a feeling that I am going to hate this movie. Mostly because of the opening sequence. First of all, you see a bunch of kids looking at something, and then you see what it is they are "playing" with. A couple of scorpions in a nest of red ants. *shudder* Then, you have those shoot-out in which you are immediately informed that this is not going to be a pleasant movie. As the group goes back out of town, they pass children again, and to end their game, they put hay in the nest and light it on fire. Lovely children, aren't they?
So, immediately, you don't like anyone in this movie.
It does not get much better. At least, not for me.
It is highly honored though. It was nominated for 2 Oscars for Screenplay and Score. It is also on numerous top lists including AFI's Top 100 movies, Top 100 Thrills, and 10 Top 10 Genre.
The overall idea sounds appealing - an aging group of outlaws try to pull one last job. But - something goes wrong and it turns into something like 'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid' with a betrayer from the old gang.
The acting is also quite fine. A wonderful group of actors including William Holden and Ernest Borgnine. Design is ... I don't know - just there. Direction - I don't know.
This is one I would have to watch again to gain any appreciation other than what I have said.
2 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: The Gold Rush

So, by now, we all know my love for Chaplin. I will say that the first time I tried to watch this movie, I was disturbed by the voice-over. It was the first silent film I had ever the chance to watch, and I was so disappointed that there was narration added that I refused to watch it at the time. Luckily, I got over that, and the next time I had a chance, I watched it, utterly delighted that this was Charlie Chaplin providing his own narration.
(Sorry, I had to provide that little background information.)
Now, as ever, I watch it and I love it. It is not ruined with sound being added so many years later, rather, it is increased by it. With Chaplin providing his own narration, it doesn't hinder the movie at all, it helps. The same humor is in the words that is in the silent moments.
This movie is on both of the AFI top 100 lists as well as the 100 Laughs list. It is also one of his most well known movies and one of his most beloved. Mostly because of 2 scenes: eating a shoe, and dancing rolls. What I love most about these films is that is beckons for out-loud laughter. I would love to watch his movies with someone who would appreciate them as much as I do. And this movie does just make you want to share the experience.
This is, I think, the movie with the best introduction of the little Tramp ever. After a quick narration of where we are, the scene cuts to a mountain side where the litte Tramp is walking along. He looks so out of place in the Klondike with his cane and little hat and overlarge shoes. You just have to laugh.
This film is a little different from the others. It is not so much of a social commentary. It is more of a traditional comedy, although he does deal with issues like hunger. What I love most about this movie is the physical comedy. He's brilliant with physical comedy in all of his movies, but it is in scenes like the tilting house or the wind keeping him from getting outside of the cabin. Just the way Chaplin moves, it's extraordinary.
Chaplin is the best comic, I think, of all time. He has mastered every aspect.
5 out of 5 stars

review: Spartacus

Politics and War in Roman times. Just as terrible as Politics and War in these times.
A good movie, a rather good movie. Wonderful performances. This is definately worthy of the title "sprawling epic" Rightfully so.
Popular lore has it that Kirk Douglas was disappointed that he did not get the lead in Ben-Hur, so he decided to have his own epic. And he got Stanley Kubrick to direct. Again, this is a movie I would never have expected him to make. But then again, it does fit, with its twisted human acts.
It is honored by being on 5, count them, 5 AFI lists. Those being 100 Thrills, 100 Heros & Villians, 100 Cheers, top 10 Genre, and on the over Top 100 movies list. Quite the honors, isn't it? It was nominated for 6 Oscars, winning 4 of them for Colored Costume Design, Art Direction, and Cinematography, and for Best Suppurtoing Actor Peter Ustinov.
All are well deserved - especially Ustinov's honor. He plays a wonderful, part evil man. His character is not bad, but he is intirely driven by money, which makes him less than savory. Laurence Olivier plays a truly maddening guy - what makes him so maddening is that he is so noble in his mind. Everything he goes is for the "good of Rome" Rome this, Rome that, and oh, he has so much pride! Drives you crazy, a little. So much so that you really do begin to prefer the lechery and outright "badness" of the Gracchus character. Who, is also quite wonderful in his role. His own trechery is his downfall, but you can't help but admire the old bastard despite of, or maybe even because of his ways. Of course, Kirk Douglas is wonderful, and Jean Simmons is apporpraite.
The trouble, for all actors, I think, is that since this took place so long ago, you often wonder if any of these portrayals are at all accurate. How can you know? And does it really matter? Movies like these are not for the glory of history and men so much as it is a allegory(?do I even have that right?) for the modern age. Maybe what I mean is a fictional representation for the purpose of a moral. In which case, it doesn't really matter, so long as the idea gets accross.
All in all, a good epic.
3 out of 5 stars

review: Modern Times

Thank God! I needed this after 'Platoon' Bless Charlie Chaplin! I love his movies. I like them because they are funny, and they are also social commentary. Satire at its best! This movie is a doosey! It is honored by being on both AFI Top 100 lists as well as its 100 Laughs list.
It starts right away with a scene of a sheep herd moving together, which fades into a scene of workers coming out of the subway on their way to work. Now, who hasn't been in a traffic jam, or in a footrace to work or class, and not thought of that? Me, personally, I think more along the lines of ants, but you get the idea. You know from that first moment that this movie is not only going to make you laugh, it is going to say something!
This time the little Tramp is trying to make it in a modern world. He is a bolt tightener on an assembly line in a factory. One day, he has a bit of a breakdown and is sent to the hospital. After he recovers, he is sent out on the streets, where is mistakenly taken for a red leader and put in jail. The whole movie is really about the plight of both the employed and the unemployed, the search for work, and some humanity.
This movie is just utterly brilliant. Chaplin is so wonderful in this! And, considering this was the last true Tramp movie, the ending is particularly poignant. Walking into the sunset with hope.
This movie also features Charlie Chaplin's song "Smile" - although it is just instrumental in the piece. It really is a beautiful and touching song - just as this movie is both of those.
I can only gush over this movie so much without repeating myself, so I'll end the praise here.
See it!
5 out of 5 stars

review: Platoon

Another horrid Vietnam war film. I don't mean that the movie is bad, just the war and the story. It makes me so mad, so you know it has to be somewhat good. It horrifies me to think that this is based on the director's (Oliver Stone's) experiences in the war. Well, that is reality I guess. But I don't have to like it.
The movie is good, the acting is good, the feeling is just terrible. I'm sorry, I don't want to review this movie. I am so sick of Vietnam films.
Again, I don't want anyone to misunderstand me. I respect the films, the filmmakers, and the people who lived through such times, but I just don't want to see any more films about it. I don't want to think about it any more than I have to, and I certainly don't want to write about it.
Sorry. Again, I apologize.
I will say this about the movie: it is very highly respected. It was nominated for 8 Oscars, winning 4, including Best Picture and Best Director. And it is honored by AFI on both Top 100 Movies lists as well as on the 100 Thrills list.
2 out of 5 stars

review: An Affair to Remember

This movie is a remake of a 1939 movie called 'Love Affair' by the same director, Leo McCarey. It was a success, then they made this one almost 18 years later, and then it was made again, using the original title in 1994. It also is said to have been the inspiration for 'Sleepless in Seattle'
So, it is obviously a popular story.
I haven't seen either the original, or the remakes. This one is quite charming. I mean, it has Cary Grant. And I love Cary Grant movies. I don't mind at all that he often plays the same kind of roles. He is just so charming in them. Deborah Kerr is also quite nice. I have only ever seen her in 'The King and I' so I don't know much of her work, or how to judge her.
The movie is a little bit of a tearjerker near the end. The story is about a man and a woman who meet on a boat and, naturally, fall in love. The problem is that both of them are engaged or attached to another person. Sounds like a Astaire/Rogers movie right? Except no dancing and no singing. Which is not entirely true because there is some dancing and some singing. Anyways - they agree to meet in 6 months if they are unattached and in a economical standing to get married. Sadly, they do not meet and from there, the story goes.
All in all, a lovely story - and so touching. It is listed as #5 on AFI's 100 Passions list.
3 and 1/2 out of 5 stars

review: Ninotchka

I know I should like this film more than I did.
I don't know why. The script is okay. The acting is okay. Directing is okay. Design is okay. It just lacks something.
I don't think that this was a good first film to see Garbo in. She is built up so much as a glamorous woman. This film is exactly the opposite of that. Like I said, its not bad -it just doesn't live up to her image. I was excited to see one of my favorite character actors: Felix Bressart. He kind of reminds me of an older Groucho Marx - in looks. He's a funny little guy. And, from what I have seen of his work, I do like the director, Ernst Lubitsch. I also notice in the cast, Bela Lugosi. Hardly recognizable.
Underneath all of this is a very definate satire about Russia. That is, I think, the most interesting aspect of the film. The political mess and he propaganda. I'm torn. On one hand, you don't want to like the Grand Duchess, because she is scheming and doesn't exactly have a kind heart, but politically, you can't fault her claim on the jewels. It was personal property handed down through family. The government had no right to confiscate such a thing. I understand that they are to be used to feed the people, but shouldn't a government like that expect to take care of its own people without taking private property? Which, I know they don't believe in. I just can't wrap my head around their views. It makes you think.
It was made into a musical called 'Silk Stockings' in the 50s with Fred Astaire and Cyd Charrise, which I love! A brilliant little rendition with music. It was selected for preservations by the Library of Congress, it was nominated for 4 Academy Awards, and is on two AFI lists: one for 100 Passions, and one for 100 Laughs.
3 out of 5 stars

review: Laura

Murder mystery with a little bit of a twist.
Laura is about the death of a woman and the investigation into her murder.
The men in this film basically fall down in front of this gorgeous woman. Rightfully so, Gene Tierny is gorgeous in this film. And more than that, she is kind, and something about her calls out to be taken care of.
All acting is quite good -especially Clifton Web. Seriously odd. This also features a younger Vincent Price. If it weren't for the voice, you would never know it was him.
I kind of like this movie. It's interesting, with a quite a unique way of working in this established genre.
Very interesting.
It was nominated for 4 academy awards but only won the Oscar for B&W Cinematography. It is on 2 AFI lists - one for Best Scores, and in the Top 10 of the Mystery genre.
4 out of 5 stars