DOWNFALL (2004)

A.K.A.: Der Untergang

Country: Germany

Genre(s): Drama / War

Director: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Cast: Bruno Ganz / Alexandra Maria Lara / Juliane Kohler

Plot

As the Soviet army invades Berlin, Adolf Hitler and his inner circle live out the final days of Nazi rule in an underground bunker.

What I Liked

With intriguing real-life characters, engaging performances, immaculate production values, and controversial subject matter, “Downfall” is one of the most fascinating dramas I’ve seen.  It takes a lot of skill, talent, and daring to make sympathetic characters of the Nazis in a major motion picture.  Yet the makers of “Downfall” do so quite effectively without ignoring or excusing the evils for which Adolf Hitler and his followers were responsible.  What the film does is give us the German people who, excepting for Hitler and some of his most ardent followers, were simply men and women swept up in history.  Some of them despise the Nazis but have no choice but to follow them obediently in the face of possible execution; others are in love with the ideal German golden age Hitler sold them, brainwashed into fanaticism; others are simply doing what they see as their duty, serving their beloved country, regardless of who leads it; most tragically, others are simply children who, raised with Nazi ideals and knowing nothing else, are anxious to prove themselves worthy of those ideals.  All of them, from Hitler himself to his most ardent enemies, suffer heartbreaking trial and disaster during the the collapse of Nazi rule.

Too often films simply take the easy route of portraying the Nazis as some kind of comic book villains, pure evil without reason or context.  To do so is not just historically inaccurate, it is ignoring the very true danger of fascism, dictatorships, and extremist politics; that very real and very good people participate in such movements with no bad intentions whatsoever.  Most of the people who lived, worked, and served in Germany under Nazi rule (even some of those in Hitler’s inner circle) were just regular people whose lives were shattered not just by the rise of Nazism but also by its fall.  In short, this film gives what feels like the first real and honest depiction Berlin and its leadership, teetering on the precipice of crisis at the close of the Second World War. 

What I Didn’t Like

If it’s no small feat to make the Nazis sympathetic, then it’s a genuine miracle to portray their Fuehrer as a human and not the dastardly, simple-minded caricature of so many other movies.  So I preclude the criticism that is to follow by stating that I fully realize that Bruno Ganz’s portrayal of a multi-dimensional Adolf Hitler is one of the finest performances in film history y.  The problem is, that never once during the entire picture did I see Hitler as a man who could inspire millions.  Even in his most well-behaved moments, he seems a broken, grumpy, delusional old man full of loathing for himself and the rest of humanity.  Perhaps this is really what Hitler was like by this point (the story is based on the accounts of people who were actually there, after all).  But its seems to me that for the film to have made better sense, we could have seen at least glimpses of the fiery, straight-backed, demagogue who inspired a nation to willingly destroy itself.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

There are so many moments of this film that make the mind wonder at the fanaticism of the characters.   But perhaps none of them is more poignant than when Magda Goebbels murders her own children because she refuses to let them grow up in a world where Nazism doesn’t exist.  The heart just charges right into the throat in this crushing scene where the true tragedy of it all really sets in.  Of course we feel such heartache for these wholly innocent children, but, horror of horrors, we even feel for Mrs. Goebbels, the woman whose moral beliefs have been so badly distorted that she whole heartedly believes that nothing but terror and suffering will come to future generations after the fall of the Nazis.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

A TRIP TO THE MOON (1902)

A.K.A.: Le voyage dans la lune

Country: France

Genre(s): Adventure / Comedy / Fantasy / Sci-Fi

Director: George Melies

Cast: George Melies / Brunnet / Henri Delannoy

Plot

A team of astronomers board a rocket to the moon, where they encounter a race of hostile creatures.

What I Liked

With its fantastic set design and simple but entertaining story, “A Trip to the Moon” was a special effects extravaganza before special effects extravaganzas existed as a concept.  It must have been a completely awe-inspiring experience for those of the period who witnessed it.  It’s not surprising that director George Melies was a magician.  A magician’s talents for directing the eye and dazzling the imagination are on display throughout the film’s fourteen minute length.  More importantly, the film presents a very unique vision, a proto-surrealist take on the universe and its mysteries that no doubt amazed audiences but also sets the film apart as work of original art in a time when many thought motion pictures a medium of ignorance or a fad.  The gorgeous set pieces, the whimsical backdrops, and outrageous events all contribute to a movie that remains distinctive, unforgettable, and essential to this day.  It is truly the work of creative genius.

What I Didn’t Like

I have to say the villains of the story (some acrobatic moon men) were unimpressively easy to kill, even if the deaths themselves were groundbreaking feats of special effects.  The conclusion was also disappointingly abrupt, but certainly a necessity for the budget and technology constraints of the era.  Other than that, what’s not to like about this wonderfully entertaining bit of film history?

Most Memorable Scene

What else? The scene where the rocket arrives on the moon and lodges itself directly into the eye of a none too amused Man in the Moon’s face is one of the most iconic scenes in cinema history, certainly the part of the film that has never been forgotten by anyone who has ever witnessed it.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THE BICYCLE THIEF (1948)

A.K.A.: Ladri di biciclette

Country: Italy

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Vittoria De Sica

Cast: Lamberto Maggiorani / Enzo Staiola / Lianella Carell

Plot

After his bicycle is stolen, Antonio Ricci knows he will not be able to keep his job unless he finds it.  So he and his young son spend two days searching the streets of Rome in hopes of getting the bike back.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert!*

One definition of poetry that I happen to subscribe to is that it says as much as possible with as few words as possible.  “The Bicycle Thief” is poetry.

Movies do not need to be on an epic scale to move an audience.  As soulful and painful as any movie that’s been made, this film proves that in nearly every scene.  Here is an extraordinarily moving movie about everyday people for whom everyday circumstances are matters of great, even grave, importance.  Certainly there are plenty of movies out there about ordinary people who get caught up in  historic events that prove momentous for a great many people.  But, outside of being people of their time and place, the Ricci family in this film is not a part of history; indeed history and society are entirely ambivalent to the fact of the Riccis and their bicycle.  For the Riccis, however, recovering the missing bike could mean the difference between getting by and starvation.

One simply must root for Antonio Ricci, the father looking for any opportunity to find work and keep his wife and child fed.  Indeed the emotions go far beyond rooting for Antonio.  The heart breaks for the poor man when he finally gets a new job and, on his first day, after pawning the bed sheets for a bicycle (a prerequisite for the job), the bike is stolen on his first day at work.  If the heart breaks at that moment, it is slowly bled out as we witness the desperate search Antonio and son Bruno mount in an attempt to recover the bike.  The relationship between father and son isn’t a sentimental one, nor does it take the easy route on relying upon nostalgia from the audience.  This is a father and child out on the streets out of necessity, their hopes in a torturous cycle of death, rebirth, and death again.  It is a hard, uncaring city they are wandering through, as hard as the nagging truth that all the love they feel for each other will not put food in their bellies tomorrow.

      

     

What I Didn’t Like

*spoiler alert!*

There’s nothing I did not like, but I will say this movie doesn’t always conjure up enjoyable emotions.  It is certainly a work of beauty, but not the kind of beauty that is digestible by every taste.  Don’t look for happy endings or validation of traditional morality here.  You won’t find it.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert!*

As I indicated before, there are many scenes in this film that are devastatingly poignant.  There are still others that are masterfully directed to play with the audience’s expectations and preconceptions.  As artfully done as this film is the whole way through, the power of the scenes only increases as it progresses.  The final moments of the film, when the proud Antonio Ricci is finally broken before his son’s eyes, will never fully let go of your heart and mind once it’s been seen.  It’s about as haunting in every sense as anything that’s ever been filmed.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

DIRTY HARRY (1971)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Crime

Director: John Siegel

Cast: Clint Eastwood / Andrew Robinson / Reni Stantoni

Plot

Ignoring the legal red tape and politics, San Francisco Detective Harry Callahan makes it his personal mission to bring a serial killing sniper to justice.

What I Liked

I’ve found “Dirty Harry” to be a difficult movie to write about.  So much about it is definitive about the modern police action film that it is hard to separate it from the constant parodies that followed.  It therefore becomes hard to separate what I like about this movie from what I didn’t like.  Clint Eastwood’s Harry Callahan is a tough-guy cop out to exact violent justice, ignoring legal constraints and political correctness along the way.  Callahan is a man of action, while most of his colleagues in law enforcement and government are worthless men of words; intellectuals and politicians.  The villain is an exact foil for Callahan.  He is an effeminate coward who hides behind the ransom letters he sends to the police and the castrated legal system that prevents his capture.  Even in the 1970s these were clichés.  Similar themes already pervaded cop films like 1968’s “Bullitt” and the entire Western genre.

What makes “Dirty Harry” stand out is the execution.  As action entertainment, the movie as a whole leaves little to be desired.  Eastwood is perfect in every way as Callahan.  So perfect there’s nothing really to comment on in his performance except that he is “tough-guy cop out to exact violent justice” personified.  The directing, camera work, and scripting keep the film moving forward at a steadily entertaining pace.  Meanwhile the story moves Callahan smoothly between the scummy streets and luxurious sky scrapers of San Francisco, accentuating the two worlds in which Callahan operates and at the same time keeping the scenery and suspense fresh.

What I Didn’t Like

As mentioned earlier, it is difficult to not view some of the positives of the film as also being representative of shortcomings; namely, the aforementioned clichés.  Likewise, the perfect casting of Eastwood as Callahan can also be viewed as typecasting in terms of the actor’s range.  Callahan could arguably be viewed as a modern version of the Man With No Name character Eastwood played in the 1960s Spaghetti Westerns of Sergio Leone.

Most Memorable Scene

What else? “I know what you’re thinking. ‘ Did he fire six shots or only five?’ Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement kind of lost track myself.  But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you’ve got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky?  Well, do ya, punk?”  Macho monologues don’t get any better.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

THE BLUE ANGEL (1930)

A.K.A.: Der blaue Engel

Country: Germany

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Josef von Sternberg

Cast: Emil Jannings / Marlene Dietrich / Kurt Gerron

Plot

An ulta-conservative college professor falls for the wiles of a burlesque performer and allows himself to suffer one humiliation after another as his fascination becomes obsession.

What I Liked

“The Blue Angel” features Marlene Dietrich in a star making performance as one of the screen’s first femme fatales.  She is sultry, cruel, mysterious, and risqué as nightclub dancer and singer Lola.  No matter what the setting, she is a living spotlight, the viewer’s eye uncontrollably following her wherever she goes.  As Professor Rath, the man obsessed with her (and a foil for her character), Emil Jannings is also compelling.  His performance is certainly more cartoonish than Dietrich’s, but the Professor’s physical and emotional transformation through the film embodies the films entire plot really.  So though Dietrich carries the sex appeal of the film on her shoulders, it is Jannings who carries the story on his.

From a visual perspective, everything in this movie feels intensely claustrophobic.  From the tiny room in which the professor lives to the narrow alleyways he traverses to get to the night club (The titular Blue Angel), to the stuffy rooms and stage of the club.  Perhaps this was out of necessity because of the camera technology available at the time or perhaps it was an intentional creation by the filmmakers, but this claustrophobia somehow adds to the overall tragedy of the story.  The characters are constantly either jam-packed in tiny rooms or, in the case of the Professor, alone.  Thus a great sense of squalor and despair pervades the entire viewing experience.

What I Disliked

At first it was very hard to figure out of this movie was meant to be comic or tragic.  By the film’s conclusion there’s no doubt that the film is a tragedy, but in the beginning Jannings’ performance is so emotional and his character’s submission to Lola so great that his pathetic status is disconcertingly funny.  Call me sadistic, but I just felt it was all so intense that it bordered on absurd.  As the story progresses and the events get dramatically darker, anything that could possibly be funny is cast away for pure misery.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

Professor Rath’s final status as a stage clown, make-up and all, is a haunting image.  He is emotionally crippled, his body ragged, and his mind clouded by self-loathing and despondency.  He wanders through the final scenes as though he were a zombie, barely uttering anything but bestial cries, shuffling his feet, and morally beyond redemption.  It is a lingering image of a total fall from grace.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

THE GHOST AND MRS. MUIR (1947)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Fantasy / Romance

Director: Joseph Makiewicz

Cast: Gene Tierney / Rex Harrison / George Sanders

Plot

An English widow moves into a house haunted by the ghost of a dead sea captain.  After the pair become friends, the relationship is threatened by the arrival of a suitor into the woman’s life.

What I Liked

What impressed me most about “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” was the cinematography.  It may not be blatantly spectacular, but it is subtle and dexterous.  Many of the interior shots capture the movement of characters by following them fluidly; for example, rising through the air and crossing over a balcony as the characters themselves climb a staircase.  These movements by the camera are so smooth and gliding they give the sense of a ghostlike presence that is obviously appropriate considering the title and story.  At other moments there are slow and slight zooms to follow a character or well-timed close-ups to make a scene more poignant.  The closing of the film features several moody scenes of the seaside, its cliffs, the waves, and the beach.  These are meant to show the passage of time, but they possess a dark and eerie feel that really might be the most disturbing moments of an otherwise unfrightening film.

What I Didn’t Like

I know that the movie was based on a novel, but it feels more like it should have been a Victorian play all along.  It certainly wouldn’t have been difficult to produce as a play.  Much of the film takes place within the confines of a few rooms and there’s nothing wrong with that, but unfortunately the script is badly dated.  I found the characters mostly one-dimensional and the dialogue preposterously melodramatic.  All in all, despite the relatively unusual plot, the writing is superficial and cumbersome.  I got the feeling that, had this film not been in the hands of a talented director like Joseph Mankiewicz (also responsible for classics like “All About Eve” and “Guys and Dolls”), it would not have deserved consideration as a film classic.  It’s regretful that Mankiewicz, a talented screenwriter as well, wasn’t given control of the script instead of one Philip Dunne.

Readers should be forwarned that “The Ghost and Mrs. Muir” is not scary, nor is it intended to be.  I knew this going in, but I thought it might be worthwhile to avoid any confusion for others who might not get what they expect from the title.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

Though this is no horror movie, it is still a ghost tale of sorts.  And the final shot of Mrs. Muir, now herself a ghost, walking out of the house into the mists of eternity arm-in-arm with Captain Gregg, is really the most haunting moment of the film.  It isn’t hard to predict this ending to the plot, but when it does inevitably come it does so with a simplicity, grace, and dark beauty that brings the film to a satisfying close.

My Rating 2.5 out of 5

DUCK SOUP (1933)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Musical

Director: Leo McCary

Cast: Groucho Marx / Harpo Marx / Chico Marx

Plot

The bankrupt nation of Freedonia names irresponsible and sarcastic Rufus T. Firefly as its latest dictator and he proceeds to lead them into war with Sylvania.

What I Liked

Matching well-rehearsed physical routines with hilarious one-liners, the Marx brothers create some of the most copied comedy moments in motion picture history in “Duck Soup.”  Delivering laughs at a frenetic pace, the movie is jam-packed with laughs of every kind.  There are the low brow fat jokes and slapstick; the staccato banter; Harpo’s absurd props; the wonderfully coreographed site gags; the parody of the movie musicals that were so popular in the ‘30s; and, most important to the film’s lasting legacy, the subversive but timely satire of nationalism and dictatorships.  There’s such variety, in fact, that it’s hard to imagine that someone will enjoy every single moment of “Duck Soup,” but certainly everyone can find something in it somewhere to make them laugh.  Few comedies can live up to that.

What I Didn’t Like

The frenetic pace I mentioned earlier can almost feel like an assault at times.  The jokes sometimes come in such a relentless barrage that one is bound to miss multiple laughs on the first viewing.  The level of concentration needed just to take it all in can be headache inducing.  What some would call zany could be called obnoxious by others, but for some that’s what is so endearing about the Marx brothers.  It’s a trademark of sorts.

Most Memorable Scene

As mentioned before there are multiple moments in the film that will be familiar even to a first time viewer simply because so many later films appropriated the comedy routines in this film as their own.  This is most true of the scene in which Harpo, dressed as Groucho, mimics his every move in a doorway to try and convince Groucho that he’s looking into a mirror.  It’s not the funniest moment of the film (that would be reserved for some of the tremendous one-liners uttered by Groucho and Chico), but it’s close and it is certainly the most artfully developed and enduring moment of the film.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

RAN (1985)

A.K.A.: Revolt

Country: Japan

Genre(s): Action / Drama / Epic / War

Director: Akira Kurasawa

Cast: Tatsuya Nakadai / Mieko Harada / Jiro Masatora Ichimonji

Plot

When an elderly Japanese warlord bequeaths his territories and powers to his eldest son, he unwittingly sets off a series of events that lead to betrayal, assassination, madness, and war.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

Taking Shakespeare’s “King Lear” as his inspiration, Japan’s most revered director, Akira Kurasawa, takes samurai war epics to mythic proportions.  None of it feels historically accurate and it is full of familiar archetypes, but it does have the power of universal truth behind its story.

Ran” is a visual masterpiece of the first order.  The colors are vibrant, the scenery awe inspiring.  Elegance pervades every scene, even the battles, which are shot in vibrant color and with stylish choreography usually reserved for the best musicals.  Many of its most violent and terrible moments are accompanied not by gruesome sounds but by immaculate silence, a choice that renders these scenes beautiful while somehow simultaneously accentuating the terror and waste of war.

Indeed, much of “Ran” seems to be fascinated with waste.  Not just waste in war, but with how many of its characters seem to have wasted their lives, particularly Lord Ichimonji, who has brought terror upon his realm for generations and is now paying the spiritual and physical prices for his actions.  Still others have wasted their lives in pursuit of power or revenge.  The film’s closing moments bring to the forefront just how much has been lost, never to be regained, and all for purposes that ultimately prove either unattainable, unsatisfactory, or unfathomable.  This blind, almost instinctual, pursuit of tragedy on the part of every character makes the film increasingly more fascinating as the story develops from its simple, quiet beginning to its inevitable, catastrophic conclusion.

What I Didn’t Like

Says the book on which I have based this project, “Of the 1001 films one must see before dying, Ran is certainly in the top ten.”  As much as I admire the film, I can’t bring myself to agree with that statement.  If there is a flaw, it is in character development.  Only two of the film’s roles, that of Lord Ichimonji and of Lady Kaede (played to perfection by Mieko Harada), have any sort of depth to them.  The rest of the main characters are either without personality or are nothing more than archetypes undeveloped beyond the necessity of their part in the story.  The filmmakers seem to have sacrificed opportunities for developing a more personal story to pursue mythic proportions and epic grandeur.  Again the characters of Ichimonji and Kaede are exceptions.  Their characters, while certainly having many moments of exaggerated melodrama, also have moments of subtle, barely contained fury that help make the film all the more interesting.  Too bad the same complexity couldn’t be given to other characters.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

There are plenty of moments in “Ran” that amaze the eye.  I’ve already written about the stunning battle scenes, which are masterpieces.  But perhaps the most moving moment of the film comes when Lord Ichimonji loses the one son who can provide any hope for the future of the country.  Here everything that has happened before reaches its result and the audience is left, like Ichimonji himself, with a few final moments to reflect on the meaninglessness of it all.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THE DEPARTED (2006)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime / Drama

Director: Martin Scorsese

Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio / Matt Damon / Jack Nicholson

Plot

A Massachusetts State Policeman goes undercover inside Boston’s Irish mob in order to bring down boss Frank Costello.  Meanwhile, one of Costello’s own men infiltrates the police.  As both men get closer to discovering the other’s identity, the body count rises.

What I Liked

Martin Scrocese’s talent at directing gangster/crime films has not been a matter of debate since the 1970s, and “The Departed” does no disservice to that reputation.  Scorsese does an incredible job of slowly building the tension and balancing several characters well enough to make them all interesting.  Before I first saw this film, I remember being apprehensive about the potential for the film’s star power (DiCaprio, Nicholson, Damon, Wahlberg, Sheen, Baldwin) to outshine my ability to relate its characters, plot, and realism of the experience.  I should have known better.  Most of these actors are so good at what they do and their director so experienced at this dilemma that one has no problem being drawn into the fun and drama of it all.

What I Didn’t Like

When the film first came out, most people who saw the movie ranted about how great Wahlberg was in the movie.  I disagree.  While the character has some spectacular lines that bring some fire and fun to the script, that is to the credit of scriptwriter William Monahan, not Wahlberg.  The actor seems frightened to take on roles outside of his tough guy comfort zone.  He was the only major role in the film that I saw as an actor, not as a character.

I’ll ignore some of the ridiculous coincidences of the story (most notably the fact that both of the main characters are in relationships with the same woman) because in general they help accentuate the differences, similarities, and dramas of the cop world, the underworld, and the areas where they intersect. Those coincidences are the source of a great deal of the film’s important structure and the basis for several of the film’s key suspenseful moments, even if they’re laughably improbable.

Most Memorable Scene:

*spoiler alert*

Like many of Scorsese’s best movies, nearly every scene feels essential and classic.  This one is full of so many remarkable, unforgettable moments that it is difficult to narrow to just one, so I’ll have to go the route of picking two.

The first is a tense conversation between Nicholson’s Frank Costello and DiCaprio's Bill Costigan.  Costello smells a rat in his outfit and has called Costigan in to confront him to answer for some suspicious behavior.  In a fascinating, heart-pounding meeting of two immovable wills, it is Costigan who wins, convincing Costello that he is not the informant.  For me, though, even if DiCaprio’s character who won the fictional showdown, it was Nicholson who stole the scene.  The man’s star power and acting ability are spellbinding, making him the perfect man to play the role of the charismatic, unhinged, and entirely unpredictable Costello.  Thanks in part to the script and director, but mostly to Nicholson, the scene is fraught with an anything-can-happen-at-any-moment tension that never lets up even to the very end.  The history of gangster movies is jam-packed with classic confrontational dialogue of the first order, but this scene has to rank among the most enthralling ever, regardless of genre.

The second scene I chose for its sheer shock value.  The film takes an abrupt, bloody turn in a split second when Costigan is surprisingly murdered just as it seems he’s finally gotten control of his situation.  At the beginning of the second we’re admiring his apparent triumph.  Before that second is over, he’s a bloody mess on the floor of an elevator.  If the above mentioned scene between DiCaprio and Nicholson hinted at the plots unpredictability, Costigan’s death proved it.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Drama / Sci-Fi

Director: Nicolas Roeg

Cast: David Bowie / Rip Torn / Candy Clark

Plot

An alien arrives on Earth and, pretending to be human, seeks to collect water to save his dying planet.  Instead, he quickly becomes a corporate and media power, seduced by the material temptations of Western culture.

What I Liked

I can say with certainty that “The Man Who Fell to Earth” is very unlike any other movie I have seen to this point. The movie’s slow pace, mixed with the unexpected shifts in time and place, bring an eerie, otherworldly feel to the viewing experience.  David Bowie’s own innate strangeness further contributes to this impression, making his inclusion as the alien Thomas Jerome Newton perfect.

In several ways, “The Man Who Fell to Earth” is a departure from the science fiction genre, particularly pre-1970s sci-fi.  Its focus is on planet Earth, on the humanity of its characters (including Newton) and it largely ignores common sci-fi themes like invasion, war, or advanced technology.  While the fact that Newton is an alien being does play a significant factor in the overall character relationships and themes, those conflicts could have been easily played out in different ways had he not been from another planet, making the most important sci-fi element almost incidental.  The film therefore attempts to delve deeper into universal truths than the limitations of genre (as the best genre films do).

What I Didn’t Like

That a film is unusual and ambitious, doesn’t mean it is successful entertainment.  To be honest, I didn’t find this film interesting or emotionally engaging on any level.  It’s the first film I’ve watched on this project since the epically long silent film “Intolerance” that I found a chore to complete.  For the most part “The Man Who Fell to Earth” is dull.  Even the many and gratuitous sex scenes, equipped with full front nudity, are pretty hokey.  I could go on, but I’d basically just be repeating myself.  “The Man Who Fell to Earth” is distinctive but it’s not worth watching.

Most Memorable Scene

At points throughout the film, Newton flashes back to memories of his miserable life back on his home planet.  These scenes are sad and strange enough to stand out as the most memorable moments of the film.  So maybe I’m contradicting my prior statements that the film is not defined by its science fiction characteristics by identifying the alien planet scenes as the definitive moments.  The fact is they do stand out for how creepy, weird, and terribly low budget they are. 

My Rating: 2 out of 5

VIDEODROME (1983)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Horror / Sci-Fi

Director: David Cronenberg

Cast: James Woods / Deborah Harry / Peter Dvorsk

Plot

Max Renn, an executive for a struggling TV station, becomes fascinated by strange video tapes containing films of torture and murder.  As his obsession blurs his ability to separate his own sadomasochistic fantasies from reality, Renn goes on a quest to uncover the source of these videos.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert!*

“Videodrome” obviously intends to say a lot about a great many things: entertainment, art, television, sexuality, violence, pornography, modernity, psychology, addiction, society, technology, capitalism, religion, morality and the ways in which they’re all related.  Whether or not it ever got to (or intended to have) a definitive point is debatable, but writer/director David Cronenberg certainly wasn’t lacking for ambition.  His movie may be a bizarre mish-mash of movie genres and topics, but it never ceases to be as fascinating as it is confounding.

Part of that fascination stems out of the steady but subtle introduction of the film’s stranger elements as the plot moves along.  At the point where Renn’s masochistic lover Nicki (played by Blondie’s Deborah Harry) disappears following a trip to audition for a part in a torture video, the movie feels like a standard 80s thriller.  Then the hallucinations set in, each more disturbing than the next.  By the film’s end we’ve got an international conspiracy to enslave the human mind, living televisions capable of orgasms, virtual reality helmets, and a main character with a gun for a hand and a giant vagina in his abdomen.  It’s all very unsettling stuff, but maybe that alone is Cronenberg’s point.  Man’s ever-increasing detachment and desensitization and all that.  Even if it isn’t his point, there’s certainly the feel that the filmmakers had a tremendous amount of fun making this none-too-subtle techno-sexual nightmare.  Meanwhile the audience, much like Renn, can’t stop watching no matter how much we want to.  After all, just like Renn, we are perpetually trying to figure out what the hell is going on!

What I Didn’t Like

The problem is, Renn seems to figure out what’s going on but the audience never does.  At least I didn’t.  Look, on a movie like this I understand we don’t want all the answers.  Wild, dark psychological thrillers aren’t supposed to wrap everything up nice and neat and leave us feeling good about the world.  Still, a hint at what exactly we just watched for an 87 minutes would be nice.

In case the above descriptions didn’t spell it out for you, this movie is certainly not to everybody’s taste.  Aside from the s&m, gore, and man-vaginas, there’s also a dark absurdist humor that wasn’t intended to appeal to everybody.  And if the humor wasn’t intended, I for one found a lot of it silly, so maybe there’s something wrong with me.  Anyway, in case it needs said again, if you’re into mainstream blockbusters, chick flicks, and feel-good stories – and there’s nothing wrong with that – I suggest avoiding this one.

Most Memorable Scene

I’d have to say watching James Woods lose the pistol he stuck inside of the giant vagina in his abdomen memorable.  Yeah.  Let’s go with that.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THE GOLD RUSH (1925)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Charlie Chaplin

Cast: Charlie Chaplin / Mack Swain / Georgia Hale

Plot

Charlie Chaplin’s iconic Tramp wanders through the Alaskan wilderness in search of gold, love, and friendship.

What I Liked

“The Gold Rush” features perhaps the greatest collection of physical gags of any of Chaplin’s films (Though I freely admit I have not seen them all as of yet).  He may not be quite the purveyor of gut-busting physical feats as a Buster Keaton, but an artist like Chaplin surpasses Keaton (and almost any other filmmaker, silent or otherwise) for creative genius. Indeed many of this movie’s scenes are so well done as to be definitive.  Much of the humorous jokes are familiar even to people who have never seen it before for the simple fact that they have been imitated so very often in everything from commercials to cartoons to major films.  One wonders what Looney Tunes writers would have done for a living if they hadn’t had Chaplin’s films to steal from.

The impressive visuals don’t simply stop at the humorous, either.  There are tremendous settings, filmed in part on location in the mountains around Truckee, California (site of the Donner Party incident) and in part on a Hollywood back-lot.  The scenes with snow storms in particular are pretty astounding, both for the amusing happenings and the frightening realism of the storm and the violence that accompanies it. It’s no wonder this was the most expensive film of the silent era.

With this film Chaplin once again shows himself a master at taking elements that should be downright scary, disturbing, or sad and transforms them into a wonderful blend of the light-hearted, magical and funny.

What I Didn’t Like

This is a Charlie Chaplin film.  There’s nothing to dislike, as far as I’m concerned.  The man was a successful perfectionist as an entertainer.  However, some might be surprised at the film’s violence and themes of this pre-code film.  Two men are shot to death in the early part of the film and there are multiple allusions to starvation and cannibalism.  Chaplin was apparently familiar with and interested in the story of the Donner Party and it in part inspired the more disconcerting components to “The Gold Rush."

Most Memorable Scene:

As the Tramp fantasizes about a New Years Eve dinner party with three female friends, he proceeds to entertain his imagined guests with what he calls “The Oceanic Roll.”  Sticking two forks into two rolls to resemble legs and feet, he performs a little dance at the table.  It’s a simple, face-on, level shot with a single man performing an amusing joke with nothing but the items at his immediate disposal.  In another’s hands, the scene shouldn’t be anything special.  In Chaplin it’s fine art.  Beautiful.  Elegant.  Funny.  Heart-breaking.  There are many terrific, classic moments in cinema history.  I can’t imagine one that can beat this one for one out for pure magic

If all of American film was somehow about to be wiped out and I could only save a handful of moments, this one would without a doubt rank among them. 

My Rating: 5 out of 5

PERSONA (1966)

Country: Sweden

Genre(s): Art Film / Drama

Director: Ingmar Bergman

Cast: Bibi Andersson / Liv Ullmann / Margaretha Krook

 

Plot

Following a nervous breakdown, an actress is accompanied by her nurse to a secluded cottage to recover.  The women develop an intense psychological connection that leads to personal turmoil.

What I Liked

“Persona” delves very deeply into some of the themes I love in literature and film, the subconscious, psychological control, language, perception versus truth, and individual desires versus cultural expectations.  Some of these motifs are covered so overtly that it is shocking.  Others are developed with deft subtlety.

The part of the story I found most intriguing was the changes that occur in the relationship between the two main characters after they arrive at the seaside cottage.  The women at first find common ground in that they are both trying to make sense of their own roles in the world, conflicted by their own selfish desires and the moral challenges society has set before them.  They both feel guilty over past decisions; not because they personally regret what they did, but because societal mores disapprove of their actions.  These similarities form a sort of psychological intersection symbolized by some clever camera work and a bedroom encounter (possibly fantasized) that turns the relationship upside down.  At first Alma, the nurse, seems to be the holder of power as the talkative and expressive caregiver, while Elisabet, the patient, seems closed-off and fragile. These impressions are steadily revealed as false as time passes.  For a time it seems that each character gets lost, confusing herself for the other.  Once they separate again, the transformation is complete.  Alma is rendered first vulnerable, then desperate, and is finally emotionally and psychologically shattered by the more confident and manipulative Elisabet.

Director Bergman uses a whole arsenal of techniques to illustrate the events happening inside the minds of Alma and Elisabet.  The film opens with disjointed, fractured, and horrific imagery that makes only a little more sense by the time it concludes.  These seem to represent the terrors hidden beneath of the surface of each woman’s public persona.  As the story moves along there are several moments where both women’s images are melded together either candidly or subtlety to illustrate the emotional melding occurring between them.  The climactic scene is played out twice, once from an angle showing Elisabet’s face and then from the more telling angle showing Alma’s.

What I Didn’t Like

This film has little to no ‘action,’ depending upon one’s definition of the word.  In case it wasn’t inferred above, most of the events of the film are internal, their effects displayed mainly in facial expressions, dialogue, and camerawork.

The splicing of strange elements into the more conventional story can be seen as pretentious.  They certainly aren’t as interesting as Berman probably thought they would be, but, as mentioned before, they do make slightly more sense as the film draws toward its conclusion.

Most Memorable Scene:

The climax of the film comes when Alma tries to confront Elisabet and attack her verbally by going into Elisabet’s past.  Instead Alma is the one who is left broken by the scene’s close.  Shown twice from two different angles, it’s an excellent summary of the entire film itself.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

STRICTLY BALLROOM (1992)

Country: Australia

Genre(s): Comedy / Romance

Director: Baz Luhrmann

Cast: Paul Mercurio / Tara Morice / Bill Hunter

Plot

Star dancer Scott offends the conservative ballroom dancing community by inventing his own steps and taking on mousy novice Fran as his dance partner.  When a romance blooms between Scott and Fran, the young man must choose between his past ambitions and his new love.

What I Liked

Director Baz Luhrmann has an idiosyncratic talent for blending the flagrant with the elegant.  As is the case with so many of his films, “Strictly Ballroom” features a collage-like hodgepodge of rapid-cutting, extreme camera angles, obscene close-ups, garish colors, and bursts of noise.  However, there are also moments of moving intimacy and graceful art.  The superbly choreographed dance sequences (and the accompanying camerawork) are the highlight of the latter approach.  As can be inferred from the title, these are the focus of the film’s plot but they also serve as much needed breaks from the frenetic grotesquery of most of the rest of the film.  Luhrmann certainly can’t be accused of ever being too subtle, even in the more subdued scenes of this film.  For even the dance numbers are vibrantly colorful and beautifully flamboyant.  Like his main character, Luhrmann clearly has little care for following convention or calming his audience; his focus is on individualism, excitement, and spectacle, all of which he achieves.

What I Didn’t Like

Despite all of what I said above, I’ve never been particularly fond of the Luhrmann films I’ve seen previous to this, and this film did not change my mind.  He may indeed be a master of stunning visuals, but his lack of self-restraint makes for a disorienting and sometimes aggravating finished product.  The first twenty minutes or so of the film were so over-the-top on the close-up camera shots, ridiculous wigs, grotesque make-up, and obnoxious voices that I was considering cutting the movie off for being just plain idiotic.  I stuck around purely out of my desire to continue with my goal of seeing all of the 1001 movies listed.  Luckily later scenes redeemed the movie by toning down the ferocity a bit.

Most Memorable Scene

Luhrmann briefly finds a satisfying balance between his more confrontational style and the more traditional approach when Scott begins to take dancing lessons from Fran’s father.  As her family learns to respect the young outsider, Scott rediscovers his passion for dance.  The characters’ movements are passionate and boisterous while the warmth between the characters feels natural.  Combined with the simple setting and acoustic music, these moments convey pure joy straight to the viewer’s eyes, ears, and heart.  Simply put, these are by far, the most endearing moments of the film.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

PAPILLON (1973)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Adventure / Drama

Director: Franklin Schaffner

Cast: Steve McQueen / Dustin Hoffman / Woodrow Parfrey

Plot

Framed for murder, Papillon is sent to a prison island in French Guiana and along with his friend, Louis Dega, attempts escape, risking death to do so.

What I Liked

“Papillon” is at once an astonishing adventure and a moving drama of perseverance and friendship.  That it is based on a true story makes both aspects all the more powerful.  In the late 1960s and early 1970s there were several important movies that depicted the individual’s fight to survive against oppressive conformism.  Most of them are fiction and yet few of them once produce the astonishment and disbelief that “Papillon” does several times over.

Stars Steve McQueen and Dustin Hoffman accentuate the entertainment value with intimacy and soul, both turning in performances that rank among the best in their accomplished careers, at least so far as what I've seen of them.  As the events of the film take their toll on both characters, their personalities and their relationship change greatly, but the transformations happen with a believable subtlety.  The crippling physical changes in Papillon and Dega are obvious, but it’s the psychological and spiritual changes that really fascinate when looking at the men at the film’s start and comparing them with the same men by the conclusion.

The peripheral characters are another captivating aspect of the film.  Papillon and Dega meet a great many people in their years in prison camps and never once does one doubt that these would be the type of men one would meet in a living hell.

What I Didn’t Like

The “paradise” scenes where Papillon briefly finds peace and companionship when he is taken in by a tribe of natives seem contrived and preposterous.  If these moments are indeed recorded in Papillon’s autobiography (the film’s source material, which I admit I have not read) then I would still have to doubt that they happened as there seems to have been no other witnesses to these events but himself.  In addition they don’t really fit the feel or plot of the film.  It’s an unnecessary interlude that adds nothing to the film and could have been left out.  Luckily this vacation of sorts is brief and the film gets moving again quickly.

Most Memorable Scene:

*spoiler alert*

Papillon’s final, most dangerous escape attempt doesn’t just resolve the conflict, it provides a moving and fitting close to the friendship between Papillon and Dega and a spectacular visual stunt.  It’s the most astounding moment of an already amazing film.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

DRACULA (1931)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Horror

Director: Tod Browning

Cast: Bela Lugosi / Dwight Frye / Helen Chandler

Plot

 A Transylvanian vampire count moves to London, where he attempts to transform a wealthy doctor’s daughter into one of his vampire brides.

What I Liked

If ever there was an iconic performance in the history of horror film, it is Bela Lugosi as Count Dracula.  Lugosi’s vampire is simultaneously debonair and soulless.  He is not the bestial, rat-like vampire of earlier films but neither is he the tortured romantic anti-hero of later portrayals.  He is pure evil, uncompromising and complete, beneath a frighteningly thin veil of fine manners and dress.  In addition, the audience is convinced that Dracula is indeed dangerously powerful simply by his presence.  Though Lugosi participates in very little physical violence through the film, he is nonetheless intimidating in every scene in which he appears.

Dwight Frye, given the most overtly interesting character of the film (the trapped and tortured Renfield), is also excellent.  I first saw this movie as a kid and the scenes with the crazed and sniveling Renfield were the scenes that I remembered most.  At times frightening, at others pathetic, and at still others funny, Frye livens up a movie that could use some livening up.

What I Didn’t Like

“Dracula” is such a classic film and its title character such a well-known villain that one would expect this movie to be full of memorable action and suspense.  Instead the audiences is presented with very little spectacle, too much dialogue, hammy acting from a supporting cast, and not a single on-screen death.  There is some haunting ambiance, with howling wolves and some creepy set pieces, but on the whole the effects are hokey.  It’s all made that much worse with pacing that sucks the drama dry.  Thank god for Lugosi and Frye who are clearly what made his movie so frightening for audiences back in the 1930s.

Most Memorable Scene

My personal favorite scene is after the boat named Vesta arrives ashore in London carrying nothing but a dead crew, Dracula, and the insane Renfield.  We hear Renfield’s slow, raspy laugh and, as the police investigate the sound, they open a door to find Renfield standing at the bottom of a set of stairs.  He’s staring up at them with a crazed look on his face and that creepy laugh coming from somewhere deep in his chest.  For me, this was the most chilling moment of the film.  Probably because I think one of the worst things that can happen to you is to go insane and lose control of your own mind.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

HUD (1963)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Western

Director: Martin Ritt

Cast: Paul Newman / Melvyn Douglas / Brandon De Wilde

Plot

A family of Texas ranchers struggles amidst the selfish behavior of one of their own, the venomous but seductive Hud.

What I Liked

Well there’s no way around the fact that Paul Newman was a top flight talent with serious star power.  Casting him as the simultaneously fascinating and repulsive lead character in this film was probably not a stroke genius for whoever did so as much as it was a no brainer.  The film, like its title, is built around his character and his performance.  But the Hud character’s importance is very much related to how those around him see him, particularly the characters in the family, who are all interesting and moving on their own.  Perceiving Hud through his interactions with each of them, the audience – like his family – want desperately to like this handsome, charismatic, and rebellious wayward soul but ultimately find him pathetic, desperate, and hollow.  Not that the writing or acting is hollow – far from it.  It’s just that the character is written and acted well enough to evoke a wide range of emotions from the audience.  The acting in the film is convincing across the board, as a matter of fact.  Each character and his or her relationship with Hud seems natural, certainly believable.

What I Didn’t Like

The portrayal of the theme of a changing world was a bit heavy-handed in parts.  Particularly when embodied through the Homer Bannon character, who watches helplessly as his family, ranch, and belief system rot away.  Meanwhile the fiery and aimless Hud character can be compared with similar rebellious young misfits in 50s and 60s movies like “The Wild One,”  “Rebel Without a Cause” and (again with Newman) “Cool Hand Luke” that represented the rise of not only a new generation but new perspectives on American film and the American dream.  In some ways I admire all this.  The themes were certainly relevant in 1963.  But in other characters I felt these themes were too obvious, the approach to the subject lacking subtlety.

 Other than this, which is almost more praise than complaint, I am without criticism for this film.

Most Memorable Scene
*spoiler alert!*

 There are plenty of memorable scenes in this film thanks to some moving relationships between the central characters, but for me the final goodbye between Hud and Alma, the woman who worked as the family housekeeper and cook, was the most meaningful.  With the sexual tension that runs between the two through the whole film having come to an ugly climax the evening prior, both characters finally open up and discuss their mutual attraction and disgust.  Alma, already a likeable and interesting character, becomes nearly as tragic and moving as that of Hud himself just before she exits the film, leaving the audience just as desperate for more of her as the men she leaves behind will become.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

ALL ABOUT EVE (1951)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Joseph Mankiewicz

Cast: Bette Davis / Anne Baxter / George Sanders

Plot

A young and ambitious woman manipulates her way to the top of the theater world by deceiving and betraying an aging stage icon and her circle.

What I Liked

Full of sarcasm, irony, and metaphors, the dialogue overflows with so much wit it is literally unbelievable, but constantly entertaining.  Mankiewicz’s script, full of name-dropping, innuendos, and quips, gives the characters dialogue that real people would never use, but this was likely his intent.  The references and vocabulary accentuate the pretentions of many of the characters.  Thus the frilly dialogue is but a finely woven veil covering the ugly truth beneath it.

For the most part, the characters are rich and multi-dimensional.  Complicated psychological concepts are present in all of the main characters.  None more so than that of Margo, played magnificently by Bette Davis.  A mess of pretention, melodrama, and immaturity through much of the film, Margo is also sensitive, loving, and forthright in her unguarded moments.  Davis gives the character a larger-than-life impact while still making her feel like a natural, fragile, and very real person.

The whole film seems to be a more than two hour study of the different ways in which the surface impression can be very different from the underlying reality.  This depth fleshes out a rich, fascinating movie.

What I Didn’t Like

I prefer real dialogue that seems to be coming from real people because I feel more easily drawn into a film that way.  It was not easy for me to be drawn quickly into this film because the dialogue could not be uttered by anyone in a casual conversation without it seeming like they are indeed reciting lines from a 1950s or earlier film script.  But I was eventually drawn in, largely because of what I wrongly thought to be a flaw.

Also, the film is overlong.  The point of the plot was made well before the film reached its conclusion.  It seemed it could have ended a good 15 or 20 minutes earlier than it did.  Most unnecessary was the very final scene, which seemed so contrived and obvious it weakened the otherwise well-developed film.

Most Memorable Scene

I’d have to pick two.  The first has Margo lying in bed by herself, talking to her boyfriend on the phone.  With no one around, the otherwise loud and self-obsessed diva is quiet and vulnerable in a very convincing way thanks to Davis’s performance.  This was the first moment of the movie where I felt truly engaged and that the film had more to offer than your typical show business story.

The other is the party scene where a young Marilyn Monroe appears.  She doesn’t play a significant part in the plot, but she is visually the most vibrant element of the entire movie, not just with physical beauty but with a sultry allure that steals the scene even from Davis’s own formidable charisma.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

DEAD MAN (1995)

DEAD MAN (1995)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Adventure / Western

Director: Jim Jarmusch

Cast: Johnny Depp / Gary Farmer / Lance Henrikson

Plot

When an accountant journeys to the Western town of Machine in search of work, he finds himself accused of murder, shot, and on the run.  Assisted by a quirky Native American named Nobody, he travels through the wilderness as three bounty hunters pursue.

What I Like
*spoiler alert!*

“Dead Man” is clearly meant to be a film about a spiritual journey.  There are all kinds of metaphors one could read into this film which seems to make simplicity its guiding principle.  The most obvious could see the big factory that dominates Machine as Hell and tall, lanky, decrepit Robert Mitchum (the factory and town boss) as Satan; the three bounty hunters sent after the hero as demons; the Native American guide Nobody as an angel.  Which of course makes the hero’s travel out of Machine, through a seemingly endless wilderness, and finally to the sea as a metaphor for spiritual salvation.

That’s just one of many interpretations for a story that never really fleshes out beyond the skeleton of a plot.  As main character William Blake (not to be confused with the eighteenth and nineteenth century poet and artist who is referenced several times throughout the film) seems to be leaving a sort of Hell on a wandering journey through nature, where he encounters a variety of strange and sometimes dangerous characters, there is also a similarity between “Dead Man” and ancient epics like ‘The Odyssey.”

The filmmakers did an excellent job of accentuating the loneliness of the journey with the lifeless interior and exterior landscapes, black and white photography, and the grizzled characters.  Johnny Depp is excellent as Blake, whose personality slowly but steadily changes from befuddled, frightened business clerk to a world weary man of nature.  And Lance Henrikson is suitably menacing as the nastiest of the three bounty hunters (The man is a damn cannibal!).

What I Didn’t Like

Very little if any of “Dead Man” seems authentic and believable, though I’m not sure any of it was meant to be.  As mentioned above, the movie feels like it is one big metaphor and concerns about reality and historic accuracy clearly took a back seat on the priority list when it came to expressing that metaphor.  The guide Nobody seems completely contrived, particularly his background story.  The cameos from people like Gabriel Byrne, Billy Bob Thornton, and Iggy Pop don’t help either, as the scenes in which they appear feel like what they are: scenes written for a low budget, independent film with some well-known indie actors thrown in to give the movie a ‘cool’ factor.  Much of the dialogue and acting (Depp and Henrikson aside) feel like they’re not part of the Old West in any way but are just parts of a 1990s independent film that happened to have the Old West as a backdrop. The same could be said of Neil Young’s playing the electric guitar soundtrack, which, while sparse, is sometimes overly dramatic for the scene it accompanies. 

Worst of all, the film progresses very slowly and action is minimal.  I could not wait for the movie to draw to its eventual end, which was admittedly interesting to watch but also very anti-climactic.  When it finished, I was still wondering why this film deserved placement among the 1000 others in the book.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5