MY MAN GODFREY (1936)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Romance

Director: George La Cava

Cast: William Powell / Carole Lombard / Alice Brady

Plot

An eccentric family of socialites bring a “forgotten man” into their home and make him their butler, oblivious to the fact that he is in fact a man of wealth and position.

What I Liked

Filled with rapid fire banter that ricochets between the absurd and the poignant, “My Man Godfrey” must have seemed terribly relevant during the Great Depression.  At once screwball comedy and social satire, the film has some important points to make about the value of humanity in between its sharp quips and foolery.  Members of the well-to-do Bullock family are portrayed as self-consumed, naive, and sometimes downright stupid.  By contrast, the vagrants living in shanties built inside the city dump are possessed of comradery, practicality, and civility.  Godfrey, the wealthy businessman who has abandoned his money to live among the poor, bridges these two worlds when the Bullocks bring him in as their butler on the whim of their youngest daughter.  Through him, members of both classes are represented well to an extent and he is the most relateable character, the outsider looking in at the kooky, insular world of the Bullocks.  William Powell gives Godfrey both cool and maturity amid these busy characters and their ridiculous conflicts, helping the audience to relate.

What I Didn't Like

As much of a legend as Carole Lombard is, particularly for her screwball roles, I found her character so annoying and childish that she was utterly unlikable.  Though I understand that her character was supposed to be immature, both for the comedy and because it accents the lack of responsibility someone accustomed to getting their way might display, she was so loud and obnoxious that she served more as an irritant than comedic relief.  I found no reason for Godfrey to love her at all.

Indeed I found most of the Bullocks, with the possible exception of the father, either intolerable or unbelievable (Lombard's character falls under both categories).  I suppose this was the point, but I found myself really not caring what became of them.

In addition, the conclusion to all the conflicts and problems seems to come almost immediately.  Any suspense that may build from a financial crisis that the family hits is ruined when the problem is solved on the spot and the whole family comes to a ludicrous collective on-the-spot epiphany.  I realize it's all a comedy and not to be taken too seriously, but shouldn't one expect more reality from a film that clearly intends to deal with timely social problems?

Most Memorable Scene

Angelica Bullock, the oldest daughter of the family, played by Alice Brady, is the most interesting character in the family.  It is her character that goes through the greatest changes in the film, from conniving socialite to slightly less conniving socialite.  She initiates the most moving moment of the film, when she tries to frame Godfrey as a thief.  The act is done with such malice against an entirely innocent man that one is driven to completely despise Angelica and admire Godfrey for not taking seeking revenge.  This moment of course helps lead to Angelica's change of character.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THE USUAL SUSPECTS (1995)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Crime / Drama

Director: Bryan Singer

Cast: Gabriel Byrne / Stephen Baldwin / Kevin Spacey

Plot

When a ship explosion leaves more than a dozen dead, one of two survivors tells a U.S. customs agent an elaborate tale involving con artists, suicide missions, hijackings, murders, double-crosses, and an all-powerful gangster named Keyser Soze.

What I Liked

For years I'd listened to people say to me, "You've never seen 'The Usual Suspects'?!  You have to see it!  It's definitely you're kind of movie."  They were right.  Absolutely one of the best noir films of recent decades, “The Usual Suspects” feeds us most of the standard noir elements (tough-talking detectives, tougher-talking low-lifes, overambitious criminal plots, and tragic consequences) but mixes them up into a thrilling puzzle of deceptions created by the mysterious Soze.  Trying to put the pieces together before the cops do proves to be the real joy in watching the movie.

Of course each character and his or her  shady background is a piece of that puzzle and the characters are given just the right amount of development to be interesting while still leaving enough unknown about them so as to keep the viewer guessing at how they all fit together.

When we're not busy trying to figure it all out, we are treated to some stylish and thrilling action sequences.  Through camera movement and editing, director Bryan Singer gives these scenes a real sense of immediacy that lends heart-racing tension to the moment, helping to make the film satisfying as both an engaging mystery and a shoot-'em'-up gangster movie.

What I Didn't Like

 Plot-wise, there are several questions left unanswered, though this very likely could have been intentional on the part of the screenwriters and filmmakers.  Other than that, I can't find much to complain about here.

Most Memorable Scene:

*spoiler alert*

Although I had already figured out the twist by the time the big revelation came about, watching Chazz Palminteri's Agent Cujan come to the realization as the now famous line, “The great trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist” plays through his mind will continue to satisfy with each viewing.  Here all the pieces of the puzzle, imagined and real, come together and the fractured storytelling finally pays off so that the viewer can pull back from it all and see the big picture just as Cujan does the same.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

INTOLERANCE (1916)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Epic / War

Director: D.W. Griffith

Cast: Lillian Gish / Mae Marsh / Robert Harron

Plot

Four separate stories of injustice through intolerance from four separate places and time periods are played out.  Well-known historic episodes of religious and political intolerance in Babylon, Jerusalem, and France are the backdrop for fictional dramas while class and age discrimination bring about misery for a poor young couple and their child in 1910s America.

What I Liked

This one is known for two things, it's length and it's unprecedented production.  Both reputations are for good reason and the production, in terms of set pieces and extras is incredible.  There have been many epic productions since, but considering that this one was made nearly a century ago, “Intolerance” conquers all others in terms of sheer scale.  Perhaps Griffith used a lot of tricks of the camera to pull off the images of thousands of living people battling atop massive city walls while real, live elephants and life-size, fire-breathing war machines battled below.  If these were mere tricks of the camera, I certainly didn't notice, which speaks even more for director D.W. Griffith's technical brilliance.  The lush and overpowering interiors, particularly inside the French royal palace, were nearly as astounding as the exterior battle scenes.

Actually, the most moving of the storylines involves the least amount of extravagance.  The modern story is the most poignant and packs the most emotional punch.  Clearly Griffith had a message for this one, as the wealthy industrialists and socialites greedily support a system that forces the majority of the society to waver between oppressive labor or abject poverty only to then judge those who become impoverished as unfit members of society.  The drama here feels the most authentic and consequently has a stronger impact, leaving out sets and effects, than the other segments.

Griffith displays the same innovative (for the time) editing techniques he displayed in “The Birth of a Nation” and puts them to even greater use here – this time without the racist propaganda, which is a relief.

What I Didn't Like

Too long!  Even people of the time avoided this one.  It wasn't nearly as popular as “The Birth of a Nation,” mostly because the jumping between stories was unprecedented and confused those who did see it.  But at two hours and forty three minutes in length, a silent movie is a real trial for a modern viewer.  In my opinion, much of the film was unnecessary.  While all of the four stories make Griffith's point, the Jesus one gets very little development or screen time, so it seems to me it could have been cut without any detriment to the rest of the film.

As with most silent films, especially these very early ones, the acting is absurdly melodramatic.  This was done of course to tell the story and develop the characters when no sound was available.  Still, there's not a hint of subtlety on any level, from story, to effects, to acting.

Most Memorable Scene:

The Babylonian battle scenes mentioned above are some of the most impressive movie visuals I’ve ever witnessed.  That they’re more than 90 years old makes their majesty all the more impressive.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

BLACK SWAN (2010)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Darren Aronofsky

Cast: Natalie Portman, Mila Kunis, Vincent Cassel

Plot

When ballerina Nina Sayers wins the lead role in “Swan Lake,” the overwhelming pressure to live up to the expectations takes its toll on her body and sanity.

What I Liked

This is a movie I enjoy more each time I watch it.  There's so much to appreciate here it's hard to get it all down in a few paragraphs.  We'll start with perfectly cast Natalie Portman, who gives disturbed dancer Nina all the complexity and pathos that any actor could ever possibly give to any role.  Her performance confirms her brilliance, adding depth to a movie that clearly would not have been as breathtaking as it is if she had not been a part of it.

The plot itself isn't a complex one, but the writers have thrown in enough of the weird and strange to keep the viewer guessing at what will happen next and what is real and what is delusion, as Portman's character simultaneously does the same.

Unlike so many films that over-saturate the eye with desensitizing effects, the special effects are used mainly to support the story and mood in “Black Swan.”  When special effects are obviously used they typically (though not always) add to either the creepiness, shock, or awe of the scene and are often both disturbing and gorgeous at the same time, which could be said of the movie overall.  Adding to the impact of the effects are the camera-work and music, which are both flawless and emotional without being overbearing.

What I Didn't Like:

*spoiler alert*

Director Darren Arrenofsky could certainly be accused being over the top here and with good reason.  While much of the main character's transformation happens psychologically, sometimes the effects are used to show this transformation.  While this often results in some of the film's most beautiful and devastating moments, one or two events feature effects that are simply too in-your-face and obvious.  The laughing paintings and the physical transformation of Portman's legs into a swan's legs as the film approaches its climax come to mind most.  While the former is a bit cliché the latter is so grotesque it's almost comedic.

            

These are of course blatant effects brought in for shock value.  Much of the film has subtler moods, textures, and meanings both in the plot and the production.  So it isn't that Arrenofsky is incapable of subtle craft.  I suppose he just felt a more obscene presentation was necessary at those parts where I felt it unnecessary and detrimental.

Most Memorable Scene:

*spoiler alert*

Yes, I'm sure you're expecting me to mention the most famous scene of the film, where the girl-on-girl sexual tension between Portman and Mila Kunis boils over.  And, I will say that was my favorite scene of the film, until the incredible final twenty-or-so minutes, which takes the movie into 'masterpiece' territory for me.

The acting, direction, music, and cinematography all come together in the film's final act, a mesmerizing movie climax if ever there was one.  As the main character's breakdown reaches it's crisis point and her personality undergoes a shattering break, she is forced on stage to perform in the most important moment of her career and the filmmakers pull out all the stops.  Portman is so effective she pulls the moviegoer with her as she is twirled, wrenched, raised, lowered, and completely transformed.

My Rating: 5 out 5

THE THIRD MAN (1949)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime / Drama

Director: Carol Reed

Cast: Joseph Cotten / Alida Valli / Orson Welles

Plot

American novelist Holly Martins travels to post-war Austria to meet his friend Harry Lime, only to be told that Lime has died under mysterious circumstances.  Martins is soon immersed in the Vienna underworld on his quest to find out the truth of Lime's demise.

What I Liked

With tricks of the camera, clever use of shadows, and terrific use of location, the filmmakers turn Vienna into as much of a dark and perverted landscape as it is a moral and political wasteland in the script.  The city itself, with its random piles of rubble, shadowy doorways, twisting alleys, abandoned carnivals, and labyrinthine sewers, is as important of a cast member as any of the actors.  This is an eerie place and its mood haunts all the action of the movie.

That darkness inhabits not just the action, but the script as well.  As the film progresses and Martins finds himself delving deeper into the truth about his friend and Vienna, the naïve writer becomes an increasingly obsessed avenger, willing to risk his life and those of others to get to the bottom of the mystery.  His dialogue changes accordingly, as do those of the supporting cast, as the film draws closer to its conclusion.  Then there is the magnificent speeches given to Orson Welles as his character appears and disappears throughout the final half of the movie.  Some of Welles' lines are shockingly nihilistic yet are delivered with such concise logic they deal the final death blow to any lingering ideals poor Martins might have left.

The general consensus that Welles steals the show during his few on screen appearances is so true it is an understatement.  Welles is charismatic to the point of hypnotic as a manipulative sociopath who has every other character in the story seemingly addicted to him.

What I Didn't Like

There's really not much here to dislike, other than perhaps that Welles' appearances are so limited.  But of course because of the role he plays his appearances have to remain tantalizingly restricted.  So his scarcity ultimately only contributes to the film's overall mystery.

Most Memorable Scene:

As mentioned before, Welles' speech while he and the main character are perched high above the carnival is both disturbing and dementedly logical.  Delivered with a cool confidence and conviction, it not only defines Welles' character, it haunts Joseph Cotten's.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

HIGH NOON (1952)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Western

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Cast: Gary Cooper / Grace Kelly / Thomas Mitchell

Plot
Newly married Old West Sheriff Will Kane learns that his long banished rivals, the Miller Gang, are returning to town and intend to kill him and take over the town.  Unable to escape his sense of duty, he decides to confront the gang but finds the townspeople unwilling to support him as time runs out.

What I Liked

More than anyone else, Gary Cooper is responsible for the true greatness of this movie with his captivating performance as Kane, the honor-bound sheriff who refuses to abandon his town only to find they have abandoned him.  The resulting astonishment and perplexity on Cooper's face is convincing.  Indeed, thanks to Cooper's portrayal, it is Kane's emotional turmoil that is the most moving aspect of the movie.

The supporting cast, from gorgeous Grace Kelly, to young Henry Morgan and even younger Lloyd Bridges and Lee Van Cleef, to veterans like Lon Chaney Jr. all also excel in their roles.  The acting overall is natural and often understated, helping to make this film more of a character-driven drama than a standard shoot-'em-up Western.

What I Didn't Like

The reputation of this movie preceded itself and I knew the basic plot years before I ever sat down to watch it.  I expected to feel a real sense of foreboding as noon (the time of the Miller Gang's impending arrival) drew closer but this never happened.  I was left disappointed when that feeling never really set in.

Nor did any real feel for the villains of the story.  Most of the Miller Gang are shown as predominantly silent (if nefarious) figures standing around at a train station, looking appropriately dastardly as they wait on their leader, Frank.  When Frank finally shows, the final action sequence kicks in and the film draws to its predictable conclusion.  I'm left wondering what about this Frank character was so evil that his name alone could keep an entire town hostage.

Most Memorable Scene:

Although it is the human drama which sets this film apart from most westerns of the period, the final minutes of the movie feature some tense action.  My personal favorite occurs when Kane ducks into a barn as two of his rivals wait outside and try to figure a way to catch him.  The cat-and-mouse use of strategy and cunning here is a more intriguing alternative to the standard Western showdown.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5 

THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Epic / War

Director: D.W. Griffith

Cast: Lillian Gish / Mae Marsh / Henry B. Walthall

Plot

Two families, the Northern Stonemans and the Southern Camerons, are thrown into the political turmoil surrounding the Civil War and Reconstruction.  After war takes its toll, the Camerons find themselves accosted by the changes in Southern society, most notably the recently emancipated former slaves who terrorize their former masters.

What I Liked

Of course, considering its subject matter and notorious racism, the only thing to admire about this film is its director's pioneering techniques and so this is what I tried to pay attention to the most.  An impossible task, but I did my best.  There are moments where Griffith's innovations are obvious.  For example, when the camera moves with a character, rather than sits still while the action goes on around it.  There is also the cutting from interior rooms to exteriors and from one scene to another and back as a means of explaining what is happening simultaneously in the story.  These are today standard methods that the modern viewer takes for granted and does not even notice.  But storytelling through film was brand new in Griffith's day and thus he invented much of what is now the commonly accepted visual language of the medium.  For that alone, “The Birth of a Nation” will and should always be revered.

What I Didn't Like

It's a shame that such innovation had to accompany a disgraceful story laced with despicable stereotypes and misrepresentations of history.  What more can be said about the abomination that is the plot of this story than to present the facts.  The founders of the Ku Klux Klan are the heroes of this tale while all of the black people of the film are presented as ungrateful, slovenly, lascivious, traitorous, and stupid.  It is of course shocking to watch but in a way essential as well.  For its importance is not only in Griffith's technical breakthroughs but in its candid representation of the generally condoned bigotry that still pervaded all levels of American society in the early 20^th Century.

Most Memorable Scene

The scene that continually comes back to me, for all the wrong reasons, follows the arrival of carpetbaggers in the South and their promotion of suffrage for blacks.  Black men are elected to key government posts and, in the context of the film anyway, run amok.  The viewer is treated to astonishing depictions of African American congressmen munching away on fried chicken, sitting with their bare feet up on their desks, and sneaking liquor.  Every moment represents preposterously racist propaganda at its most hateful.

My Rating: 2 out of 5 

DIE HARD (1988)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action

Director: John McTiernan

Cast: Bruce Willis / Alan Rickman / Bonnie Bedelia

Plot

New York cop John McClane visits Los Angeles for Christmas, only to be trapped (along with his estranged wife and her coworkers) inside a building taken hostage by high-tech thieves.

What I Liked

It's the 1980s.  The era of the blockbusters.  Big budget fantasies and adventures like the Star Wars, Superman, and Terminator series either began or continued in that decade and they dominated the box office.  The heroes of these films were larger than life, sometimes invincible, and often from another planet or time.  Then along comes John McClane, a tough-talking New York cop who isn't looking to save the world or defeat an evil empire.  All the guy wants to do is patch things up with his estranged wife.  When the bad guys show up, does he go charging heroically in with no regard for his own safety?  Hardly.  The whole film all McClane is really looking to do is get the hell out of the building and call the police.  Sure he pulls off a few death-defying stunts, gets out of impossible situations with preposterous luck, and endures disabling injuries to somehow emerge victorious.  Hey, at least our hero can be injured.  The bullets don't bounce off of him, nor do the bullet holes heal themselves.  John McClane bleeds.  A lot.  In short, “Die Hard” must have been a welcome change of pace, a bit subversive even, considering the action/adventure company it kept in that decade.

Without any super powers, space ships, or futuristic weaponry, the movie still manages to prove itself enjoyable from the first frame to the last.  The action is both brutal and suspenseful, the macho dialogue fun, and the characters every bit as likable or hateable as the filmmakers intended them to be.

With its witty banter, blood-soaked violence, and everyman hero, “Die Hard” seems to even predict the bloodier, grittier, lower-budget trends that directors like Quentin Tarrantino and Robert Rodriguez would exemplify in the action films of the next decade. 

What I Didn't Like

As fresh as the movie might have seemed in 1988, that doesn't mean that it still doesn't rely on some boring conventions.  This is most noticeable in the characters not named John McClane.  Most of the cold but calculating villains have German accents, surprise surprise; the police and feds are clueless buffoons too focused on bureaucracy and protocol to do anything but cause more problems; and the TV reporter is a soulless weasel.  Not exactly creative stuff there, but the screenwriters weren't going for “Citizen Kane.”  They were writing an escapist popcorn flick complete with time-tested, stock characters.

Most Memorable Scene
*spoiler alert!*

While the multiple scenes featuring walkie talkie communicated dialogue between McClane and arch-villain Hans Gruber are the most enjoyable moments of the film overall, if one scene has to be picked for memorability it must be Gruber's plummet down Nakatomi tower.  Shot from the point of view of McClane, the camera captures Gruber's descent from the top floor to the ground and it looks so frighteningly real the heart can't help but jump with a reflexive adrenaline rush.  In the era of CGI and gimmicky 3D the modern moviegoer is desensitized to most visual effects.  Yet this scene, now more than 20 years old, remains chilling.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5