Change Your Image
labontearia
Reviews
Apocalypse Now (1979)
The horror
Apocalypse Now, directed by Francis Coppola, is an American's version of the Vietnam War. Willard, played by Martin Sheen, is sent on a top-secret mission to take out Kurtz (Marlon Brando), a rogue Colonel who has lost his mind and is dishing out the war on his own terms. The movie follows Willard and the crew of the PBR on their journey through the war-ravaged areas of Vietnam to find Kurtz.
Along the way Willard and the crew are presented with obstacles. There's a general who refuses to help unless he can see some good surfing, a battle where no one seems to know what's happening, and merciless and frenzied killing of multiple natives for no apparent reason. It seems as if Coppola is waging his own question along Willard's journey - is it just Kurtz that has lost his mind, or is the whole war itself the real absurdity? The movie seems somehow both realistic and fantastical. What kind of general would be demanding people surf as napalm strikes are dropping? What kind of battle is being waged when there's no one in charge and no clear enemy? (And yet, despite the films over-the-top-ness, for many American's, this was a version of reality.)
By the time Willard makes it to Kurtz he's lost almost all the crew of the PBR. And while it's obvious that Kurtz has definitely lost it, he's not necessarily as crazy as one would think. He poses great philosophical points (we send boys to war and expect them to kill people but tell them they can't write profanity on bombs because it's too obscene?) and, after the journey experienced throughout the film, Kurtz doesn't seem like that bad of a guy. There is excellent camera work at play during Brando's scene that keeps Kurtz shrouded in darkness, resulting in an almost mythical quality. We never really know who he is, but Willard does know who he is, and he is a man that follows through. Though he seems to take Kurtz' words to heart, he follows through with his mission and the movie ends on him reflecting on Kurtz' own words (the horror... the horror).
The cinematography is something to behold. The movie is visually stunning with sequences involving unreal aerial shots, explosions, boats, and more, there is something to be said for the production too. It all culminates into one over the top-action packed, genre bending (dark humor? Drama? Action?) must see film. 10/10
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (1966)
We're all a little strange
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is a movie that serves to remind us that nobody's perfect. Directed by Mike Nichols, it follows (what is supposed to be) a friendly meeting between two colleagues (George, played by Richard Burton and Nick, played by George Segal) and their wives (Martha, played by Elizabeth Taylor and Honey, played by Sandy Dennis). However, as the night goes on and drinks become more abundant, stranger and more bizarre incidents begin to occur as bitter anger, jealousy, and truthfulness come into play. What, in the beginning, appeared to be two normal couples is ultimately revealed to be two couples that, while distinctly different, are both experiencing personal and marital woes.
The casting choices of Taylor and Burton should be praised. Despite being known as one of the most beautiful women in Hollywood of the time, Taylor takes her role seriously and does her best to put on weight and appear frumpy, pulling it off dramatically. Tension and chemistry between the two actors is palpable and it's hard to distinguish how much of the movie is purely acting and how much the two may be taking out on each other. Despite increasingly bizarre incidents between George and Martha (George pretending to shoot Martha, Martha calling George out in the death of his parents, and the ultimate death of their 'son') there is no reason to believe there is any acting at all going on. Instead, viewers are transported to a strange, old, and bitter couples' odd reality. The noir-esque black and white style further adds to the tense ambiance and makes every scene even more believable and, perhaps, stressed and uncomfortable (yet oddly captivating as well).
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf is possibly one of the biggest pioneers influencing what we know as Hollywood today. The script, based on the play of the same name, was originally deemed to mature for audiences, was fussed over by executives at Warner Bros to ensure the movie did not receive backlash for the amount of profanity in it. Ultimately, the word 'screw' was cut from the script altogether with the condition that the phrase 'hump the hostess' could be kept. Given a "For Mature Audiences" rating, the movie ultimately dominated the box office, ushering in the productions of future mature rated movies.
As a pioneer in future films and an attest to perfect casting, this movie is a must see. Prepare for the drama of a lifetime and a story that gets more increasingly odd at the minute. With the help of Nichols, Burton and Taylor are at their best, revealing what it's like to shed the façade of normalcy. 10/10
Monster (2003)
Absolutely Amazing
So I know we have some hiring managers in here and just a lot of people with good advice and I'm in need of it.
To make a long story short, I've been a stay at home mom since... 2016. Since then, I've decided to go back to school and get my degree. I graduate this May and obviously, I am not sure what my next step is. Like, I want a job obviously, but I have no experience since 2016. I've been at home, raising two kids, haven't had opportunity to volunteer or intern and I'm not gonna lie, I'm feeling really stressed and depressed about it. Is this whole thing for nothing???
I've been invited to a career fair this Friday and I've picked a few places I want to look at/talk to. I guess I'm looking for advice... Is this something I should just totally skip because I don't have experience? Should I look elsewhere? What should I say if people ask what I've been doing? Does anyone have any resume tips?? Any advice in general???? Please help me stop freaking out so badly.
Napoleon Dynamite (2004)
Unique
Napoleon Dynamite is a tale as old as time of a teenage outcast, albeit, thousands time more awkward than you remember. Directed by Jared Hess, the film centers around teenager outside Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder) and his life living in rural Idaho. By all means Napoleon lives an unextraordinary life. He lives on a farm with his grandmother and older brother (who both have better things to do then hangout with Napoleon). The film follows Napoleon's life after his Uncle comes to live in the house with him and his brother when his Grandmother has an accident. From here, all kinds of zany adventures occur. These include Napoleon's uncle selling items door-to-door, Napoleon's brother finally meeting his online girlfriend face-to-face, and Napoleon doing his best to help his only friend, fellow outside Pedro, get elected for class president.
It is a relatable tale of awkward teenager who gains redemption. On their quest for class president, Pedro and Napoleon try to win students over to their cause, and, while it does not always work, Napoleon ultimately ends up winning his fellow students over in an infamous and elaborate dance scene, securing Pedro's bid for class president and perhaps a bit more popularity and understanding for the whole gang of misfits. The film itself utilizes a beautiful static shot that captures the groovy body movements of Napoleon (along with his facial expressions) and emphasizes the utter cool-ness of the dance even though it's being performed by a gangly and awkward teenager.
The story being an outcast is a common one and though this movie is a unique one never seen before, it is reminiscent of movies past. "Do the Right Thing" by Spike Lee features a similar story line for it's characters, though instead of using awkward teenager years to highlight looks at the discrimination faced by different races.
The freshness of the film is undeniable and yet, it was produced by a team of new grad students in rural Idaho in a matter of 23 days with an extremely small budget. Perhaps this take on things and the forcing of operating so quickly and cheaply is what sets Napoleon apart from other comedies. Either way, though not everyone's cup of tea, there is no denying that this film is a step above the rest. The humor may be dry and the story itself very slow, but the it's worth it alone if not just for the dance scene. A classic comedy of the early 2000's, 7/10
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Ingenious
"Do the Right Thing", produced by and starring Spike Lee, is a movie that questions the viewers notion of what the right thing really is. In the film we meet Mookie (Lee) a young pizza delivery man who lives with his sister Jade (Joie Lee). Mookie lives in a predominantly African-American neighborhood with two exceptions - A market owned by a Korean-American family and the pizza shop he works for, Sal's, owned by an Italian-American family.
The movie pits all races against each other. Sal (who owns the pizza shop) has a wall inside his store dedicated to famous Italian-Americans. This angers one of the residents of the neighborhood (Buggin' Out) who asks that Sal put up some famous African-American, to which Sal refuses, which upsets Buggin' Out. Other residents choose to look down on the Korean market owners for not selling the preferred beers of the area or just treat the owners poorly for being different. Sal's son Pino dislikes African-Americans and the whole neighborhood and is less than thrilled to be working at a store serving them. It seems that each race has it's own reasons to dislike the other and that no one gets along.
Despite it all, friendships form. Mookie befriends Vito, Sal's other son, who is not racist like his brother. Sal is close to Jade, Mookie's brother. And yet, with all the tension between everyone else and the record-breaking heat, tensions reach an all time high. Lee brings the hatred closeup, literally, using close-up shots of actors insulting different races. This closeup style shot is used throughout the movie, occasionally at angles to emphasize characters and the powers they do (or do not) posses (such as depicting them from a low angle to make them tower or a high angle to make them small).
Eventually the movie comes to it's peak. Buggin' Out enters the pizza shop with friends who demand Sal add African-Americans to his wall. Buggin' Out's friend Radio, aptly called so for his love of his boombox (which is constantly blasting Public Enemy) is part of the gang protesting and Sal asks Radio to turn his radio down, to which Radio refuses. Sal smashes the radio, Radio begins choking Sal, and the police are called which ultimately results in police brutality as the police kill Radio. As the police disperse, Mookie takes a trashcan to Sal's shop's window, resulting in most of the neighborhood rioting and destroying the pizzeria. The neighborhood then focuses on destroying the Korean mart but ultimately changes their mind at the last minute.
The next day we are left viewing the aftermath of the now destroyed pizza shop. Mookie asks Sal for the rest of his check which Sal initially denies but then caves and pays and both come to some sort of apology. The film closes with two powerful statements from two prominent African-American figures, Martin Luther King Jr and Malcom X. King's statement speaks strongly of resisting the urge to be violent and rise above it while Malcom X expresses the need for violence to get things done, then closes with a picture of the two men together.
Significant to the time it's produced, what this movie ultimately explores is police brutality and the unfair treatment of minorities by the police. This is referenced in the films credit as the dedications are made to black people who experienced death at the hands of police in the years right before the release of the film. What is the right thing, the movie asks. Should Sal have put pictures up in his shop? Should Buggin' Out have let it go? Should Mookie not have thrown a trashcan? Is violence always wrong, or is it sometimes a necessity? This is a film that will stay with you for a long time, leaving you to figure out the answer to the question. 10/10
Vincent & Theo (1990)
Pretty good
Vincent and Theo is a film that details the lives and relationship of the Van Gogh brothers. Though Vincent name may be more easily recognizable, Theo is often behind the scenes, supporting his brother and giving him the means to discover and become the artist the world eventually comes to respect and admire. The movie begins at an auction where one of Vincent's painting is being bid on, ultimately selling for millions of pounds. The film then goes back in time, introducing a young Vincent who is just beginning his artistic career. He wants to live as an artist and so is choosing to live in poor conditions. Theo, his brother, lets Vincent know that it's him who has been sending him money to help him and support his artistic dreams and not their father. Vincent is untroubled by this proclamation and decides to continue pursuing his artistic dreams by whatever means necessary.
Throughout the film we witness the different lives of the brothers. Vincent battles mental illness while also pursuing his creative passions. He threatens others, destroys paintings, and (famously) cuts off his own ear. He demands his brother take his art and sell it and accuses him of not believing him, which frustrates Theo to no extent. From Theo's point of view, we see a man who loves his brother. No matter what the circumstances, he supports him, sending him money to make sure he can follow his passions while also trying to show off his art. Theo, a lover of art but never a painter, works as an art dealer, selling paintings he doesn't love and keeping paintings he does (Vincent's). Despite starting a family and receiving less than an ideal salary to support his family, Theo always make sure to support Theo, much to the chagrin of his wife. The couple frequently fight about Theo being overly supportive all the while Vincent accuses Theo of not being supportive enough.
It is a sad story of two men in a complex brotherly relationship. Directed by David Altman, the film truly transports us back in time. Truly the production design and choices of location and costume transport us back to earlier times that inspired the artist Vincent. The movie uses locations that bring Vincent's paintings to life, subjecting us to backgrounds that inspired the artist's original paintings.
Though slow paced and dull at times, the ever-changing relationship of two brothers is a relatable one. The production values and casting choices were also well thought out, making the movie much more enjoyable to watch. Overall, I would give this movie a 7/10
Raging Bull (1980)
Outdated
Raging Bull is a biographic film based on the memoir of the same name. It is based on the life of boxer Jake LaMotta and the viewer is granted access into LaMotta's prime and subsequent 20 following years. We learn that LaMotta (played by Robert DeNiro) is an Italian man with a skill for boxing in a particularly vicious and brutal style which, is not surprising, when we learn of the man he is outside of the ring. In the beginning of the film we meet a younger Jake who is in a tumultuous marriage. Him and his wife seem to be having a heated argument, and yet, his brother reminds him later, he's still a married man. This doesn't stop him however from pursuing a young (read: 15 year old) blond women whom he eventually courts and marries (of course, first, the viewer assumes he divorces his first wife).
The rest of the film's story isn't really much better. We are subject to various fight scenes where LaMotta occasionally loses (although he never falls) and more where he wins. However, more often than not the movie circles around his obsessive jealousy regarding his wife and the unfair treatment she receives. He is controlling and irrational and seemingly destroys his own life because of his insane jealousy, even at one point, fighting and alienating his own brother (who is perhaps the only person who has LaMotta's back).
Eventually, to the relief of this viewer, LaMotta's wife finally gets a divorce and moves out. LaMotta meanwhile is busy hosting comedy routines at a club and hooking up with very underage girls (read: 14 years old) as well as setting them up with older men. However, for once, things seem to catch up with LaMotta who is jailed for introducing older men to underage girls.
Does LaMotta ever really get his comeuppance? You can be the judge of that, because the film actually ends with LaMotta out of jail and ready to put on his comedy routine at a new joint (all while reminding himself he's still a champion).
Do we really need a movie about this guy? Personally, I fail to see the story or meaning or glory behind an athlete who beats his wife and treats everyone around him poorly. There's nothing glamorous about jealous rage (maybe in the ring there is, but that might just be lost on someone who doesn't appreciate sports anyways).
All this said, this movie was not poorly made. DeNiro is a fabulous actor, committing to the role so intensely he is nearly unrecognizable. His acting is superb and, somehow, even moving, despite portraying such a gross person. Scorsese is an excellent director who chose shots that evoked emotion. The jail scene in particular, shrouded in darkness that is highlighted even more against the black and white nature of the film, made me feel a large amount of pity for a character I grew to dislike. Other shots of the movie feel raw and real, especially the fights that occurred outside of the ring which left me with my mouth hanging open.
Was it one of the best movies of all time? Certainly you should be the judge of that. While I grew to dislike the story as well as Jake LaMotta and his tale, I found the editing, production, and acting to be outstanding. This movie definitely deserves at least one shot if you've never seen it. 5/10
The Grapes of Wrath (1940)
A Classic American Tale
"The Grapes of Wrath" is considered one of the top pieces of cinema to ever be created, and even when viewed for the first time 80 years later, it's not hard to tell why. In the movie based on the book by John Steinbeck, we see the reality of what many American people faced. Tom Joad, played by Henry Fonda, is a wayward man, on his way home from prison to reunite with his family. Once home, he discovers that his family has been pushed out of their home by the people who own the land. The family, reunited with Tom decide that they can persevere and will relocate to California, where jobs will be plentiful, and money and housing will not be an issue. They decide to take Jim Casy (played by John Carradine), the old ex-preacher, along for the journey with them.
The Joad Family along with Jim Casy quickly discover that the American dream they were hoping for was not as easily attainable as they previously hoped. It seems that they are struck with hardship after hardship, beginning with the death of multiple family members during their journey just travelling, followed by lack of jobs, lack of food, questionable living conditions, and unfair treatment by employers. In one particularly shocking scene, Connie, father-to-be of Tom's nephew, runs away from the family, unable to deal with the pressures of the working camps, leaving his pregnant wife behind.
It seems as if the Joad family's misfortunes will never end. At one of the camps, ex-preacher Jim Casy finds himself involved in what is most likely the beginning formations of a union. Workers are forming strikes to protest the unfair monopoly the food store has over the workers of the farm. Both Jim and Tom find themselves amidst the strikers on one fateful night at which point Jim is struck dead by an officer. Tom retaliates back by killing the officer and running away, but not before getting struck in the face himself, leaving him with an identifiable scar. As the police begin their search for Tom, the Joad family decides to try again, and they pack up in search of the next camp.
At the final camp, it seems that the Joad family's misfortune may be over. Government run, there is plenty of work, food, showers, and even dances. It seems that everything may just work out for the Joad's until the police eventually come by looking for Tom, who has violated his parole by killing the officer at the previous camp. Tom decides it will be best to leave his family permanently to avoid them getting in trouble for hiding them. In a touching scene, Tom says his final goodbyes to his mother and reflects on his time with Jim Casy, the ex-pastor, deciding that he would like to follow in his footsteps and seek out some form of social justice. The two bid goodbye and the next day, Ma (played by Jane Darwell) heads out to work with Pa and delivers perhaps one of the best executed speeches in the whole film, discussing how despite the trials and tribulations the family has faced, they keep surviving and will continue to survive no matter what.
Ultimately, it is the movie's telling of the story, produced by Nunnally Johnson, that makes the movie resonate as strongly as it does. Though perhaps the acting seems a little over the top years later and the accents were hard to follow and understand, the ultimate portrayal of resilience that makes Americans American is a message that still instills a sense of pride in anyone who views this movie. Overall, I would give this movie a solid 8 or 9 out of 10. It is certainly easy to understand how and why this is still an ultimate classic of American Cinema.