Here it is, my full list of scores and reviews. The list goes from my favorite to my least favorite. In cases where films share the same score, I’ve listed them based on personal preference. For example, the first 4 star review you see listed will be my favorite of all the films I’ve given 4 stars to.
Note: For every movie that was originally reviewed for another project, I have linked that original review, rather than the abbreviated AFI review. "Casablanca," for example, is linked to its Best Picture review.
1. Casablanca - 5.0
2. Taxi Driver - 4.75
3. On the Waterfront - 4.75
4. Platoon - 4.5
5. Singin' in the Rain - 4.5
6. Jaws - 4.5
7. Pulp Fiction - 4.5
8. The Godfather - 4.5
9. Schindler's List - 4.5
10. Modern Times - 4.25
11. The Manchurian Candidate - 4.25
12. Stagecoach - 4.25
13. Fargo - 4.25
14. Raiders of the Lost Ark - 4.25
15. Rear Window - 4.25
16. Lawrence of Arabia - 4.25
17. The Sound of Music - 4.25
18. Gone with the Wind - 4.25
19. Psycho - 4.25
20. A Place in the Sun - 4.0
21. A Streetcar Named Desire - 4.0
22. All About Eve - 4.0
23. Chinatown - 4.0
24. Sunset Blvd. - 4.0
25. The Best Years of Our Lives - 4.0
26. The Silence of the Lambs - 4.0
27. The Bridge on the River Kwai - 4.0
28. Apocalypse Now - 4.0
29. The Wizard of Oz - 4.0
30. Double Indemnity - 4.0
31. Dances with Wolves - 4.0
32. Goodfellas - 4.0
33. Patton - 4.0
34. It Happened One Night - 4.0
35. West Side Story - 4.0
36. The Third Man - 4.0
37. Easy Rider - 4.0
38. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest - 4.0
39. Wuthering Heights - 4.0
40. Star Wars - 3.75
41. The African Queen - 3.75
42. The Gold Rush - 3.75
43. The Godfather, Part II - 3.75
44. Rebel Without a Cause - 3.75
45. Fantasia - 3.75
46. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre - 3.75
47. Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - 3.75
48. Tootsie - 3.75
49. Mr. Smith Goes to Washington - 3.75
50. To Kill a Mockingbird - 3.75
51. The Jazz Singer - 3.75
52. Frankenstein - 3.75
53. Network - 3.75
54. City Lights - 3.5
55. Ben-Hur - 3.5
56. The Grapes of Wrath - 3.5
57. The Graduate - 3.5
58. A Clockwork Orange - 3.5
59. Yankee Doodle Dandy - 3.5
60. It's a Wonderful Life - 3.5
61. High Noon - 3.5
62. 2001: A Space Odyssey - 3.5
63. Dr. Strangelove - 3.5
64. The Apartment - 3.5
65. Vertigo - 3.5
66. Raging Bull - 3.5
67. Rocky - 3.25
68. King Kong - 3.25
69. Unforgiven - 3.25
70. All Quiet on the Western Front - 3.0
71. From Here to Eternity - 3.0
72. Some Like It Hot - 3.0
73. E.T.: The Extra Terrestrial - 3.0
74. My Fair Lady - 3.0
75. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner - 3.0
76. Snow White and the Seven Dwarves - 3.0
77. Doctor Zhivago - 3.0
78. Annie Hall - 3.0
79. Forrest Gump - 3.0
80. Duck Soup - 3.0
81. The French Connection - 2.75
82. Giant - 2.75
83. Citizen Kane - 2.75
84. North by Northwest - 2.75
85. The Searchers - 2.75
86. Amadeus - 2.75
87. Midnight Cowboy - 2.75
88. The Wild Bunch - 2.5
89. Close Encounters of the Third Kind - 2.5
90. American Graffiti - 2.5
91. The Maltese Falcon - 2.25
92. Shane - 2.0
93. Mutiny on the Bounty - 2.0
94. An American in Paris - 2.0
95. The Deer Hunter - 2.0
96. Bonnie and Clyde - 2.0
97. MASH - 2.0
98. Bringing Up Baby - 1.5
99. The Philadelphia Story - 1.0
100. The Birth of a Nation - .25
Showing posts with label AFI Top 100. Show all posts
Showing posts with label AFI Top 100. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 13, 2016
Friday, July 8, 2016
AFI Top 100, #1: "Citizen Kane" (1941)
Movie Stats:
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Orson Welles
Stars - Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, Everett Sloane, Dorothy Comingore
Plot Summary:
Upon the death of famous publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane (Welles), a journalist tries to discover the meaning of Kane’s last word, “Rosebud.” Cotton co-stars as Kane’s friend/business partner, Jedediah Leland; Sloane as his employee, Mr. Bernstein; and Comingore as his second wife, Susan Alexander.
Warnings:
Minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I was bored to tears.
One of the final exchanges of the film sums it up rather nicely for me (paraphrased because I can’t find the actual quote): “So what did you learn about him [Kane]?” “Nothing much.” For a guy who had boatloads of money, his life was pretty ordinary. Rich guy has everything, loses everything. It’s a story that’s been told since the dawn of time.
I did not like the loud, confusing, extensive newsreel scene toward the beginning of the film. It really put me off and made it difficult for me to get into the rest of it.
Good Stuff:
Welles, Cotton, and Sloane were all great, especially Welles. He’s dynamic to watch.
The make-up work to age the actors was very good.
The Verdict:
If you can believe it, I’d never seen this before. However, since it’s 75 years old, I knew pretty much the whole plot (including who/what “Rosebud” is) beforehand. Would I have liked it better if I hadn’t known that? Perhaps. If I had spent the whole movie trying to figure it out along with the journalist (Thompson, played by William Alland), I could see where the mystery would be engaging. But that’s not how things went, and as it was, I can’t say that I was particularly impressed. As a slowly unfolding story about a deeply flawed man, it was decently done, but I didn’t find the man that it revealed either interesting or compelling.
I give it 2.75 stars.
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Orson Welles
Stars - Orson Welles, Joseph Cotton, Everett Sloane, Dorothy Comingore
Plot Summary:
Upon the death of famous publishing tycoon Charles Foster Kane (Welles), a journalist tries to discover the meaning of Kane’s last word, “Rosebud.” Cotton co-stars as Kane’s friend/business partner, Jedediah Leland; Sloane as his employee, Mr. Bernstein; and Comingore as his second wife, Susan Alexander.
Warnings:
Minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I was bored to tears.
One of the final exchanges of the film sums it up rather nicely for me (paraphrased because I can’t find the actual quote): “So what did you learn about him [Kane]?” “Nothing much.” For a guy who had boatloads of money, his life was pretty ordinary. Rich guy has everything, loses everything. It’s a story that’s been told since the dawn of time.
I did not like the loud, confusing, extensive newsreel scene toward the beginning of the film. It really put me off and made it difficult for me to get into the rest of it.
Good Stuff:
Welles, Cotton, and Sloane were all great, especially Welles. He’s dynamic to watch.
The make-up work to age the actors was very good.
The Verdict:
If you can believe it, I’d never seen this before. However, since it’s 75 years old, I knew pretty much the whole plot (including who/what “Rosebud” is) beforehand. Would I have liked it better if I hadn’t known that? Perhaps. If I had spent the whole movie trying to figure it out along with the journalist (Thompson, played by William Alland), I could see where the mystery would be engaging. But that’s not how things went, and as it was, I can’t say that I was particularly impressed. As a slowly unfolding story about a deeply flawed man, it was decently done, but I didn’t find the man that it revealed either interesting or compelling.
I give it 2.75 stars.
Wednesday, July 6, 2016
AFI Top 100, #s 5-2
I previously reviewed all of these movies for my Best Picture Project. Below is the pertinent information about each: the movie stats, plot summary, and the rating I gave it.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - AFI #5
Movie Stats:
Released 1962 (UK)
American & British, in English
Director – David Lean
Stars – Peter O’Toole, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, Claude Rains
Plot Summary:
Follows the exploits of British military man (later author) T.E. Lawrence (O’Toole), who helped unite Arab tribes in an uprising against the ruling Ottoman Turks during WWI. Sharif co-stars as Sherif Ali, an Arab leader who becomes Lawrence’s friend; Quinn as Auda Abu Tayi, another Arab leader who Lawrence convinces to join the revolt; Guinness as Prince Feisal, the man tapped to rule the united Arabs; Hawkins as General Allenby, Lawrence’s superior; and Rains as Mr. Dryden, a politician (I think).
Rating:
4.25 stars
Full review HERE.
GONE WITH THE WIND - AFI #4
Movie Stats:
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director – Victor Fleming
Stars – Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, Leslie Howard, & Hattie McDaniel
Plot Summary:
I feel a little silly summarizing a movie that everyone already knows the plot of, but here goes. Spoiled, self-absorbed rich girl Scarlett O’Hara (Leigh) spends years and years pining after Ashley Wilkes (Howard). Although Ashley returns Scarlett’s feelings to some extent, he marries his own cousin, Melanie (de Havilland), instead. At the same time, Scarlett is pursued by known cad Rhett Butler (Gable). This is all set against the backdrop of the Civil War & subsequent Reconstruction. Hattie McDaniel plays Mammy, Scarlett’s loyal servant.
Rating:
4.25 stars
Full review HERE.
THE GODFATHER - AFI #3
Movie Stats:
Released 1972 (USA)
American, in English (some translated Italian & some non-translated Italian)
Director – Francis Ford Coppola
Stars – Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton
Plot Summary:
It’s the story of mafia boss Vito Corleone (Brando), his sons Sonny (Caan) and Michael (Pacino), and his adopted son Tom Hagan (Duvall). Keaton co-stars as Michael’s girlfriend, Kay Adams.
Rating:
4.5 stars
Full review HERE.
CASABLANCA - AFI #2
Movie Stats:
Released 1943 (USA)
American, in English (small amounts of non-translated French & German)
Director – Michael Curtiz
Stars – Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, & Claude Rains
Plot Summary:
It’s December 1941. Casablanca, Morocco, under the control of Vichy France, is overrun by people desperately seeking a way to escape Nazi-controlled Europe. In the midst of it all is American Rick Blaine (Bogart), a bar owner who’s just trying to survive it all. He’s getting by all right until the arrival of Victor Lazlo (Henreid), a symbol of the resistance whom the Nazis are determined to capture, and his female companion, Ilsa Lund (Bergman). Rick and Ilsa share a mysterious past. Now that she is involved, will Rick be able to remain neutral, or will he decide to stick his neck out for her? Claude Rains stars as the local French leader, Captain Renault.
Rating:
5 stars
Full review HERE.
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA - AFI #5
Movie Stats:
Released 1962 (UK)
American & British, in English
Director – David Lean
Stars – Peter O’Toole, Omar Sharif, Anthony Quinn, Alec Guinness, Jack Hawkins, Claude Rains
Plot Summary:
Follows the exploits of British military man (later author) T.E. Lawrence (O’Toole), who helped unite Arab tribes in an uprising against the ruling Ottoman Turks during WWI. Sharif co-stars as Sherif Ali, an Arab leader who becomes Lawrence’s friend; Quinn as Auda Abu Tayi, another Arab leader who Lawrence convinces to join the revolt; Guinness as Prince Feisal, the man tapped to rule the united Arabs; Hawkins as General Allenby, Lawrence’s superior; and Rains as Mr. Dryden, a politician (I think).
Rating:
4.25 stars
Full review HERE.
GONE WITH THE WIND - AFI #4
Movie Stats:
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director – Victor Fleming
Stars – Vivien Leigh, Clark Gable, Olivia de Havilland, Leslie Howard, & Hattie McDaniel
Plot Summary:
I feel a little silly summarizing a movie that everyone already knows the plot of, but here goes. Spoiled, self-absorbed rich girl Scarlett O’Hara (Leigh) spends years and years pining after Ashley Wilkes (Howard). Although Ashley returns Scarlett’s feelings to some extent, he marries his own cousin, Melanie (de Havilland), instead. At the same time, Scarlett is pursued by known cad Rhett Butler (Gable). This is all set against the backdrop of the Civil War & subsequent Reconstruction. Hattie McDaniel plays Mammy, Scarlett’s loyal servant.
Rating:
4.25 stars
Full review HERE.
THE GODFATHER - AFI #3
Movie Stats:
Released 1972 (USA)
American, in English (some translated Italian & some non-translated Italian)
Director – Francis Ford Coppola
Stars – Marlon Brando, Al Pacino, James Caan, Robert Duvall, Diane Keaton
Plot Summary:
It’s the story of mafia boss Vito Corleone (Brando), his sons Sonny (Caan) and Michael (Pacino), and his adopted son Tom Hagan (Duvall). Keaton co-stars as Michael’s girlfriend, Kay Adams.
Rating:
4.5 stars
Full review HERE.
CASABLANCA - AFI #2
Movie Stats:
Released 1943 (USA)
American, in English (small amounts of non-translated French & German)
Director – Michael Curtiz
Stars – Humphrey Bogart, Ingrid Bergman, Paul Henreid, & Claude Rains
Plot Summary:
It’s December 1941. Casablanca, Morocco, under the control of Vichy France, is overrun by people desperately seeking a way to escape Nazi-controlled Europe. In the midst of it all is American Rick Blaine (Bogart), a bar owner who’s just trying to survive it all. He’s getting by all right until the arrival of Victor Lazlo (Henreid), a symbol of the resistance whom the Nazis are determined to capture, and his female companion, Ilsa Lund (Bergman). Rick and Ilsa share a mysterious past. Now that she is involved, will Rick be able to remain neutral, or will he decide to stick his neck out for her? Claude Rains stars as the local French leader, Captain Renault.
Rating:
5 stars
Full review HERE.
Friday, July 1, 2016
AFI Top 100, #6: "The Wizard of Oz" (1939)
Movie Stats:
Released 1939 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Victor Fleming
Stars - Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Margaret Hamilton
Plot Summary:
After Dorothy (Garland), a young girl from Kansas, gets caught up in a tornado, she finds herself in the magical world of Oz. While there, she befriends a Scarecrow (Bolger), a Cowardly Lion (Lahr), and a Tin Man (Haley) but also makes an enemy out of the Wicked Witch of the West (Hamilton).
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
I’ve always felt that Dorothy acts much younger than Judy Garland’s age, and I find it incredibly distracting. I suspect she’s supposed to be around 14 in the movie (Garland was 16 when it was filmed and she looks it), but I’m guessing in the book Dorothy was younger, probably around 11. So weird to see a teenager acting and talking like a preteen.
For a kids movie, I think it’s rather dark. I mean [SPOILER] Dorothy kills two people! Accidentally, sure, but still. And the witch sets a main character on fire! Also, those creepy ass flying monkeys [SPOILER].
There are a couple of songs I could do without. Specifically, the munchkins’ song. I think my ears are still bleeding from that high-pitched nonsense.
Good Stuff:
A lot of the special effects have held up surprisingly well. Not all of them, but more than not. I was particularly impressed with the approach of the tornado.
The central message (“there’s no place like home”) isn’t my favorite (not everyone has a great home life) but I love the secondary message, that we all have brains, courage, and heart inside of us, whether we think we do or not.
It’s funny. I chuckled quite a few times.
Apart from the munchkins, there are some great singing voices and fun songs.
The Verdict:
I hadn’t seen this since I was a young child. I hated it back then. Seeing it now with adult eyes, I think it frightened me when I was a kid and that’s why I didn’t like it (the witch and the flying monkeys are pretty scary). I wasn’t exactly looking forward to this viewing, but I liked it much better this time around. I like that it’s funny, and that it has a great imagination. The acting is solid. Most of the singing is great. Cinematography is also good. I don’t know that I’d want to watch it over and over again, but once every few years would be entertaining.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1939 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Victor Fleming
Stars - Judy Garland, Ray Bolger, Bert Lahr, Jack Haley, Margaret Hamilton
Plot Summary:
After Dorothy (Garland), a young girl from Kansas, gets caught up in a tornado, she finds herself in the magical world of Oz. While there, she befriends a Scarecrow (Bolger), a Cowardly Lion (Lahr), and a Tin Man (Haley) but also makes an enemy out of the Wicked Witch of the West (Hamilton).
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
I’ve always felt that Dorothy acts much younger than Judy Garland’s age, and I find it incredibly distracting. I suspect she’s supposed to be around 14 in the movie (Garland was 16 when it was filmed and she looks it), but I’m guessing in the book Dorothy was younger, probably around 11. So weird to see a teenager acting and talking like a preteen.
For a kids movie, I think it’s rather dark. I mean [SPOILER] Dorothy kills two people! Accidentally, sure, but still. And the witch sets a main character on fire! Also, those creepy ass flying monkeys [SPOILER].
There are a couple of songs I could do without. Specifically, the munchkins’ song. I think my ears are still bleeding from that high-pitched nonsense.
Good Stuff:
A lot of the special effects have held up surprisingly well. Not all of them, but more than not. I was particularly impressed with the approach of the tornado.
The central message (“there’s no place like home”) isn’t my favorite (not everyone has a great home life) but I love the secondary message, that we all have brains, courage, and heart inside of us, whether we think we do or not.
It’s funny. I chuckled quite a few times.
Apart from the munchkins, there are some great singing voices and fun songs.
The Verdict:
I hadn’t seen this since I was a young child. I hated it back then. Seeing it now with adult eyes, I think it frightened me when I was a kid and that’s why I didn’t like it (the witch and the flying monkeys are pretty scary). I wasn’t exactly looking forward to this viewing, but I liked it much better this time around. I like that it’s funny, and that it has a great imagination. The acting is solid. Most of the singing is great. Cinematography is also good. I don’t know that I’d want to watch it over and over again, but once every few years would be entertaining.
I give it 4 stars.
Wednesday, June 29, 2016
AFI Top 100, #7: "The Graduate" (1967)
Movie Stats:
Released 1967 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Mike Nichols
Stars - Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katharine Ross
Plot Summary:
Recently graduated from college and at loose ends, Ben Braddock (Hoffman) drifts into an affair with an older woman, family friend Mrs. Robinson (Bancroft). Conflict arises when Ben begins to fall for Mrs. Robinson’s daughter, Elaine (Ross).
Warnings:
Very minor blue language; minor violence; heavily implied sexy times; almost-nudity (basically every part of the female breast except for the nipple).
Bad Stuff:
I don’t like the experimental camera work.
I hate the second half. While Ben’s actions make a semblance of sense within the context of the film, he basically turns into a crazy person, and Elaine’s reaction to him isn't believable to me. It’s this really great film that rather suddenly veers into WTF territory.
It’s weird how the soundtrack repeats songs. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Simon & Garfunkel, but I don’t really need to hear “Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme” twice in a row (literally twice in a row, plays through once and then starts over again).
Good Stuff:
The first half is incredibly solid. It really captures that feeling of graduating from college and being at a complete loss as to where to go from there. I remember it all too well. It’s really not something that’s addressed enough in society, how aimless a person’s early 20s can feel. I love it when it’s portrayed well in film.
All of the acting is pretty good, but Hoffman and Bancroft in particular knock it out of the park.
The costuming and set design are magnificent.
I absolutely love the final shot of Ben and Elaine on the bus, the expression on each of their faces as they slowly realize exactly what they’ve just done.
The Verdict:
For me, this movie is a tale of two halves. The first half is brilliant, truly a masterpiece. It never occurred to me before how messed up it is, the way that Mrs. Robinson takes advantage of Ben, who’s lost and vulnerable. She’s a predator. I actually found it rather chilling. Then Elaine shows up and both Ben and the movie lose the plot. It’s a huge disappointment. I’m sure others feel differently about it, but I find that it simply doesn’t work. The only good thing about the second half is that final shot, which is such a (good) punch in the gut. I’m not sure what I would have liked better, but I wish they’d done it anyway. This is an iconic film that doesn’t quite live up to expectation.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Released 1967 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Mike Nichols
Stars - Dustin Hoffman, Anne Bancroft, Katharine Ross
Plot Summary:
Recently graduated from college and at loose ends, Ben Braddock (Hoffman) drifts into an affair with an older woman, family friend Mrs. Robinson (Bancroft). Conflict arises when Ben begins to fall for Mrs. Robinson’s daughter, Elaine (Ross).
Warnings:
Very minor blue language; minor violence; heavily implied sexy times; almost-nudity (basically every part of the female breast except for the nipple).
Bad Stuff:
I don’t like the experimental camera work.
I hate the second half. While Ben’s actions make a semblance of sense within the context of the film, he basically turns into a crazy person, and Elaine’s reaction to him isn't believable to me. It’s this really great film that rather suddenly veers into WTF territory.
It’s weird how the soundtrack repeats songs. Don’t get me wrong, I love me some Simon & Garfunkel, but I don’t really need to hear “Parsley, Sage, Rosemary, and Thyme” twice in a row (literally twice in a row, plays through once and then starts over again).
Good Stuff:
The first half is incredibly solid. It really captures that feeling of graduating from college and being at a complete loss as to where to go from there. I remember it all too well. It’s really not something that’s addressed enough in society, how aimless a person’s early 20s can feel. I love it when it’s portrayed well in film.
All of the acting is pretty good, but Hoffman and Bancroft in particular knock it out of the park.
The costuming and set design are magnificent.
I absolutely love the final shot of Ben and Elaine on the bus, the expression on each of their faces as they slowly realize exactly what they’ve just done.
The Verdict:
For me, this movie is a tale of two halves. The first half is brilliant, truly a masterpiece. It never occurred to me before how messed up it is, the way that Mrs. Robinson takes advantage of Ben, who’s lost and vulnerable. She’s a predator. I actually found it rather chilling. Then Elaine shows up and both Ben and the movie lose the plot. It’s a huge disappointment. I’m sure others feel differently about it, but I find that it simply doesn’t work. The only good thing about the second half is that final shot, which is such a (good) punch in the gut. I’m not sure what I would have liked better, but I wish they’d done it anyway. This is an iconic film that doesn’t quite live up to expectation.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Friday, June 24, 2016
AFI Top 100, #s 9 & 8
I previously reviewed these two movies for my Best Picture Project. Below is the pertinent information about each: the movie stats, plot summary, and the rating I gave it.
SCHINDLER’S LIST - AFI #9
Movie Stats:
Released 1993 (USA)
American, in English (significant amounts of non-translated German, Hebrew, and Polish)
Director – Steven Spielberg
Stars – Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes
Plot Summary:
Ostensibly, this is the story of Oskar Schindler (Neeson), an Austrian businessman who used his factories during WWII to save approximately 1,200 Jews. In general, however, it is about the Holocaust. Kingsley co-stars as Schindler’s Jewish co-conspirator (and accountant) Itzhak Stern and Fiennes as Captain Amon Goeth, commander of the Plaszow concentration camp.
Rating:
4.5 stars
Full review HERE.
ON THE WATERFRONT - AFI #8
Movie Stats:
Released 1954 (Japan)
American, in English
Director – Elia Kazan
Stars – Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Eva Marie Saint
Plot Summary:
A story of corruption and murder amongst a dockworker’s union in NYC. Brando stars as conflicted stooge Terry Malloy; Malden as the local priest Father Barry, who’s trying to get the men to do the right thing; Cobb as union boss Johnny Friendly; and Saint as Edie Doyle, a woman trying to solve the murder of her brother Joey, who was silenced for trying to speak out against union corruption.
Rating:
4.75 stars
Full review HERE.
SCHINDLER’S LIST - AFI #9
Movie Stats:
Released 1993 (USA)
American, in English (significant amounts of non-translated German, Hebrew, and Polish)
Director – Steven Spielberg
Stars – Liam Neeson, Ben Kingsley, Ralph Fiennes
Plot Summary:
Ostensibly, this is the story of Oskar Schindler (Neeson), an Austrian businessman who used his factories during WWII to save approximately 1,200 Jews. In general, however, it is about the Holocaust. Kingsley co-stars as Schindler’s Jewish co-conspirator (and accountant) Itzhak Stern and Fiennes as Captain Amon Goeth, commander of the Plaszow concentration camp.
Rating:
4.5 stars
Full review HERE.
ON THE WATERFRONT - AFI #8
Movie Stats:
Released 1954 (Japan)
American, in English
Director – Elia Kazan
Stars – Marlon Brando, Karl Malden, Lee J. Cobb, Eva Marie Saint
Plot Summary:
A story of corruption and murder amongst a dockworker’s union in NYC. Brando stars as conflicted stooge Terry Malloy; Malden as the local priest Father Barry, who’s trying to get the men to do the right thing; Cobb as union boss Johnny Friendly; and Saint as Edie Doyle, a woman trying to solve the murder of her brother Joey, who was silenced for trying to speak out against union corruption.
Rating:
4.75 stars
Full review HERE.
Friday, June 17, 2016
AFI Top 100, #10: "Singin' in the Rain" (1952)
Movie Stats:
Released 1952 (USA)
American, in English
Directors - Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly
Stars - Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds, Jean Hagen
Plot Summary:
Silent film pair Don Lockwood (Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Hagen) have a difficult time transitioning to “talkies.” O’Connor co-stars as Don’s piano-playing, lifelong pal, Cosmo Brown, and Reynolds as Don’s love interest, Kathy Selden.
Warnings:
Minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I’ve never been keen on the modern-dance sequence toward the end of the film. In addition to simply not liking it, I also feel that it doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie. I liked it better this time around because I appreciated the technique and beauty of it, but I still think it’s out of place.
There are some very clunky scene cuts. It’s jarring.
Good Stuff:
The singing! The dancing! The costumes! The sets! The physical comedy! The snappy dialogue!
God, I love Jean Hagen in this. She’s so funny. That voice. And the fact that she sings in that voice. Singing in a voice that’s not your natural speaking voice can’t be easy.
It’s fun, it’s entertaining, and it’s feel-good.
The Verdict:
I used to be very anti-musical (I was convinced that I didn’t like the genre as a whole; I was wrong), so most of my life was musical-free. The first time I saw this one was about nine years ago. My then-new-guy-I-was-dating-now-husband suggested we watch it very early on in our relationship. He’s not exactly the type of guy you look at and think to yourself, “There’s a guy who likes musicals.” But he likes this one, and his enthusiasm convinced me to give it a shot. I’m so glad I did!
I love this film. It’s fun and funny. The music is great. The dancing is great. There’s virtually nothing to dislike about it. I re-watch it at least once a year. (My husband and I also occasionally sing “Good morning!” to each other because we’re dorks.) Honestly, I can’t say enough good things about it. If you’ve never seen it, there’s no time like the present!
I give it 4.5 stars.
Released 1952 (USA)
American, in English
Directors - Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly
Stars - Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds, Jean Hagen
Plot Summary:
Silent film pair Don Lockwood (Kelly) and Lina Lamont (Hagen) have a difficult time transitioning to “talkies.” O’Connor co-stars as Don’s piano-playing, lifelong pal, Cosmo Brown, and Reynolds as Don’s love interest, Kathy Selden.
Warnings:
Minor violence.
Bad Stuff:
I’ve never been keen on the modern-dance sequence toward the end of the film. In addition to simply not liking it, I also feel that it doesn’t fit with the rest of the movie. I liked it better this time around because I appreciated the technique and beauty of it, but I still think it’s out of place.
There are some very clunky scene cuts. It’s jarring.
Good Stuff:
The singing! The dancing! The costumes! The sets! The physical comedy! The snappy dialogue!
God, I love Jean Hagen in this. She’s so funny. That voice. And the fact that she sings in that voice. Singing in a voice that’s not your natural speaking voice can’t be easy.
It’s fun, it’s entertaining, and it’s feel-good.
The Verdict:
I used to be very anti-musical (I was convinced that I didn’t like the genre as a whole; I was wrong), so most of my life was musical-free. The first time I saw this one was about nine years ago. My then-new-guy-I-was-dating-now-husband suggested we watch it very early on in our relationship. He’s not exactly the type of guy you look at and think to yourself, “There’s a guy who likes musicals.” But he likes this one, and his enthusiasm convinced me to give it a shot. I’m so glad I did!
I love this film. It’s fun and funny. The music is great. The dancing is great. There’s virtually nothing to dislike about it. I re-watch it at least once a year. (My husband and I also occasionally sing “Good morning!” to each other because we’re dorks.) Honestly, I can’t say enough good things about it. If you’ve never seen it, there’s no time like the present!
I give it 4.5 stars.
Wednesday, June 15, 2016
AFI Top 100, #11: "It's a Wonderful Life" (1946)
Movie Stats:
Released 1946 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Frank Capra
Stars - James Stewart, Donna Reed, Henry Travers, Lionel Barrymore
Plot Summary:
When kind-hearted small-town man George Bailey (Stewart) is at the end of his rope and contemplating suicide, angel Clarence (Travers) is sent down from Heaven to save him by showing him what the world would be like without him. Reed plays George’s wife, Mary, and Barrymore his lifelong adversary, the odious businessman Mr. Potter.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s sooooooo hokey! Especially the angels-talking-to-each-other stuff. There was actual grimacing on my part.
The pacing is off. The lead up is long, the payoff surprisingly brief. I would’ve liked it to be more even.
I don’t like George very much. He’s a bit of a Debbie Downer. I realize that his life didn’t work out the way he wanted, but most people’s don’t. Like, just own it George, and stop being a whiner about it. Also, when things don’t go his way, he tends to throw a huge temper tantrum. While he works it out in the end, the temper tantrums are a chore to get through.
[SPOILER]
Of course, in the alternate universe where George doesn’t exist, Mary turns out to be an old maid. The horror! Blargh.
[SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
I love the way the family relationships are portrayed. There were several moments that made me tear up because I was so deeply touched, and it was simple stuff, like toward the beginning, where they’re chatting over the dinner table. The way they spoke to each other was so natural and heart-warming.
Of course, I enjoy the central message, that each of us is important in our own way, and that we affect others in ways we may never know.
I love how unrepentantly evil Mr. Potter is, and I love that there’s no attempt to redeem him. It’s refreshing, especially for a hokey, feel-good movie like this.
The Verdict:
If you can believe it, this is only the second time I’ve seen this film, and my first time was as a full-fledged adult. That’s right, unlike most people, this wasn’t a childhood staple of mine. Perhaps because of that, I’ve never really been into it. To me, it’s just kind of cheesy and silly, and I was surprised this time by how much I dislike George. I wasn’t rooting against him or anything, but I did get pretty tired of his moping around. However, it’s sweet and touching. Despite the things that irked me, I still found myself crying at the end. I get why people like it so much, even if it’s not to my particular taste.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Released 1946 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Frank Capra
Stars - James Stewart, Donna Reed, Henry Travers, Lionel Barrymore
Plot Summary:
When kind-hearted small-town man George Bailey (Stewart) is at the end of his rope and contemplating suicide, angel Clarence (Travers) is sent down from Heaven to save him by showing him what the world would be like without him. Reed plays George’s wife, Mary, and Barrymore his lifelong adversary, the odious businessman Mr. Potter.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s sooooooo hokey! Especially the angels-talking-to-each-other stuff. There was actual grimacing on my part.
The pacing is off. The lead up is long, the payoff surprisingly brief. I would’ve liked it to be more even.
I don’t like George very much. He’s a bit of a Debbie Downer. I realize that his life didn’t work out the way he wanted, but most people’s don’t. Like, just own it George, and stop being a whiner about it. Also, when things don’t go his way, he tends to throw a huge temper tantrum. While he works it out in the end, the temper tantrums are a chore to get through.
[SPOILER]
Of course, in the alternate universe where George doesn’t exist, Mary turns out to be an old maid. The horror! Blargh.
[SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
I love the way the family relationships are portrayed. There were several moments that made me tear up because I was so deeply touched, and it was simple stuff, like toward the beginning, where they’re chatting over the dinner table. The way they spoke to each other was so natural and heart-warming.
Of course, I enjoy the central message, that each of us is important in our own way, and that we affect others in ways we may never know.
I love how unrepentantly evil Mr. Potter is, and I love that there’s no attempt to redeem him. It’s refreshing, especially for a hokey, feel-good movie like this.
The Verdict:
If you can believe it, this is only the second time I’ve seen this film, and my first time was as a full-fledged adult. That’s right, unlike most people, this wasn’t a childhood staple of mine. Perhaps because of that, I’ve never really been into it. To me, it’s just kind of cheesy and silly, and I was surprised this time by how much I dislike George. I wasn’t rooting against him or anything, but I did get pretty tired of his moping around. However, it’s sweet and touching. Despite the things that irked me, I still found myself crying at the end. I get why people like it so much, even if it’s not to my particular taste.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Friday, June 10, 2016
AFI Top 100, #12: "Sunset Blvd." (1950)
Movie Stats:
Released 1950 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich von Stroheim
Plot Summary:
Washed-up, middle-aged silent film star Norma Desmond (Swanson) hires down-on-his-luck writer Joe Willis (Holden) to edit the script of a movie she hopes will mark her comeback. Von Stroheim co-stars as Norma’s butler, Max.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
Not so keen on the hardboiled detective-like voiceover.
Gloria Swanson’s wild eyes made me chuckle at quite a few inappropriate moments.
Good Stuff:
[SPOILER-y]
I like that it involved a topic so rarely explored in film, older-woman-with-younger-man, aka the sugar momma scenario. Also, that it addresses financial abuse and emotional manipulation, two additional issues rarely portrayed/acknowledged in film.
[SPOILER-y]
[Also SPOILER-y]
The tension is great. The noose tightens around Joe so slowly, and he knows it and yet he feels powerless to stop it. It’s one of those enjoy-it-while-cringing sort of things.
[SPOILER-y]
I sort of loved Swanson’s over-the-top, crazy-ass performance, even the wild eyes.
The Verdict:
I was aware of this film, down to knowing the basic storyline and its famous quotes, and yet I had no idea that it was considered film noir! As film noir goes, it’s pretty mild. The plot is easy to follow, and there’s no endless betrayal and re-betrayal. I really like the pacing. The story develops fairly slowly, but not in a way that feels like it drags. There’s not much action, and yet it’s not boring. Really, as I sit here thinking about it, I realize that it’s a very well-crafted film. Swanson’s performance is a little iffy, just on the border of ridiculousness. Other than that, I have no strong criticism. However, I don’t see it as the type of film I’ll want to watch repeatedly. Once was great.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1950 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Gloria Swanson, William Holden, Erich von Stroheim
Plot Summary:
Washed-up, middle-aged silent film star Norma Desmond (Swanson) hires down-on-his-luck writer Joe Willis (Holden) to edit the script of a movie she hopes will mark her comeback. Von Stroheim co-stars as Norma’s butler, Max.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
Not so keen on the hardboiled detective-like voiceover.
Gloria Swanson’s wild eyes made me chuckle at quite a few inappropriate moments.
Good Stuff:
[SPOILER-y]
I like that it involved a topic so rarely explored in film, older-woman-with-younger-man, aka the sugar momma scenario. Also, that it addresses financial abuse and emotional manipulation, two additional issues rarely portrayed/acknowledged in film.
[SPOILER-y]
[Also SPOILER-y]
The tension is great. The noose tightens around Joe so slowly, and he knows it and yet he feels powerless to stop it. It’s one of those enjoy-it-while-cringing sort of things.
[SPOILER-y]
I sort of loved Swanson’s over-the-top, crazy-ass performance, even the wild eyes.
The Verdict:
I was aware of this film, down to knowing the basic storyline and its famous quotes, and yet I had no idea that it was considered film noir! As film noir goes, it’s pretty mild. The plot is easy to follow, and there’s no endless betrayal and re-betrayal. I really like the pacing. The story develops fairly slowly, but not in a way that feels like it drags. There’s not much action, and yet it’s not boring. Really, as I sit here thinking about it, I realize that it’s a very well-crafted film. Swanson’s performance is a little iffy, just on the border of ridiculousness. Other than that, I have no strong criticism. However, I don’t see it as the type of film I’ll want to watch repeatedly. Once was great.
I give it 4 stars.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
AFI Top 100, #13: "The Bridge on the River Kwai" (1957)
This movie was previously reviewed as part of my Best Picture Project. Below is the pertinent information about it: the movie stats, plot summary, and the rating I gave it. You can read the full text of my review HERE.
Movie Stats:
Released 1957 (UK)
American & British, in English (some non-translated Japanese & Thai)
Director – David Lean
Actors – William Holden, Alec Guinness, Sessue Hayakawa
Plot Summary:
When British Colonel Nicholson (Guinness) clashes wills with the man running his POW camp during WWII, Colonel Saito (Hayakawa), he eventually wins out. However, once he and his men begin the task they’ve been assigned – building a bridge across the River Kwai in Thailand – it soon becomes clear that, rather than subtly working against the Japanese, Nicholson is determined to build the best damn bridge that a British regiment can build. In the meantime, American Commander Shears (Holden), who previously escaped the POW camp, returns with a small force to blow up the bridge.
Rating:
4 stars
Movie Stats:
Released 1957 (UK)
American & British, in English (some non-translated Japanese & Thai)
Director – David Lean
Actors – William Holden, Alec Guinness, Sessue Hayakawa
Plot Summary:
When British Colonel Nicholson (Guinness) clashes wills with the man running his POW camp during WWII, Colonel Saito (Hayakawa), he eventually wins out. However, once he and his men begin the task they’ve been assigned – building a bridge across the River Kwai in Thailand – it soon becomes clear that, rather than subtly working against the Japanese, Nicholson is determined to build the best damn bridge that a British regiment can build. In the meantime, American Commander Shears (Holden), who previously escaped the POW camp, returns with a small force to blow up the bridge.
Rating:
4 stars
Friday, June 3, 2016
AFI Top 100, #14: "Some Like It Hot" (1959)
Movie Stats:
Released 1959 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, Marilyn Monroe
Plot Summary:
Set during Prohibition, when down-on-their-luck musicians Joe (Curtis) and Jerry (Lemmon) accidentally witness a mob hit, they flee town by disguising themselves as women in an all-female band. Monroe co-stars as one of their band mates, Sugar.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
[SPOILER]
Look, maybe I’m a stick in the mud but I’ve never found people lying to each other particularly hilarious. First, Joe lies to Sugar by pretending to be a woman and gaining her confidence. Then he uses the information he gets from her to pretend to be a millionaire to woo her (while “negging” her much of the time). It’s gross. Not that the way Jerry leads on Osgood (Joe E. Brown) is much better. And then the way that it’s all, “oh, tee hee, it’s okay because I’m IN LOVE with you!” in the end and everyone runs away together. Just ugh. Such a depressing way to portray human relationships.
[SPOILER]
Many scenes feel superfluous to me. For example, we first meet Joe and Jerry when they’re playing at a speakeasy but before that scene is a scene of the cops catching some runners and getting the info to bust the speakeasy. Was that scene necessary? Could’ve just opened with the cops busting the speakeasy. Which is to say, this film could use a little more editing.
I’ve never been a big fan of Monroe’s breathy-little-girl voice or ditzy-blonde act.
Good Stuff:
Although it’s played for laughs, at least the film addresses all the aggressive, unwanted attention women get by merely existing (getting pinched in elevators, men inviting themselves up to their rooms, etc.).
I like that it plays with the ideas of gender and sexuality.
Jack Lemmon is pretty funny, although I could do without his insane laugh.
Great soundtrack!
The Verdict:
I’m not a big fan of this film. I know I thought it was funny the first time I saw it, when I was much younger, but when I watched it again a few years ago, a lot of the so-called humor fell flat for me. I felt the same way this time around. The way the Joe and Jerry treat people, especially women, is bad, and it makes their characters unlikable for me. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its moments. There are definitely scenes that made me laugh. And I’m sure that, for its time, it was shocking, scandalous, and progressive, but I don’t think it plays well in this modern world. I’d be totally fine if I never watch it again.
I give it 3 stars.
Released 1959 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Billy Wilder
Stars - Tony Curtis, Jack Lemmon, Marilyn Monroe
Plot Summary:
Set during Prohibition, when down-on-their-luck musicians Joe (Curtis) and Jerry (Lemmon) accidentally witness a mob hit, they flee town by disguising themselves as women in an all-female band. Monroe co-stars as one of their band mates, Sugar.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
[SPOILER]
Look, maybe I’m a stick in the mud but I’ve never found people lying to each other particularly hilarious. First, Joe lies to Sugar by pretending to be a woman and gaining her confidence. Then he uses the information he gets from her to pretend to be a millionaire to woo her (while “negging” her much of the time). It’s gross. Not that the way Jerry leads on Osgood (Joe E. Brown) is much better. And then the way that it’s all, “oh, tee hee, it’s okay because I’m IN LOVE with you!” in the end and everyone runs away together. Just ugh. Such a depressing way to portray human relationships.
[SPOILER]
Many scenes feel superfluous to me. For example, we first meet Joe and Jerry when they’re playing at a speakeasy but before that scene is a scene of the cops catching some runners and getting the info to bust the speakeasy. Was that scene necessary? Could’ve just opened with the cops busting the speakeasy. Which is to say, this film could use a little more editing.
I’ve never been a big fan of Monroe’s breathy-little-girl voice or ditzy-blonde act.
Good Stuff:
Although it’s played for laughs, at least the film addresses all the aggressive, unwanted attention women get by merely existing (getting pinched in elevators, men inviting themselves up to their rooms, etc.).
I like that it plays with the ideas of gender and sexuality.
Jack Lemmon is pretty funny, although I could do without his insane laugh.
Great soundtrack!
The Verdict:
I’m not a big fan of this film. I know I thought it was funny the first time I saw it, when I was much younger, but when I watched it again a few years ago, a lot of the so-called humor fell flat for me. I felt the same way this time around. The way the Joe and Jerry treat people, especially women, is bad, and it makes their characters unlikable for me. That’s not to say it doesn’t have its moments. There are definitely scenes that made me laugh. And I’m sure that, for its time, it was shocking, scandalous, and progressive, but I don’t think it plays well in this modern world. I’d be totally fine if I never watch it again.
I give it 3 stars.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
AFI Top 100, #15: "Star Wars" (1977)
Movie Stats:
Released 1977 (USA)
American, in English (made-up alien languages, some translated, some not)
Director - George Lucas
Stars - Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness
Plot Summary:
It’s the classic hero’s tale. When young, restless farmer Luke Skywalker (Hamill) intercepts a message from imperiled Princess Leia (Fisher), he sets off on a rescue mission with the help of handsome rogue Han Solo (Ford) and the aged knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Guinness). Along the way, they find themselves caught up in a rebellion.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
Luke’s android companion C3PO (Anthony Daniels) is annoying as all get out. All he does is complain and be useless to the point of making things harder for everyone. If I were Luke, I would have left him behind on Tatooine.
I find the character development poor. For me, it’s difficult to believe that these characters like each other as much as they do as quickly as they do. For example, [SPOILER] Luke shows far more emotion at the death of Obi-Wan, who he’s truly only known for a few days, than he does at the death of his aunt and uncle, who raised him [SPOILER]. Either the movie is bad at showing the passage of time and the characters have known each other for longer than they seem to, or important scenes were cut, or George Lucas is terrible at character development (judging by the prequels, I’d say that’s the more likely problem).
Good Stuff:
I like that Leia isn’t a damsel in distress (at first glance it seems like she is but she’s not).
I actually enjoy that this film is one giant trope. It’s the same hero story that’s been told since the beginning of human imagination. The characters are all the same archetypes that you’re familiar with. It’s comforting. At the same time, it’s not boring because there’s just enough that’s different to keep it from delving into “same old, same old” territory.
I’d say what it lacks in character development, it makes up for in pacing. There are few points where the film drags. It’s action-packed from start to finish.
Composer John Williams is a god.
The Verdict:
Look, I like this film. Practically everyone likes this film. It’s fun and entertaining, a story for the ages. The special effects were groundbreaking for the time, and I feel that, for the most part, they’ve held up well. However, I don’t find it quite as special as most people seem to. There’s a lot missing between characters. That seems to be a Lucas thing. I think he’s simply bad at developing them. Also, I’ve always been a little bewildered by how people ragged so hard on Jar Jar Binks (truly a terrible character) without mentioning how awful C3PO is. Like, he nearly ruins the movie for me. I wish I could mute just his character. (Of course, Jar Jar has the added layer - many people feel - of being a racist caricature.) I digress. This is an enjoyable romp. I don’t begrudge its place on the list because it’s been such a huge phenomenon - for nearly 40 years now!
I give it 3.75 stars.
Released 1977 (USA)
American, in English (made-up alien languages, some translated, some not)
Director - George Lucas
Stars - Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Harrison Ford, Alec Guinness
Plot Summary:
It’s the classic hero’s tale. When young, restless farmer Luke Skywalker (Hamill) intercepts a message from imperiled Princess Leia (Fisher), he sets off on a rescue mission with the help of handsome rogue Han Solo (Ford) and the aged knight Obi-Wan Kenobi (Guinness). Along the way, they find themselves caught up in a rebellion.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
Luke’s android companion C3PO (Anthony Daniels) is annoying as all get out. All he does is complain and be useless to the point of making things harder for everyone. If I were Luke, I would have left him behind on Tatooine.
I find the character development poor. For me, it’s difficult to believe that these characters like each other as much as they do as quickly as they do. For example, [SPOILER] Luke shows far more emotion at the death of Obi-Wan, who he’s truly only known for a few days, than he does at the death of his aunt and uncle, who raised him [SPOILER]. Either the movie is bad at showing the passage of time and the characters have known each other for longer than they seem to, or important scenes were cut, or George Lucas is terrible at character development (judging by the prequels, I’d say that’s the more likely problem).
Good Stuff:
I like that Leia isn’t a damsel in distress (at first glance it seems like she is but she’s not).
I actually enjoy that this film is one giant trope. It’s the same hero story that’s been told since the beginning of human imagination. The characters are all the same archetypes that you’re familiar with. It’s comforting. At the same time, it’s not boring because there’s just enough that’s different to keep it from delving into “same old, same old” territory.
I’d say what it lacks in character development, it makes up for in pacing. There are few points where the film drags. It’s action-packed from start to finish.
Composer John Williams is a god.
The Verdict:
Look, I like this film. Practically everyone likes this film. It’s fun and entertaining, a story for the ages. The special effects were groundbreaking for the time, and I feel that, for the most part, they’ve held up well. However, I don’t find it quite as special as most people seem to. There’s a lot missing between characters. That seems to be a Lucas thing. I think he’s simply bad at developing them. Also, I’ve always been a little bewildered by how people ragged so hard on Jar Jar Binks (truly a terrible character) without mentioning how awful C3PO is. Like, he nearly ruins the movie for me. I wish I could mute just his character. (Of course, Jar Jar has the added layer - many people feel - of being a racist caricature.) I digress. This is an enjoyable romp. I don’t begrudge its place on the list because it’s been such a huge phenomenon - for nearly 40 years now!
I give it 3.75 stars.
Wednesday, May 25, 2016
AFI Top 100, #16: "All About Eve" (1950)
This movie was previously reviewed as part of my Best Picture Project. Below is the pertinent information about it: the movie stats, plot summary, and the rating I gave it. You can read the full text of my review HERE.
Movie Stats:
Released 1950 (France & USA on the same day)
American, in English
Director – Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Stars – Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, Gary Merrill, Celeste Holm
Plot Summary:
Margo Channing (Davis) is the queen bee of the Broadway stage. One night, her best friend Karen (Holm) – wife of the playwright, Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe), who continues to cast Margo in his plays – invites a young woman named Eve Harrington (Baxter) backstage to meet Margo. At first, Eve seems fresh-faced, sweet, and naïve, but Margo soon begins to discover that there is something more sinister about the young woman and her motives. Merrill co-stars as Margo’s boyfriend, Bill Simpson.
Rating:
4 stars
Movie Stats:
Released 1950 (France & USA on the same day)
American, in English
Director – Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Stars – Bette Davis, Anne Baxter, Gary Merrill, Celeste Holm
Plot Summary:
Margo Channing (Davis) is the queen bee of the Broadway stage. One night, her best friend Karen (Holm) – wife of the playwright, Lloyd Richards (Hugh Marlowe), who continues to cast Margo in his plays – invites a young woman named Eve Harrington (Baxter) backstage to meet Margo. At first, Eve seems fresh-faced, sweet, and naïve, but Margo soon begins to discover that there is something more sinister about the young woman and her motives. Merrill co-stars as Margo’s boyfriend, Bill Simpson.
Rating:
4 stars
Monday, May 23, 2016
AFI Top 100, #17: "The African Queen" (1951)
Movie Stats:
Released 1951 (USA)
American & British, in English (some German & Swahili, mostly non-translated)
Director - John Huston
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn
Plot Summary:
When English missionary Rose Sayer (Hepburn) is trapped in German-controlled eastern Africa at the outset of WWI, she talks Canadian mine worker Charlie Allnut (Bogart) into using his boat in an act of sabotage.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
It tried a little too hard in the beginning to depict the native Africans as inept (inability to sing) and savage (fighting over a discarded cigar butt), especially given that they were essentially non-existent for the rest of the film, so it wasn’t a plot point. Seemed spiteful to me, and made me uncomfortable.
There’s a strong element of the unbelievable throughout the whole film. It asks you to suspend a lot of disbelief. I was willing to do so until the final scene, when it relied too heavily on coincidence to allow our heroes to achieve their goal - just in time too! Cue eye rolling.
Good Stuff:
Bogart was amazing, so different from most of his roles. I thought he did an excellent job of imbuing his slightly dodgy character with enough good humor to make him sympathetic until he improved in general.
I enjoyed Rose’s pluckiness. “Oh, I’m trapped behind enemy lines, you say? And I can either hide and hopefully wait out the war or try to slip past the Germans and likely die in the process? I’ve come up with a third option. Let’s help out the war effort by sabotaging the enemy!” More guts than I would ever have, and while I know she’s fictional, I also know enough of history to know that people like her did exist.
It’s fun.
The Verdict:
I enjoyed it. It was nice to watch something fun for once. I saw it once when I was a kid, I don’t remember how old but younger than teens, and thought it was boring as all get out. That doesn’t surprise me, since it largely features the two same people in one mostly-static setting (a boat), people who seemed “old” to me at the time. I’ve always figured that I would like it better as an adult, and I did. There’s not a lot to it. It’s not deep or meaningful. It’s not groundbreaking (although perhaps some of the special effects were considered so in its time). It’s simply an enjoyable action flick featuring an interesting story and good acting, a nice palette cleanser after my recent movie outings, which included child molesters, psychopaths, and murder. This is a good one for you to put on during a lazy, rainy day.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Released 1951 (USA)
American & British, in English (some German & Swahili, mostly non-translated)
Director - John Huston
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Katharine Hepburn
Plot Summary:
When English missionary Rose Sayer (Hepburn) is trapped in German-controlled eastern Africa at the outset of WWI, she talks Canadian mine worker Charlie Allnut (Bogart) into using his boat in an act of sabotage.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
It tried a little too hard in the beginning to depict the native Africans as inept (inability to sing) and savage (fighting over a discarded cigar butt), especially given that they were essentially non-existent for the rest of the film, so it wasn’t a plot point. Seemed spiteful to me, and made me uncomfortable.
There’s a strong element of the unbelievable throughout the whole film. It asks you to suspend a lot of disbelief. I was willing to do so until the final scene, when it relied too heavily on coincidence to allow our heroes to achieve their goal - just in time too! Cue eye rolling.
Good Stuff:
Bogart was amazing, so different from most of his roles. I thought he did an excellent job of imbuing his slightly dodgy character with enough good humor to make him sympathetic until he improved in general.
I enjoyed Rose’s pluckiness. “Oh, I’m trapped behind enemy lines, you say? And I can either hide and hopefully wait out the war or try to slip past the Germans and likely die in the process? I’ve come up with a third option. Let’s help out the war effort by sabotaging the enemy!” More guts than I would ever have, and while I know she’s fictional, I also know enough of history to know that people like her did exist.
It’s fun.
The Verdict:
I enjoyed it. It was nice to watch something fun for once. I saw it once when I was a kid, I don’t remember how old but younger than teens, and thought it was boring as all get out. That doesn’t surprise me, since it largely features the two same people in one mostly-static setting (a boat), people who seemed “old” to me at the time. I’ve always figured that I would like it better as an adult, and I did. There’s not a lot to it. It’s not deep or meaningful. It’s not groundbreaking (although perhaps some of the special effects were considered so in its time). It’s simply an enjoyable action flick featuring an interesting story and good acting, a nice palette cleanser after my recent movie outings, which included child molesters, psychopaths, and murder. This is a good one for you to put on during a lazy, rainy day.
I give it 3.75 stars.
Wednesday, May 18, 2016
AFI Top 100, #18: "Psycho" (1960)
Movie Stats:
Released 1960 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Alfred Hitchcock
Stars - Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins
Plot Summary:
After a series of bad decisions, Phoenix secretary Marion Crane (Leigh) finds herself at a remote hotel, whose owner, Norman Bates (Perkins), has a very dark secret.
Warnings:
Violence; gore; heavily implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
There’s an undercurrent of “bad women need to be punished” that makes me give it a bit of a side eye.
Psychologist Dr. Fred Richman (Simon Oakland) has only one scene, at the very end of the film, but man does he stink it up. I hated pretty much everything he said, and the way it was delivered. In particular, [SPOILER] when Marion’s sister Lila (Vera Miles) asked him if Norman killed Marion and Dr. Richman dramatically answered, “Yes … and no,” I was like, “Oh, STFU you insufferable prick.” [SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
A++ acting from Anthony Perkins.
Hitchcock did an excellent job of ramping up the tension slowly. This isn’t a “cheap scares” frightening movie (there are a few, but that’s not the main thrust of the film), which is my preference. I can imagine that when this movie came out, Marion’s fate must have been so shocking, because until that scene in the study with the stuffed birds, it seemed like the story was going in a much different direction.
Great soundtrack.
The Verdict:
I think this movie suffers greatly from having come out 56 years ago. I can’t imagine that nowadays, most people reach adulthood without knowing what the twists are, even if they haven’t seen the movie. I know that I knew the twists before I ever saw it, and I saw it for the first time 20 years ago. It’s definitely an instance where spoilers actually spoil it. So I try to think about how different and titillating it must have been back in 1960. I think it’s a great film, regardless of spoilers. It’s just difficult to get that full impact of it. Anyway, I think the story was innovative and original, the soundtrack was excellent, and performances were great. It definitely earned all the praise it’s been given over the years.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Released 1960 (USA)
American, in English
Director - Alfred Hitchcock
Stars - Janet Leigh, Anthony Perkins
Plot Summary:
After a series of bad decisions, Phoenix secretary Marion Crane (Leigh) finds herself at a remote hotel, whose owner, Norman Bates (Perkins), has a very dark secret.
Warnings:
Violence; gore; heavily implied sexy times.
Bad Stuff:
There’s an undercurrent of “bad women need to be punished” that makes me give it a bit of a side eye.
Psychologist Dr. Fred Richman (Simon Oakland) has only one scene, at the very end of the film, but man does he stink it up. I hated pretty much everything he said, and the way it was delivered. In particular, [SPOILER] when Marion’s sister Lila (Vera Miles) asked him if Norman killed Marion and Dr. Richman dramatically answered, “Yes … and no,” I was like, “Oh, STFU you insufferable prick.” [SPOILER]
Good Stuff:
A++ acting from Anthony Perkins.
Hitchcock did an excellent job of ramping up the tension slowly. This isn’t a “cheap scares” frightening movie (there are a few, but that’s not the main thrust of the film), which is my preference. I can imagine that when this movie came out, Marion’s fate must have been so shocking, because until that scene in the study with the stuffed birds, it seemed like the story was going in a much different direction.
Great soundtrack.
The Verdict:
I think this movie suffers greatly from having come out 56 years ago. I can’t imagine that nowadays, most people reach adulthood without knowing what the twists are, even if they haven’t seen the movie. I know that I knew the twists before I ever saw it, and I saw it for the first time 20 years ago. It’s definitely an instance where spoilers actually spoil it. So I try to think about how different and titillating it must have been back in 1960. I think it’s a great film, regardless of spoilers. It’s just difficult to get that full impact of it. Anyway, I think the story was innovative and original, the soundtrack was excellent, and performances were great. It definitely earned all the praise it’s been given over the years.
I give it 4.25 stars.
Monday, May 16, 2016
AFI Top 100, #19: "Chinatown" (1974)
Movie stats:
Released 1974 (USA)
American, in English (tiny amounts of non-translated Spanish & Cantonese)
Director - Roman Polanski
Stars - Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway
Plot Summary:
When a woman hires private investigator J.J. Gittes (Nicholson) to tail her husband, who she suspects is cheating, he finds himself pulled into a much deeper, and more dangerous, mystery. Dunaway co-stars as Evelyn Mulwray.
Warnings:
Minor blue language; violence; gore; heavily implied sexy times; very brief male nudity (penis, blink and you’ll hopefully miss it); brief female nudity (breasts).
Bad Stuff:
Well, now that I’ve seen her in three of these AFI movies, I think it’s safe to say that I’m not a fan of Faye Dunaway. I find her flat and wooden.
Thumbs down on the horn-laden soundtrack.
The ending was a hot mess. After the laying all the groundwork for a fine mystery, the resolution seemed both rushed and unfinished.
Good Stuff:
The mystery was good. It kept me guessing the whole film. It seemed like a thinking person’s mystery, involving land and water rights. It wasn’t simple.
While this AFI project has convinced me that I don’t like Dunaway, it’s also convinced me that I do like Nicholson. I spent most of my life without having seen his earlier work, so I’ve always thought he was one-note. I’ve really enjoyed this exploration of some of his earlier roles. It’s nice to see that he used to have range. I liked him in this.
The dialogue had a realistic feel - stumbling over words, mis-speaking, etc. - that I liked.
The Verdict:
This had all the hallmarks of a movie I wasn’t going to like: film noir (the only film noir I truly love is “LA Confidential”), 70s film, Nicholson, Dunaway, Polanski. I popped it in thinking to myself, “Well, let’s get this over with.” It was a pleasant surprise to discover that it’s actually good. Unlike a lot of film noir, the mystery was solid, the plot twists are believable and easy to follow, and it didn’t induce any reflexive eye rolling in me. Also, apart from Dunaway (and Belinda Palmer as Katherine, who thankfully isn’t in it very much), the acting was really good. I doubt I’ll ever watch it again, since I think it’ll lose something with the mystery all out in the open, but for a one-time watch, it was solid.
I give it 4 stars.
Released 1974 (USA)
American, in English (tiny amounts of non-translated Spanish & Cantonese)
Director - Roman Polanski
Stars - Jack Nicholson, Faye Dunaway
Plot Summary:
When a woman hires private investigator J.J. Gittes (Nicholson) to tail her husband, who she suspects is cheating, he finds himself pulled into a much deeper, and more dangerous, mystery. Dunaway co-stars as Evelyn Mulwray.
Warnings:
Minor blue language; violence; gore; heavily implied sexy times; very brief male nudity (penis, blink and you’ll hopefully miss it); brief female nudity (breasts).
Bad Stuff:
Well, now that I’ve seen her in three of these AFI movies, I think it’s safe to say that I’m not a fan of Faye Dunaway. I find her flat and wooden.
Thumbs down on the horn-laden soundtrack.
The ending was a hot mess. After the laying all the groundwork for a fine mystery, the resolution seemed both rushed and unfinished.
Good Stuff:
The mystery was good. It kept me guessing the whole film. It seemed like a thinking person’s mystery, involving land and water rights. It wasn’t simple.
While this AFI project has convinced me that I don’t like Dunaway, it’s also convinced me that I do like Nicholson. I spent most of my life without having seen his earlier work, so I’ve always thought he was one-note. I’ve really enjoyed this exploration of some of his earlier roles. It’s nice to see that he used to have range. I liked him in this.
The dialogue had a realistic feel - stumbling over words, mis-speaking, etc. - that I liked.
The Verdict:
This had all the hallmarks of a movie I wasn’t going to like: film noir (the only film noir I truly love is “LA Confidential”), 70s film, Nicholson, Dunaway, Polanski. I popped it in thinking to myself, “Well, let’s get this over with.” It was a pleasant surprise to discover that it’s actually good. Unlike a lot of film noir, the mystery was solid, the plot twists are believable and easy to follow, and it didn’t induce any reflexive eye rolling in me. Also, apart from Dunaway (and Belinda Palmer as Katherine, who thankfully isn’t in it very much), the acting was really good. I doubt I’ll ever watch it again, since I think it’ll lose something with the mystery all out in the open, but for a one-time watch, it was solid.
I give it 4 stars.
Wednesday, April 20, 2016
AFI Top 100, #20: "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" (1975)
This movie was previously reviewed as part of my Best Picture Project. Below is the pertinent information about it: the movie stats, plot summary, and the rating I gave it. You can read the full text of my review HERE.
Movie Stats:
Released 1975 (USA)
American, in English
Director – Milos Forman
Stars – Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Will Sampson
Plot Summary:
When chronic troublemaker R.P. McMurphy (Nicholson) lands in prison yet again, he fakes insanity to get what he thinks is going to be an easy stint in a mental institution. Once he’s been committed, he butts heads with ice-queen Nurse Ratched (Fletcher) and befriends deaf-mute Native American Chief Bromden (Sampson).
Rating:
4 stars
Movie Stats:
Released 1975 (USA)
American, in English
Director – Milos Forman
Stars – Jack Nicholson, Louise Fletcher, Will Sampson
Plot Summary:
When chronic troublemaker R.P. McMurphy (Nicholson) lands in prison yet again, he fakes insanity to get what he thinks is going to be an easy stint in a mental institution. Once he’s been committed, he butts heads with ice-queen Nurse Ratched (Fletcher) and befriends deaf-mute Native American Chief Bromden (Sampson).
Rating:
4 stars
Friday, April 15, 2016
AFI Top 100, #21: "The Grapes of Wrath" (1940)
Movie Stats:
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director - John Ford
Stars - Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell, John Carradine
Plot Summary:
Follows the exploits of the Joad family, Depression-era Okies trying to make it in California. Fonda co-stars as the eldest Joad son, Tom; Darwell as his mother, Ma; and Carradine as former preacher, and family friend, Jim Casy.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
The slow pace makes it seem much longer than it actually is.
It’s like one of those movies that they show in history class when you’re a teenager. I felt like I was being taught something rather than watching something that was meant to be entertaining.
There’s a little too much “stare off into the distance while monologuing” for my tastes.
Good Stuff:
There were a lot of good performances. I particularly enjoyed Carradine and Darwell. Darwell did such an excellent job of playing Ma Joad that I completely fell in love with her.
Loved the language, the way all the characters talked like Okies. It could have felt forced but it didn’t.
It did a good job of depicting the pain that people caught in the Dust Bowl felt. Losing the farms that had been in their families for generations, watching their homes bulldozed, given false hope over and over, treated like dirt wherever they went. It’s heart-wrenching, and if you feel any different after you’ve watched this movie, you probably have no soul.
Oh, the music is great!
The Verdict:
I’m not a big fan of how slow it is, and I’m not the only one. My husband, who watched the beginning with me, left to go play video games, and came back near the end, said, “Is this still on?” Watching was a bit of a chore, and I occasionally felt like I was being preached at. However, it’s a good story with great acting and excellent music. I also think it’s an important period of history. The country is likely one wrong step, and/or one major natural disaster, away from another Depression, where we could face such problems again. Have we learned the lessons of the past? It’s difficult to say (probably no). If you’re in the mood for a bit of history, and you’re feeling fairly upbeat so multiple deaths and police beatings won’t get you down, you should pop this one in the DVD player.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Released 1940 (USA)
American, in English
Director - John Ford
Stars - Henry Fonda, Jane Darwell, John Carradine
Plot Summary:
Follows the exploits of the Joad family, Depression-era Okies trying to make it in California. Fonda co-stars as the eldest Joad son, Tom; Darwell as his mother, Ma; and Carradine as former preacher, and family friend, Jim Casy.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
The slow pace makes it seem much longer than it actually is.
It’s like one of those movies that they show in history class when you’re a teenager. I felt like I was being taught something rather than watching something that was meant to be entertaining.
There’s a little too much “stare off into the distance while monologuing” for my tastes.
Good Stuff:
There were a lot of good performances. I particularly enjoyed Carradine and Darwell. Darwell did such an excellent job of playing Ma Joad that I completely fell in love with her.
Loved the language, the way all the characters talked like Okies. It could have felt forced but it didn’t.
It did a good job of depicting the pain that people caught in the Dust Bowl felt. Losing the farms that had been in their families for generations, watching their homes bulldozed, given false hope over and over, treated like dirt wherever they went. It’s heart-wrenching, and if you feel any different after you’ve watched this movie, you probably have no soul.
Oh, the music is great!
The Verdict:
I’m not a big fan of how slow it is, and I’m not the only one. My husband, who watched the beginning with me, left to go play video games, and came back near the end, said, “Is this still on?” Watching was a bit of a chore, and I occasionally felt like I was being preached at. However, it’s a good story with great acting and excellent music. I also think it’s an important period of history. The country is likely one wrong step, and/or one major natural disaster, away from another Depression, where we could face such problems again. Have we learned the lessons of the past? It’s difficult to say (probably no). If you’re in the mood for a bit of history, and you’re feeling fairly upbeat so multiple deaths and police beatings won’t get you down, you should pop this one in the DVD player.
I give it 3.5 stars.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
AFI Top 100, #22: "2001: A Space Odyssey" (1968)
Movie Stats:
Released 1968 (USA)
American & British, in English (very minor non-translated Russian)
Director - Stanley Kubrick
Stars - Keir Dullea, Douglas Rain (voice)
Plot Summary:
On a mission to Jupiter, things go awry. Oh, and there’s a bunch of stuff about evolution. Dullea co-stars as Dr. Dave Bowman, one of the scientists on the mission, and Rain provides the voice of his on-board computer, HAL 9000.
Warnings:
Some violence; very minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
Thumbs down on the last half hour. I was pretty into it up until that point.
The pace could best be described as “plodding.”
I’m not completely sold on Dullea. He seemed to have only one facial expression/emotion for any given situation. Even in a situation that should have induced butthole-clenching panic, his affect was flat. Not sure if it was bad directing or bad acting. (I assume it was a director choice because, honestly, everyone seemed to behave that way throughout.)
Good Stuff:
The cinematography was amazing. Nearly every shot (even indoors) was stunning.
Similarly, I loved the set design. Favorites were the lobby with the hot pink chairs & the circular room onboard the ship.
Loved the liberal use of classical music. It was quite fitting.
The Verdict:
It’s visually stunning. The concept is interesting. Even though it took a really long time to get to the point, it held my attention. And then the last half hour happened. I just don’t have a lot of patience for weird, acid trip type stuff. It’s not my thing at all, and it’s a huge downside to a lot of 1960s and 1970s films. I looked around a little bit online and this seems to be a common complaint. A lot of people don’t like the ending, so you can add my voice (and my husband’s) to the masses. Also, there was a lot of product placement toward the beginning, which is really unusual for such an old film. I’m guessing it was very expensive to make, however, so they must have needed all the financial help they could get. I will say that, for a large portion of it, my husband and I had a good time discussing what they did and didn’t get right about 2001, how sound the science was, and guessing what was to come next (neither of us had seen it before).
I give it 3.5 stars.
Released 1968 (USA)
American & British, in English (very minor non-translated Russian)
Director - Stanley Kubrick
Stars - Keir Dullea, Douglas Rain (voice)
Plot Summary:
On a mission to Jupiter, things go awry. Oh, and there’s a bunch of stuff about evolution. Dullea co-stars as Dr. Dave Bowman, one of the scientists on the mission, and Rain provides the voice of his on-board computer, HAL 9000.
Warnings:
Some violence; very minor gore.
Bad Stuff:
Thumbs down on the last half hour. I was pretty into it up until that point.
The pace could best be described as “plodding.”
I’m not completely sold on Dullea. He seemed to have only one facial expression/emotion for any given situation. Even in a situation that should have induced butthole-clenching panic, his affect was flat. Not sure if it was bad directing or bad acting. (I assume it was a director choice because, honestly, everyone seemed to behave that way throughout.)
Good Stuff:
The cinematography was amazing. Nearly every shot (even indoors) was stunning.
Similarly, I loved the set design. Favorites were the lobby with the hot pink chairs & the circular room onboard the ship.
Loved the liberal use of classical music. It was quite fitting.
The Verdict:
It’s visually stunning. The concept is interesting. Even though it took a really long time to get to the point, it held my attention. And then the last half hour happened. I just don’t have a lot of patience for weird, acid trip type stuff. It’s not my thing at all, and it’s a huge downside to a lot of 1960s and 1970s films. I looked around a little bit online and this seems to be a common complaint. A lot of people don’t like the ending, so you can add my voice (and my husband’s) to the masses. Also, there was a lot of product placement toward the beginning, which is really unusual for such an old film. I’m guessing it was very expensive to make, however, so they must have needed all the financial help they could get. I will say that, for a large portion of it, my husband and I had a good time discussing what they did and didn’t get right about 2001, how sound the science was, and guessing what was to come next (neither of us had seen it before).
I give it 3.5 stars.
Friday, April 8, 2016
AFI Top 100, #23: "The Maltese Falcon" (1941)
Movie Stats:
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - John Huston
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet
Plot Summary:
When beautiful dame Brigid O’Shaughnessy (Astor) walks into the office of private detective Sam Spade (Bogart), he immediately finds himself embroiled in the dangerous hunt for a valuable artifact. Lorre co-stars as the simpering Joel Cairo and Greenstreet as the wealthy Kasper Gutman, two men who are also after the artifact.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s confusing with a side of the ridiculous. Basically, it’s a lot of “I’m double crossing you!” “No, I’m double crossing YOU!” and “You’re lying!” “Yes, but you are ALSO lying!” to the point where I just felt annoyed.
Poor character development. I really didn’t understand who anyone was or what their motivations were (other than basic greed). Nor did I care about anyone. Literally everyone could have died and I would’ve shrugged.
Sam Spade has the uncanny ability to knock out a person with one punch. Is his fist made of steel or something?
Astor’s performance was terrible.
Good Stuff:
On the other hand, the rest of the main cast was really good, but I particularly enjoyed Greenstreet and Lorre. Peter Lorre makes everything better. The scene where he throws a temper tantrum made me laugh out loud. I’m not sure if it was supposed to be funny, but it was.
I liked the ending. It was very fitting.
Costuming did a good job.
The Verdict:
I don’t get the love for this film. I’d seen it once before, and could remember not liking it, but wasn’t sure why. Now I remember. The whole thing is complete mess. It's nonsense. It’s so tiresome that it couldn’t hold my interest. Perhaps that added to my confusion [SPOILER] Did they show the boat captain before he stumbled into Sam’s office and died? Because I was like, “Who the F is that guy?” and Spade is like, “Why, it’s the boat captain” and I’m like, “How does he know that?” [SPOILER] but I honestly think I’m blameless here. Make your movie more interesting and my attention won’t drift. The only thing it really has going for it is some quality acting.
I give it 2.25 stars.
Released 1941 (USA)
American, in English
Director - John Huston
Stars - Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet
Plot Summary:
When beautiful dame Brigid O’Shaughnessy (Astor) walks into the office of private detective Sam Spade (Bogart), he immediately finds himself embroiled in the dangerous hunt for a valuable artifact. Lorre co-stars as the simpering Joel Cairo and Greenstreet as the wealthy Kasper Gutman, two men who are also after the artifact.
Warnings:
Violence.
Bad Stuff:
It’s confusing with a side of the ridiculous. Basically, it’s a lot of “I’m double crossing you!” “No, I’m double crossing YOU!” and “You’re lying!” “Yes, but you are ALSO lying!” to the point where I just felt annoyed.
Poor character development. I really didn’t understand who anyone was or what their motivations were (other than basic greed). Nor did I care about anyone. Literally everyone could have died and I would’ve shrugged.
Sam Spade has the uncanny ability to knock out a person with one punch. Is his fist made of steel or something?
Astor’s performance was terrible.
Good Stuff:
On the other hand, the rest of the main cast was really good, but I particularly enjoyed Greenstreet and Lorre. Peter Lorre makes everything better. The scene where he throws a temper tantrum made me laugh out loud. I’m not sure if it was supposed to be funny, but it was.
I liked the ending. It was very fitting.
Costuming did a good job.
The Verdict:
I don’t get the love for this film. I’d seen it once before, and could remember not liking it, but wasn’t sure why. Now I remember. The whole thing is complete mess. It's nonsense. It’s so tiresome that it couldn’t hold my interest. Perhaps that added to my confusion [SPOILER] Did they show the boat captain before he stumbled into Sam’s office and died? Because I was like, “Who the F is that guy?” and Spade is like, “Why, it’s the boat captain” and I’m like, “How does he know that?” [SPOILER] but I honestly think I’m blameless here. Make your movie more interesting and my attention won’t drift. The only thing it really has going for it is some quality acting.
I give it 2.25 stars.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)