The part that Jean Luc-Godard played in The French New Wave was tremendous. This film, with its innovative jump-cuts, catapulted Godard into international fame. His film, Breathless, as well as collaborator Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows, put the New Wave on the map for good. Breathless, like Truffaut's masterpiece, is a mysteriously beautiful film. Jean-Paul Belmondo plays Michel Poiccard, alias Laszlo Kovacs, a french criminal running from the police. He meets with his lover, Patricia Franchini, played by Jean Seberg, in Paris, where she works for a newspaper. The film focuses on the dynamics of their relationship, or rather, their lack of a relationship. One of the most famous lines in the film explains it best: "When we talked, I talked about me, you talked about you, when we should have talked about each other." Considering that this is Michel saying this to Patricia adds so much more to the revelation. Michel is a small, somewhat odd-looking fellow who despises fear and loves sex and movies. In one scene, Michel stands in front of a poster of Humphrey Bogart, from The Harder They Fall. This is just one example of the methods Godard uses of foreshadowing Michel's fate. Patricia is an intellectual, interested in art, music, and literature. She is the more mature one of the two, contemplating the deeper meanings of life and love, while Michel is only concerned about sex and money. Belmondo and Seberg have an interesting chemistry together, very much like Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway in Bonnie and Clyde (1967). The dialog is brilliantly witty and Martial Solal's moody, jazzy theme is somewhat reminiscent of a Thelonious Monk recording. The jump-cuts brought a new technique to the screen, but I can't say that they are done particularly well here. Granted, Godard, practically hacked away at his film with a pair of scissors to shorten the length of the film, thus happening upon what would become a new technique. Overall, Breathless is an enjoyable romantic crime drama, with the style of a film noir, and a twist at the end that leaves its audience Breathless!
Reviews
38 Reviews
Blow-Up
(1966)
A mystery inside a mystery!
12 February 2005
Michelangelo Antonioni's Blow-Up is a rather complex murder mystery, of sorts. What appears to be a film about a shallow, self-centered fashion photographer turns out to be only the tip of the ice-berg, as the story shifts into more of a social commentary/character study. Set in the "swinging" 1960's England, Blow-Up follows the story of Thomas, a fashion photographer who, between photo shoots, stumbles upon what may or may not be a murder in a public park. After closing observing his photographs, he realizes the possibility that he may have accidentally captured a killing on film. Sound interesting? Well, here's where the real twist comes in. Antonioni chooses to focus not on the possible murder, but on the character who observes it. As we watch Thomas' personal life, we see that he is alone in his own little distant fantasy world, where only he and his needs are of any concern. Thomas, played by David Hemmings, is so pompous and unlikable that it is very difficult to have any real feelings for his character, other than disgust. He treats women as props in his compositions, play things in his lust life, and may very well be almost completely devoid of emotion. Hemmings' performance is so flat that I can only imagine that that was the point, to show his distance from the world around him. In fact, all of the characters in this movie are played without emotion. We see meaningless sex (exhibited in awkward, childishly playful sex scenes), a complacent audience at a Yardbirds concert, pointless conversations, and an overall sense that in the director's eyes, all of his characters are dead. I don't mean dead in the literal sense, but dead to themselves, their emotions, senses, and to the world around them. Interesting photography comes into play here as well, as interesting compositions are used to create an odd, other-worldly atmosphere that makes you feel like you're in an entirely unfamiliar place. The best moment in the film, and probably, the most famous is the seen in which Thomas begins to realize what his pictures may actually contain. As the camera is used to reveal what Thomas sees, using montage and zooming affects, we share in Thomas' frightful discovery. A masterful scene, it is almost worth watching Blow-Up just for this moment. There is much here left open to interpretation. Blow-Up is an "art film" (as much as I hate that term), and should be viewed with that being understood. If you are looking for a murder mystery, look else where. If you are interested in something more, particularly something to contemplate, something to read into, Blow-Up is as good a choice as any. An interesting movie, but certainly not for everyone.
Touch of Evil
(1958)
Universal had no clue of how great Orson Welles' direction was!
8 February 2005
From the famous opening shot panning from a doomed car carrying a ticking bomb, Orson Welles begins building the suspense. Welles also uses this opening seen to introduce practically every character in the film so you immediately have a feel for the shady world you're about to enter. Aside from lending his directorial genius to Touch of Evil, Mr. Welles also contributes his performance as the grotesquely obese, crooked Police Captain Hank Quinlan, one of the great screen villains of all time! His prejudice is as complete as his corruption as he abuses his power as a police officer to enforce justice as he sees fit. Quinlan's method of operations comes into question when the honey-mooning Mike and Susan Vargas (Charlton Heston and Janet Leigh, respectively) find themselves at the scene of an explosion. Vargas, an up-and-coming Mexican narcotics officer (yes, Heston plays a Mexican, but the film is very good despite this question of casting) is waiting to testify in a case against a Mexican narcotics ring. Vargas, begins to uncover the truth about Quinlan's investigations, and the two battle for position in this brilliant film noir. Vargas is played with Charlton Heston's signature pride and dignity, as he attempts to bring Quinlan's reign of terror to an end. Susan Vargas is trapped in the middle of the conflict between the two detectives. Susan Vargas is portrayed by the lovely Janet Leigh, who is every bit as beautiful as ever in this film. She isn't given many lines, but she delivers what lines she does have with passion and energy. Akim Tamiroff plays Joe Grandi, this film's representation of Mexico's underworld. There are also some interesting cameos in this film, including Marlene Dietrich as "Tana," Zsa Zsa Gabor as a strip club owner, Mercedes McCambridge as a member of a gang, and Welles' long-time collaborator, Joseph Cotten as the coroner. This film contains enough gritty atmosphere, suspense, plot twists, and brilliant cinematography to keep you coming back over and over again for any number of reasons. It is a stunning example of everything a film noir should be; dark and mysterious, every shot tainted with a Touch of Evil!
One of the greatest westerns of all time!
7 February 2005
Sergio Leone's The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly elevates the "western" to a level of art that I don't think John Ford could have even predicted. Not to take anything away from John Ford, but Leone brought a style to audiences in his "spaghetti westerns" that no one else could have thought possible. He stays true to the rugged, gritty feel of American westerns, but his obvious inspiration from Kurosawa's samurai films, and Leone's own personal style come together in a fascinating way that I feel is too individualistic for anyone else to have created. The characters in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly seem so alive, so rich and developed. It all seems so real that watching this can make you feel like you have stumbled upon another world, and certainly, another way of life, that has been going on forever, and will continue on long after you have left. Clint Eastwood's iconic performance as Blondie is brilliant. His unflinching confidence in every move he makes tells you right away that this is not a man to be trifled with. He never cracks under pressure, and he seems to have such a tight grasp of every situation that one would be a fool NOT to side with him. Blondie is every bit as cool, calm, and collected as Humphrey Bogart's Sam Spade in the Maltese Falcon, and also every bit as rewarding to watch! Lee Van Cleef is menacing as Angel Eyes, a bounty hunter who gives the impression that he never met a man who could come close to making him feel threatened. Then, there is Tuco, played by Eli Wallach. Tuco, as dastardly as he is, serves as the comic relief, which is important in a film like this that is filled with tension (the montage in the cemetery is classic!). This movie has action, suspense, drama, and humor, all of which are flavored with Ennio Morricone's famous score and the brilliant cinematography of Tonino Delli Colli. I have not seen enough of Leone's films to say that this is his best, but I can say that this is an excellent film, worthy of all of the praise it has received since its release!
A biting political satire, and a nightmarishly dark comedy!
2 February 2005
Some times, the only way that we can cope with the horrors of the world we live in is to laugh in defiance of them. Stanley Kubrick looks directly into the eye of the Cold War; the paranoia, the fear, the tension, the politics of major world powers gone mad, with the fate of the entire world hanging in the balance, and he snickers! Kubrick accomplished the impossible in 1963...He made the world laugh at the nuclear bomb. He didn't do it by sugar-coating anything, in fact, he did the exact opposite, painting a pointedly dark and satirical portrait of the powers that be. This portrait, too accurate not to fear, yet too accurate not to laugh at hysterically, resembles a group of little boys comparing the quality of their toys. The insanity of The Cold War is exposed, almost to the point of violation. There are clowns deciding the fate of the world, and human lives are nothing more than statistics, yet through Kubrick's lens, we find humor in the tragedy! We see how ridiculous it all is. An army general manipulates a complex Cold War strategy in order to start a nuclear war with the Russians because he blames fluoridation for his impotence. It sounds preposterous, and it is, but anyone who follows politics knows that the crazier things appear, the more realistic they usually are. The manic performances of Peter Sellers, George C. Scott, Slim Pickens, and even Sterling Haden's twisted Brig. Gen. Jack D. Ripper provide the life to this story, which speaks so often of an ultimate doom. Peter Sellers plays three parts - Group Captain Lionel Mandrake, President Merkin Muffley, and the mad genius, Dr. Strangelove. The President is Sellers playing it straight, while Mandrake shows a little more of Sellers' eccentricity, but it is in Strangelove that he goes completely over the top. Speaking of over the top, George C. Scott gives an incredible energy to his roll as General "Buck" Turgidson. Scott later admitted that this was his own personal favorite performance. Slim Pickens basically plays himself as the gung-ho Major T.J. "King" Kong, who caps off the film in one of the most famous scenes in modern movie history. The satire is powerful, the humor dark, and the end result - remarkable. The detail that went into the War Room and the interior of the aircraft is amazing. The fact that Kubrick could produce a comedy as hysterical as Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb is testimony to his far-reaching genius, and another example of the classics that have come together to form his legacy! A must-see!
Annie Hall
(1977)
A classically intellectual, yet heart-felt, approach to romantic comedy.
2 February 2005
Intellectuals tend to over-think things sometimes, well, probably more like most of the time. This obsessive compulsion to analyze often brings nothing but disappointment, frustration, and cynicism. This, is Alvy Singer (Woody Allen), famous comedian "looking for love in all the wrong places." Or are they the right places, but Alvy won't let them be right? Is he afraid of a real relationship? Is the commitment too much for him? Does he fear the rejection and the disappointment? Who knows? Chances are, it's all of these things, and more. Allen's Alvy Singer is neurotic, so lost in his own fears and apprehensions that he cannot live his life. When he meets the beautiful, but awkwardly giddy Annie Hall (Diane Keaton), he decides to give romance another try. Annie, though, has some issues of her own. The two find solace in their similarities, yet the couple's neurotic nature tends to take a toll on them both, as the relationship continues through its ups and downs throughout the film. Told in retrospect, the film is a series of flashbacks and hilarious personal notes, chronicling the relationship of Annie and Alvy. There are plenty of great jokes and uncomfortable moments throughout the movie, as the intimacies of an unstable, but loving, relationship between two complicated people unravel. Allen, in what is often considered his breakthrough film, provides a witty and intelligent look into the irrationality of relationships, while offering humor as medicine to fight the bitterness that can sometimes accompany them. His intellectualization of the couple's time together does not divert attention from the emotions that are felt; the love, the anxiety, the frustration, the excitement, the laughter, and the tears. Diane Keaton's Oscar-winning performance as Annie Hall is truly remarkable. She is so sincere, revealing the insecurities and timidity that comes with trying to find love and acceptance without compromising who you are. Truly, Keaton is spectacular! All in all, I have to say that Annie Hall is every bit as touching and insightful as it is hilarious! Highly recommended!
8½
(1963)
Creative genius!
1 February 2005
Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 is one of my all-time favorite movies. I honestly believe it to be one of the most creative films I have ever seen. Told through a brilliant collage of memories, fantasies, and experiences, 8 1/2 presents its protagonist, a famous director named Guido Anselmi (Marcello Mastroianni), with a psychological intimacy so deep that it could never be told in a conventional way. Fellini believed in telling a story as he understood it, even if he, himself, did not understand it. This honesty is what brings the confusion of Guido to life. No one, not even Guido, is completely sure of what is going on. Guido is lost on many levels, searching for something, but he does not know what. While he probes through his mind, seeking answers, there is an unrelenting paparazzi buzzing around the famous director, asking infinite questions about his upcoming picture. Guido would most-likely provide answers to the people around him, if he knew any of the answers they seek. His world and his mind are filled with questions and devoid of answers. Mastroianni does a remarkable job of showing the stress and strain Guido is under. His face is so worn at certain points in the movie. He appears to be exhausted himself. Watching this, it's hard not to see that Guido is on the edge, clinging to the idea that the next moment will provide his long-awaited answers. His problems only gain momentum, however, until a press conference that changes his personal and artistic lives forever. Fellini does a magnificent job at balancing Guido's Freudian fantasies and tension-filled life so that the downward spiral of one man's breakdown is elevated, through surrealism, to an almost dreamlike state. The supporting cast is quite effective with a wide array of eccentricities. Nino Rota's music is playful and whimsical, catering to the insanity that is Guido's high-profile world. Gianni Di Venanzo's cinematography is equally extraordinary. Federico Fellini's 8 1/2 is as spectacular as his alter-ego, Guido, would have wished his film could have been. Out of a crippling creative block came a brilliantly conceived work of creative genius! An outstanding film!
Bicycle Thieves
(1948)
Powerful.
1 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Some films try to explain multiple aspects of a story or a character by showing several episodes from the character's life. Vittorio De Sica's masterful The Bicycle Thief relies on the power of simplicity to drive home its point. It is a very simple film, relying on film making at its basics. There are no professional actors for us to identify with, but there are plot lines, emotions, and thoughts that no one can help but relate to. Antonio Ricci (Lamberto Maggiorani) has been waiting for a job, but when one finally arrives, he must obtain a bicycle in order to be able to accept the position. His loving and caring wife, Maria (Lianella Carell), hocks the bed sheets in order to be able to afford a bicycle for Antonio. He reports to work as a poster hanger, but while on the job for only a short time, the bike is stolen by a young thief (Vittorio Antonucci). Desperate to get the vehicle back, Antonio seeks the aid of his friend, Baiocco (Gino Saltamerenda), and also receives the help of his devoted son, Bruno (Enzo Staiola). Bruno stays by Antonio's side, no matter what, determined to help his father get back the stolen property. It is a frustrating journey for the father and son, as they receive no help, except that of Baiocco. It seems that no matter what they do, Antonio is left with a fateful decision (shown in one of the most brutally honest scenes in any movie I've ever seen). He must ask himself just how far would he go to put food on the table for his family that he loves so much? There has been controversy over the ending of the film, which I am not going to go into, because it would be cheating you out of a brilliant ending to an extraordinary picture. However, I will say this much - When viewing The Bicycle Thief, ask yourself what you would do in Antonio's situation. What choices would you make? Some of the questions that rise from this film are some of the questions that help us to define ourselves as people, and the fact that this film provides such a clear and honest representation of so many facts of life is what makes it an undeniable masterpiece! This is a film to be cherished!
The Great Dictator
(1940)
Chaplin's most powerful political statement!
21 January 2005
Charles Chaplin's The Great Dictator is a political statement wrapped in a comedy with a little bit of drama here and there. It is not his best work, but I would definitely recommend it to Chaplin fans. I feel that Charlie Chaplin was at his most powerful in his silent films. Here, he seems a little unsure of himself, in terms of balancing acts that he could pantomime with verbal jokes. Don't get me wrong, there is some hilarious dialog in this movie. It is not short on laughs by any means, but Chaplin's best films had a brilliant sense of balance to them, a balance between drama and comedy that few have ever been able to match. It is a very good movie, but, unfortunately I don't feel it matches up against Chaplin's best, although, I can't think of many films that do! What this film does have going for it, and it has quite a bit going for it, is another brilliant performance from Charles Chaplin. Only this time, aside from his spectacular physical comedy, Chaplin proves he also knows how to deliver his lines with a comedic timing that is every-bit as precise as his pantomime. The highlights are the brilliant dance with the globe and the powerful, moving speech that Chaplin gives at the end of the film. His performance as Adenoid Hynkel, a biting satire of Adolf Hitler, is so off-the-wall, so silly that it accomplishes exactly what Chaplin sought out to do - to make the world laugh at Hitler, to rob him of his power. Mel Brooks would do a fine job of defaming Hitler twenty-eight years later in his hilarious debut film, The Producers. If there is one lesson to be learned from this movie (that isn't expressed in the speech at the end), it's that laughter can sometimes be the best medicine. While no one can ever undo the atrocities that Hitler exposed the world to, we can survive, as long as we have our ideals and our sense of humor.
The Wizard of Oz
(1939)
A magical film that will capture your imagination!
19 January 2005
Since the story of The Wizard of Oz has fallen into the realm of common knowledge and pop culture, I won't get into it here. If you don't know the story, you absolutely must see this film. Don't even read the rest of the review, just go see it! This movie "captured my imagination" when I was a kid, and to see it now, after over twenty years was to rediscover it. Honestly, it was like seeing an old friend. However, I got even more out of seeing it now than I did as a child. Aside from the awe-inspiring land of Oz, the brilliant use of Technicolor to suggest another "world," and the tender performance of Judy Garland, this film contains little bits of Wiz-dom that make it that much more enjoyable years later. Warm performances from Frank Morgan, as Professor Marvel/The Wizard of Oz (among other roles in the picture), Ray Bolger, as Hunk/The Scarecrow, Bert Lahr, as Zeke/The Cowardly Lion, and Jack Haley, as Hickory/The Tin Man, all add to the sincerity of the film. Margaret Hamilton is great as the heartless Ms. Gulch and the sinister Wicked Witch of the West. I would recommend this movie to anyone, especially anyone with children. This is a wonderful fantasy/musical! Truly delightful!
The Rules of the Game
(1939)
Everyone has their reasons.
19 January 2005
Jean Renoir said that this was not intended to be a social commentary, and whether he truly intended it to be (he referred to it as, "An exact description of the bourgeoisie of our time.") or not, it is hard to dismiss that it hit close to home. So offended were the masses that the picture was banned. It is said that behind every joke there is truth, and whether this was intended to be a joke or not, Renoir still found truth. One could argue the director's intentions all day, but one matter that cannot be disputed is that this film is extraordinary! As a handful of French men and women converge on a château for a hunting expedition, their love affairs clash with their obligations to society's game. For instance, one cannot leave one's lover to be with another until he has confessed his adultery to her. Attempts to leave with another man's wife are particularly difficult, as well, unless the other man has a mistress of his own. These are but a few rules of the game. The old are for the old, the young are for the young. Members of one social order are forbidden to see members from another, and so on. Combine these rules with a tangled web of countless love affairs between a handful of people, and you can see the madness that erupts during the course of this movie. The parts are all played well, but it is the writing and directing of Renoir that makes the film the masterpiece that it is. Keeping all of these sordid affairs in order is an achievement in its own right, but Renoir moves his pieces all over the board like a skilled chess player, achieving his goal while never forgetting the rules of the game!
Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
(1939)
Idealism vs. "the machine"
18 January 2005
The theme of one man being able to combat the ways of a long-established system is not a new one. In fact, man versus machine is one of the oldest forms of conflict in cinema, but this is a different kind of "machine," this "Taylor Machine." When a young, naive, and idealistic man by the name of Jefferson Smith (James Stewart) is placed, as a pawn, in the United States Senate, he is honored and humbled by the job set out before him. He sees it as an opportunity to provide a service for his country, and, even more so, his people. In Jefferson Smith, we see everything that is good and wholesome in America. One man who wishes for nothing more than an improvement upon a country that he already cherishes. He intends to do everything he can to fulfill his duty as a newly appointed Senator. However, the people that put him there were not nearly as patriotic in their intentions. Jim Taylor (Edward Arnold) and Senator Joseph Harrison Paine (Claude Rains) have conspired to put Smith in office in hopes that he will simply sit there and keep quiet while they pass a bill that will profit Taylor. Smith's dream of building a national boy's camp is shattered by Taylor's scheme to build a dam in the same area. The powerful Jim Taylor is forced to pull some strings in order to discredit the young senator so that his dam can be built. The Taylor Machine frames Smith, accusing him of fraud. Shamed, Smith is ready to leave Washington behind when his assistant, Clarissa Saunders (Jean Arthur) inspires him to fight for his ideals just as his forefathers had. Smith returns to congress, armed with a new strategy to accomplish his goal.
James Stewart gives one of his finest performances as Jefferson Smith, the young, passionately patriotic Senator confronting corruption in the government he holds so dear. Jean Arthur's performance as Clarissa Saunders is strong, while Claude Rains is forced to counter Stewart's inspired intensity (a feat that I feel he accomplishes). The filibuster scene is one of the highlights of the film, and one of the more memorable sequences in American cinema. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a wonderful movie, not just because of James Stewart's relentless performance, but because it has quite a bit to say. It is a statement declaring that ideals are stronger than the pages they are printed on, and that it is our ideals and the spirit through which we see them realized that allows one man to topple "the machine."
James Stewart gives one of his finest performances as Jefferson Smith, the young, passionately patriotic Senator confronting corruption in the government he holds so dear. Jean Arthur's performance as Clarissa Saunders is strong, while Claude Rains is forced to counter Stewart's inspired intensity (a feat that I feel he accomplishes). The filibuster scene is one of the highlights of the film, and one of the more memorable sequences in American cinema. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington is a wonderful movie, not just because of James Stewart's relentless performance, but because it has quite a bit to say. It is a statement declaring that ideals are stronger than the pages they are printed on, and that it is our ideals and the spirit through which we see them realized that allows one man to topple "the machine."
The 39 Steps
(1935)
A wickedly entertaining Hitchcock thriller!
17 January 2005
This film was one of the turning points in Alfred Hitchcock's career. It shed light on the film-maker, and helped the rest of the world catch on to what a genius he was. The 39 Steps is classic Hitchcock, containing so many of the elements of what made him The Master of Suspense. You have the handsome "everyman," played by Robert Donat. There is the beautiful blonde, a staple in practically every Hitchcock picture. Dark humor, plot twists, suspense, and a climactic surprise ending; This film is a wonderful display of Hitch's powers! The story of Richard Hannay (Robert Donat) is one of spies, government secrets, and conspiracy. It all sounds cliché, but Hitchcock puts your fears at ease early on when Hannay dismisses the whole thing by saying, "It sounds like a spy story." The mysterious Ms. Annabella Smith replies, "That's exactly what it is." Hitchcock takes an old story, and injects it with life, through his dark humor and the brilliant plot twists that occur. I don't want to spoil it for you. This is a tremendously enjoyable movie, one that must not be missed by any Hitchcock fan!
Battleship Potemkin
(1925)
A milestone in cinematic history!
16 January 2005
I cannot explain how influential Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin has been during the course of the last eighty years. Eisenstein's use of montage is extraordinary, flashing from one idea to another, and back again so quickly that you don't even realize that it is happening! Based on an actual mutiny that took place in Russia in 1905, Battleship Potemkin explores revolution through splicing together powerful images in a way that can, at times, literally take your breath away. The sheer brutality of the soldiers opening fire on the civilians at the shore of Odessa is truly horrifying! The intensity of the scene is truly unforgettable. The audience witnesses the chaos that comes from social uprising; children and mothers gunned down, baby carriages falling helplessly down flights of stairs. These are the visions which will stay with anyone who sees this movie. This particular scene is quite moving and disturbingly graphic. I am not sure, though, whether it is the power of the images, or the brilliance of the order in which they were placed that makes this movie such a force. Through his use of symbolism, powerful photography, and ingenious montage, Eisenstein created one of the most important and influential films of all time!
Gone with the Wind
(1939)
The film that set the standard for grandeur...
12 January 2005
David O. Selznick set out to make the biggest, and best, film that money could buy. The result is one of the biggest, most-successful, most critically acclaimed American films of all time - Gone With the Wind. Based on Margaret Mitchell's tale of long-lost southern gallantry, and a way of life that would never return, Gone With the Wind is a work of fiction, set in a glorified Technicolor rendition of the old south. Now, to say that this is all historically accurate would be like saying that this is a short film. Clocking in at just under four hours long, this story can be a little hard to sit through. You really have to get caught up in the soap opera. Once you do, however, it is not hard to see why this film is as highly regarded as it is. I can't help but feel that it is a little over-rated, but considering when it was made, it is spectacular. Vivien Leigh is extraordinary as the beautiful and manipulative Scarlett O'Hara. The intensity of each emotion she expresses throughout the film is outstanding! Clark Gable is the foil to Ms. Leigh's southern belle, the dashing, devil-may-care Rhett Butler. He is often very cool, allowing room for his bottled-up emotion to erupt. He spars with Scarlett, her intensity versus his calm resolve, but both characters are quite similar in many other ways...Leslie Howard is Ashley Wilkes, the physical embodiment of a southern gentleman. His wife, Melanie Hamilton, is played with a quiet grace all her own by Olivia de Havilland. Hattie McDaniel's Academy Award winning performance as Mammy, the voice of reason amongst all of the drama, is just as astounding as any of the other performances in this epic picture. While not a perfect film, Gone With the Wind is still an extremely important one, and should not be missed by anyone interested in classic American cinema.
The 400 Blows
(1959)
The beginning of a new age in world cinema!
11 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
The beauty of Francois Truffaut's The 400 Blows is not found in terms of its technical merit (even though, in technical terms, it is still a brilliant piece), but in the heart and soul of the film, the shear love with which it was made. Truffaut said time and time again that the cinema saved his life, and you get the impression that the only way he felt he could repay his sanctuary was by committing himself to it. He did so in many ways! Not only did the auteur commit his time to movies, by being a lover of film and a critic, he soon became a director, producing this inspired masterpiece. Perhaps, that is what makes it a masterpiece. The film truly is inspired; inspired by Truffaut's life, his passion for cinema, and his theories about how films should be created. The result is amazing! Antoine Doinel, played by Jean-Pierre Leaud, is a misunderstood young boy, trying to keep his head above water, despite being caught up in what seems to be a predestined downward spiral. His teacher and his parents do not trust him, and he knows this. Seeing no trust to betray, he does whatever he can to try to compensate for how miserable he is treated. His mother (Claire Maurier) is busy working and trying to be a housewife, despite an affair she is having with another man. His father (Albert Remy) seems nice enough, but loses his temper when he is disappointed in the young man. Because of an already-existent lack of trust the parents have for their son, everything he does is perceived as wrong. No one ever takes the time (not his parents, certainly not his despicable teacher) to actually look at the boy, to determine whether there is any malice in his actions, or if he is simply a misguided little boy, searching for something he cannot describe or define. This is Truffaut's gift - He allows us to look through the screen, to see this young man, to study him, maybe for only one hundred minutes, but we are given the time to see the truth in this child that few probably ever saw in the young, tormented Truffaut. To miss this film is to deprive yourself of a rare cinematic experience!
Hero
(2002)
Without question, one of the most beautiful films I have seen in years!
11 January 2005
Director Yimou Zhang produced a minor masterpiece in 2002 when Hero first appeared. Two years later, after much success and the development of a cult following, the movie was re-released to be met with even greater success. Often looked at as a combination of Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon and Ang Lee's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Hero is actually more than the sum of its inspirations. Yes, it does tell its story in a manner that fans of Rashomon will immediately recognize, and the brilliantly choreographed martial arts sequences due owe quite a bit to Woo-ping Yuen's work in Lee's picture. Yet, with its gorgeous cinematography, brilliant story, and the emotional performances of Tony Leung Chiu Wai (Broken Sword), Maggie Cheung (Flying Snow), and Ziyi Zhang (Moon). Jet Li gives a quiet, but by no means less-powerful performance as the nameless prefect. Also of note are the performances of Daoming Chen (King of Qin) and Donnie Yen (Sky). But what would these great performances be without a moving story? Jet Li plays "Nameless," a prefect of Qin, who has apparently slain the three most dangerous assassins in the land. His reward is to speak with the king, whom he has so loyally served. During their conversation, Nameless tells the story (seen through a series of flashbacks) of how he was able to defeat his lord's most-feared adversaries. I won't go any further into the plot, because I do not want to ruin anything. This film is worth the price of admission just to watch the martial arts scenes, as spectacularly choreographed by Siu-Tung Ching and Wei Tung. The splendid use of color in the film is another pleasure to behold. Cinematographer Christopher Doyle presents a lush painting in motion as Nameless and the king discuss the prefect's adventures. Extraordinarily beautiful, and not too be missed!
The Grand Illusion
(1937)
Jean Renoir's stunning anti-war statement!
10 January 2005
Such is the power of Renoir's The Grand Illusion that the Nazis deemed it (among thousands of other works of art) as being too dangerous to their cause, resulting in the attempted destruction of this masterful film. Fortunately for us, it was saved, preserved, and restored. This is not only one of the great anti-war films of all time, it is an astonishing work of art, expressing humanity's frustration with the idiocy of war. Two French officers (Jean Gabin as Lt. Marechal and Pierre Fresnay as Capt. de Boeldieu) are shot down over Germany by Capt. von Rauffenstein (brilliantly portrayed by Erich von Stroheim). The German officer shows the utmost courtesy to his French prisoners, their rank as officers being one reason. The other reason deals more with the heart of the film; Capt. von Rauffenstein respects Capt. de Boeldieu because of his social standing and his ancestry. The two officers lived under relatively similar circumstances in their civilian lives, and, as a result, have much in common, starting what could, in any other situation, be a wonderful friendship. However, this is war, and that cannot be forgotten. The two men are on opposite sides, and cannot afford to become friends. Humans judge each other based on many things; appearance, social standing, occupation, salary, etc. War judges people on only one thing - whether you will be the one to shoot, or the one who is shot. Both of these men know this, understand this. It is viewed as an almost necessary evil in order to maintain their patriotism and their way of life. This is the underlying theme of the film, but is not the entirety of the film. Renoir expands on his ideas as the story continues, until we are left alone to meditate on the nature and eminent consequences of war. The film is brilliant in its own right, but the performances of Jean Gabin, Pierre Fresnay, and Erich von Stroheim, especially, really bring the movie, and its ideas to life! An exceptional film!
Modern Times
(1936)
As long as there is unemployment, poverty, or unhappiness in the work force, Modern Times will stand as a truly timeless masterpiece!
9 January 2005
Charles Chaplin's 1936 masterpiece, Modern Times, reinvents its own title. It transcends what were "modern times" in 1936, and it every bit as relevant and powerful in 2005, our "modern times." A story of man vs. machine, individual vs. "the system," and hope in the face of a world that seems to have grown apart from humanity, Modern Times is an inspiration! It is not inspirational because of the laundry list of problems facing our heroes, but because of their unrelenting resilience, their ability to "Smile" at the end of it all. Chaplin social commentary is presented in a satirical, yet optimistic, way, so that we are free to recognize the size of the problems at hand, but never allowed to sink into the hopelessness that such troubles often bring. We are led by Chaplin through a tumultuous time in American history; one of labor disputes, high unemployment, poverty, and despair. Fortunately we are guided by The Tramp, in his final screen appearance, all the way to the light at the end of the long, dark tunnel, his humor and pathos as poignant as ever. Through his phenomenal brand of physical comedy and ingenious directing, we see that all we need to do is smile, and not give in to the world that surrounds us, and we will see a brighter day. An extraordinary film of great power, with a message that should be seen by anyone who has ever struggled through a hard time in their life! A masterpiece!
A Night at the Opera
(1935)
"There ain't no Sanity Clause."
8 January 2005
Producer Irving Thalberg had big plans for the Marx Brothers, who were already well-known for their relentless brand of comedy. He knew that by adding more of a concentration on story and conventional "substance," the brothers could be so much more. Their earlier movies had not done well, due to the fact that they were similar to their stage shows, and not as polished as audiences expected their cinematic comedies to be. Many Marx Brothers fans will argue that it was the earlier films that were better, because they were so raw, and pure in their comedy. However, Thalberg's vision of what the Marx Brothers needed at the time. He provided Groucho, Chico, and Harpo (Zeppo was no longer with the group) with a larger budget, a director they respected (Sam Wood), and, most importantly, a fresh start. The result is what many consider to be the best of all of the Marx Brothers' films, A Night at the Opera. Kitty Carlisle and Allan Jones play two relatively unknown opera singers trying to find success. The Marx Brothers help them, in their own way, of course, while making a mockery of the stuck-up opera company and its affiliates. There are countless quotable lines from this movie, an unyielding stream of puns and one-liners, and quite a few classic scenes, including the famous "stateroom scene," which is an extraordinary example of physical comedy at its best. There are very few comedies that can compete with A Night at the Opera, just as there were very few comedians that could ever compare to Groucho, Chico, and Harpo...A spectacular comedy!
Bride of Frankenstein
(1935)
"To a new world of gods and monsters!"
7 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Picking up where James Whale's 1931 horror classic, Frankenstein, left off, we are presented a very intriguing sequel. This film takes the ideas of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein and embellishes upon them quite a bit. Although I believe that James Whale's sense of humor and "camp" quality take away from the picture, I believe that the thoughts that are brought to the story make up the difference. I am not going to debate whether The Bride of Frankenstein is superior to the original, or not. It is as futile as a battle of the sexes. While The Bride of Frankenstein uses the same characters, and same story as a base, they are quite different, which is why I feel that comparing the two is utterly pointless. While Frankenstein brought up moral issues about man playing God, this film focuses more on the after-effects, human nature, relationships, and, in some very odd ways, family mechanics (no pun intended. Boris Karloff's second incarnation of the monster is much more human, more sensitive, and more developed. In the first film, he merely smashed through things, strangled townspeople, and expressed very basic emotions (fear, anger, etc.). Here, we see that the monster now understands how alone he is. He has developed a longing for acceptance and even love. His true nature is also revealed, I believe, in a few scenes in particular. The most poignant of which is the scene in the blind hermit's cabin. Much credit is due to O. P. Heggie for his emotional performance as the kind, lonely, blind man, who is unable to see the physical deformities of the monster, but still sees the the basic humanity within him. Being able to see, the rest of the villagers fear the monster, and attack it on sight. This scene is very important because it shows how we, as human beings, judge others so harshly on appearances. Colin Clive returns as Dr. Frankenstein, no longer bent on the creation of life from the dead. That is, until he is provided with a new scientific venture through the flamboyant former philosophy professor, Dr. Pretorius (Ernest Thesiger). His proposition is to create a new monster, a mate for Frankenstein's monster, so as to develop a race of creatures. At first, Frankenstein is against the notion, but soon, his ambition gets the better of him once again. Their collaboration reaches a climax with the unveiling of their new creature, The Bride of Frankenstein (Elsa Lanchester). There are many iconic scenes in this film, particularly, the "birth" of the bride. This is an interesting movie, owing much to early German expressionism, and while I don't know if it is superior to Frankenstein, I will say that it is definitely worth seeing, especially for fans of classic horror films.
It Happened One Night
(1934)
Pure Capra magic!
5 January 2005
It Happened One Night set a pretty high water mark for romantic comedies back in 1934, a standard that has rarely been met, and possibly never surpassed. Any classic movie lover would be hard-pressed to deny the charm of this film. As enjoyable as any of Capra's best, I Happened One Night is one of those rare films that is a joy to watch, simply for its entertainment value. Clark Gable stars as Peter Worne, a hard-nosed reporter, who just got the pink slip from his job when he runs into Ellie Andrews (Claudette Colbert), the daughter of millionaire Alexander Andrews. Having run away from her father, Ellie is trying to get to New York to be with her husband, King Westley (Jameson Thomas). Smelling a story, Worne decides it may be best for both of them to stick together for a while. What the newsman doesn't count on is that he may see more to Ellie than what he had counted on. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert play off of each other wonderfully throughout the movie, displaying a the chemistry between stars that makes a movie a classic. The achievements of the Capra and company did not go unnoticed during Oscar season, either. It Happened One Night made Oscar history as being the first film to sweep the five major categories at the Academy Awards, a feat that would not occur again until One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest did it in 1975. Aside from winning Best Picture, the film also took in Best Director (Frank Capra), Best Actor (Clark Gable), Best Actress (Claudette Colbert), and Best Screenplay (Robert Riskin). It Happened One Night should not be missed!
M
(1931)
Fritz Lang's study of serial murder, justice, and the death penalty
5 January 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Based on an article Fritz Lang read about serial killer Peter Kuerten, M is a fascinating study of the criminal mind. Peter Lorre is compelling as Hans Beckert, a murderer of little girls. His diminutive size and high pitched squeal are used to great effect to hide the enormity of the demons within him. Mr. Beckert preys on little girls, buying them balloons, candy, anything they might want, just as long as they agree to leave with him. The murders are never shown, though, because Lang knew that by leaving them to our imagination, we provide far worse depictions of what may have transpired than anything that could have been put to film. Besides, no censors would have allowed such things to be shot at that time anyway. Instead, we see a balloon with no owner, a ball with no one to bounce it, and a dinner plate awaiting the return of Beckert's latest victim. Of course, the entire town is panic-stricken, and the film shifts its magnifying lens to the effects that Beckert's killing spree has on the remaining populace. We see fear, anger, frustration. The police are at their wits' end, attempting to catch a criminal who strikes on impulse and leaves hardly any clues at the murder scenes. To make matters worse, the frenzied public cannot agree on any solid leads. Even the underworld is haunted by the murders. The police are everywhere, searching for any clue at all, and the criminals have no way of getting around to their ill-gotten gains. Finally, the criminals decide it is up to them to succeed where the police have failed, and so, they decide to catch the monster themselves. In the meantime, psychological evidence taken from Beckert's hand-writing leads the police to the conclusion that Hans is clinically insane, killing out of a pathological need. The man hunt continues until a mob of criminals finally track down the perpetrator. Hans is then taken to an abandoned ware-house where he is subjected to a kangaroo court. In a panic, Hans admits that he has no control over his murdering little children, he pleads insanity. He begs to be placed under police custody, which is a joke to the "court," compromised of every criminal that had to put his work on hold because of Beckert's string of homicides. Peter Lorre is spectacular in conveying Hans' desperation and the agony with which he lives every day of his life. His words fall on deaf ears, except for the man who has been appointed to "defend" him. His defense argues that he cannot be held responsible his actions if he cannot control himself. A wonderful debate takes place here, arguing over the justice or injustice of the death penalty, and whether or not it fair to punish a man who is clinically insane. Just before his sentence is to be carried out, though, the police arrive, and Beckert is taken into custody. You never find out what happens to him, though, as the film ends with the mother of one of the victims telling us that the no court ruling can ever bring her child back. Some may find this film slow or disappointing because of a lack of "action" or a some-what anti-climactic ending, but I believe that this film does what it set out to do. It sheds some light on the criminal mind, shows the psychological effects that a serial killer has on us all, questions our sense of justice, and also questions the morality of the death penalty. This film is disturbing, and I will admit that I find it a little slow here and there, but there is so much here to think about, that I cannot help but give it 9 out of 10 stars. Highly recommended!
Frankenstein
(1931)
The quintessential monster movie...A classic!
5 January 2005
"It's alive, it's alive, it's alive!" In fact, despite being more than seventy years old, this film is still very much alive. James Whale's Frankenstein is one of the greatest monster movies of all time. Bolstered by Boris Karloff's spectacular portrayal of the Monster, Jack P. Pierce's incredible talent as a make-up artist, and Colin Clive's mad Dr. Frankenstein, this version of Mary Shelley's masterpiece remains unmatched by the countless films that have sought to recreate its magic. Boris Karloff brings so much depth and sensitivity to the creature that it is often difficult to call him a monster. This is a rare achievement, playing the "villain" in a film so well that the audience can relate to him, or feel for him. Who has not felt misunderstood, lost, confused, rejected, or even despised at some point in their lives? If not all of us, then I would imagine, most of us. Karloff's ability to show a bit of humanity from behind his menacing make-up is truly astonishing. I could not help but feel pity for the Monster when Fritz (Dwight Frye, who also played Renfield in Universal's Dracula that same year) tortured him with the torch. At times like these, you must ask who is the monster here? Is it the creature brought back to life by no desire of his own? Is it the insanely over-ambitious Dr. Frankenstein who cannot see life as more than a vehicle for his experimentation? One could certainly argue that Fritz was a monster, based on his cruel treatment of the monster. Not all monsters choose to be what they are perceived to be. Some monsters, as in this case, are created by true monsters. You could say that I have read a little too much into all of this, but I mention it because I think that a great movie makes you think, makes you ask questions, and this movie does those things. With its impressive performances and amazing (albeit, for its time) special effects, and endless influence on subsequent monster/horror movies, James Whale's Frankenstein is a classic not to be missed!
Dracula
(1931)
Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!
4 January 2005
While Tod Browning's Dracula is not the definitive take on the most famous vampire of all time, it is possibly the most memorable one. This is not due to Browning's technical achievements or directorial wizardry, by ANY means. It is due to Bela Lugosi's career-defining portrayal of the title character. Born in what is now Lugoj, Romania, Lugosi brings to the part the flavor of his homeland, making him more believable as Dracula. This other-worldly aesthetic helped to make his performance what many consider the ultimate incarnation of Stoker's Dracula. Having played the Count in Hamilton Deane's Broadway version of Dracula, which started in 1927, Bela Lugosi was more than prepared for the role when it was time to commit it to film. Still struggling with the English language, however, he had to learn his lines phonetically. European accent in tact, he was able to deliver such memorable lines as, "I bid you welcome," "Listen to them. Children of the night. What music they make," and, of course, "I am Dracula." His performance alone is reason enough to watch this monster movie classic. If only the rest of the film was as spectacular as Lugosi. Dwight Frye's Renfield, while perhaps a little too over-the-top, is still another highlight to the film, and even Edward Van Sloan's Van Helsing is enough to challenge the might of Count Dracula. The rest of the film is rather flat to me. Now, I know it was made in 1931, and that, at the time, it horrified audiences, but I still stand by my opinion that the overall movie pales in comparison to Bela Lugosi's performance. Everyone else just seemed to be going through the motions, and it seems especially evident while Helen Chandler and David Manners are on screen. They just aren't convincing. I'm not saying that their performances ruin the film. It is still a classic, and certainly worth a viewing, but if you are in the mood for a vampire movie that is worthy of Bram Stoker's name, look no further than F. W. Murnau's Nosferatu. It is much more convincing and even scarier than Tod Browning's Dracula, despite being nine years older and silent. All in all, though, one cannot overlook the stellar performance of Bela Lugosi in the role he was born to play!
Tell Your Friends