BOYZ N THE HOOD (1991)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime / Drama

Director: John Singleton

Cast: Cuba Gooding Jr. / Ice Cube / Laurence Fishburne

Plot

Three friends endure the trials and tragedies of growing up in South Central L.A.

What I Liked

“Boyz N the Hood” is not an easy movie to write about, primarily because it is one of those movies that everyone should see, rather than read about.  Prior to its release, most films documenting the African American ghetto experience came in the form of the often shallow or cartoonish Blaxploitation trend of the 1970s, which were primarly concerned with New York.  Thick with human tragedy and social relevance, “Boyz N the Hood” avoids the pitfalls of its predecessors by taking a thoughtful, mature approach to urban life.  The movie owes its all-important authenticity to writer-director John Singleton, who based most of it on his own experience.  By making his characters relatable and likeable, he made a movie that proved to be a breakthrough, spawning a spate of intelligent, well-made movies about crime in South Central.

One of those characters is played by a man who had previously been a different kind of documentarian of the same themes, rapper Ice Cube.  He is perfectly cast, displaying charisma and believability as Doughboy, the thug of the group.  Thanks to Ice Cube, Doughboy is actually more fascinating than even the film’s main character.

What I Didn’t Like

To play the character of Tre (basically a self-portrait), Singleton made a poor choice in Cuba Gooding, Jr.  For much of the movie, I just plain disliked Gooding.  He was too goofy and, next to Ice Cube, never seemed like he was truly part of the environment.  Tre’s outsider status is part of what makes the movie work.  Through him, the general public is cathartically brought into the alien landscape of South Central.  But that doesn’t mean Gooding needed to overact.  Maybe the main problem was that “Boyz N the Hood” wasn’t my first introduction to Gooding like it would have been for audiences at the time, and thus I always saw him as Cuba and not Tre.

Most Memorable Scene

In contrast to Gooding, Ice Cube comes off as the genuine article, as I mentioned before.  He’s a likeable tough guy, crazy and violent but loyal to his family and friends.  When Doughboy finally shows vulnerability through his hard exterior, sitting on a porch while talking to Tre, he brings the film to a heart-breaking conclusion, helping the audience realize that even a thug like Doughboy could have been somebody, had he been born in a different place.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

A MATTER OF LIFE AND DEATH (1946)

A.K.A.: Stairway to Heaven

Country: U.K.Genre(s): Fantasy / Propaganda / Romance

Director: Michael Powell / Emeric Pressburger

Cast: David Niven / Kim Hunter / Roger Livesey

Plot

Having cheated death in an impossible jump from his burning plane, a British airman falls in love with an American woman, just before he learns that officials in Heaven plan to correct their oversight and claim his soul.

What I Liked

Apparently conceived as a propaganda film to engender good will between America and England, “A Matter of Life and Death” has surpassed its intended purpose by virtue of its outrageous ambitiousness.  One of the strangest and most difficult to categorize films I have ever seen, the movie takes on the weighty themes of its title through the almost psychedelic perspective of its own quirky cosmology.  A hodge-podge of philosophy, astronomy, religion, psychology, and nationalism all factor into the unique laws of existence the filmmakers have set up as the backdrop for a story that seeks to do nothing less than explain the value of life.

Interestingly, the filmmakers twisted around “The Wizard of Oz” dynamic by rendering passionate and vibrant Earth in Technicolor, as contrasted by sterile and regulated Heaven, shot only in black and white.  Like Milton’s rendering Satan the more interesting character than God in his “Paradise Lost,” directors Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger imply that life itself has more charm and beauty than Heaven.  At least in the context of this movie, the trick works and makes us root for the one man who actually does not want to go to Heaven.

Powell and Pressburger go to great lengths never to explain if the Heaven of the film is real or exists solely in the mind of main character Peter Carter (rendered immediately likable by David Niven).  It is perhaps another choice stolen from “The Wizard of Oz,” but is more compelling here because of the use of psychology and medicine to explain Peter’s experiences as hallucinations.  It is almost as though someone set of one of my favorite movies, “Jacob’s Ladder,” in the 1940s, including many of the same themes, and took all the scary parts out.

What I Didn’t Like

Despite taking on some weighty topics that have been the subject of fascination and debate since civilization began, the movie never really takes on those topics with anything resembling an intellectual approach, always varying between light-hearted and melodramatic moods.

The character development was likewise lazy.  For a movie that spends so much time going over the evils of prejudice, “A Matter of Life and Death” sure does make copious use of stereotypes.  No one is treated worse by their portrayals in this film than the French, who are all effeminate, overly-dramatic dandies.  Of course this was probably done was a means of finding common ground for the British and American audience members, neither country having a fabulous history with France.  But, outside of its three main characters, nearly ever nationality is reduced to the level of one-dimensional cartoon characters.  Imaginative in concept, it was disappointingly unimaginative in characterization.

Most Memorable Scene

I most enjoyed the moment when the heavenly Frenchman called Conductor 71 first arrives on Earth to take Peter with him into the afterlife.  He comes upon Peter and his new girl June on a picnic in the middle of a lush forest scene something like what one imagines Eden to have been like.  1940s Technicolor rarely looked so vibrant, but it is the dialogue here that really sets the scene apart.  Niven is excellent here as he and the Frenchman get into a silly little tiff that is twice as interesting and amusing than the actual Englishman versus American debate that serves as the film’s climax.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

THE DEFIANT ONES (1958)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Adventure / Drama

Director: Stanley Kramer

Cast: Tony Curtis / Sidney Poitier / Theodore Bikel

Plot

Chained together, two escaped convicts, one white and one black, try to make their way to freedom with the law in pursuit.

What I Liked

In 1957, the year before “The Defiant Ones” was released, nine African American children required a military escort to go to school in Little Rock, Arkansas to keep them from being accosted by the white segregationist protesters outside of the school.  Just a couple of years earlier Rosa Parks refused to give up her bus seat to make room for a white person, prompting a series of events that led to a boycott of the bus system in Montgomery, Alabama led by Martin Luther King, Jr.  Fourteen year old Emmett Till had been lynched for allegedly flirting with a white woman in 1955.  Race was clearly a hotbed of controversy in America in the late 1950s. Amid all this, Stanley Kramer and his cast and crew took a risk by making “The Defiant Ones,” an allegory for race relations in America.

 It could be said that the film’s basic premise, of a white racist and an bold black man being chained to one another and having to rely upon each other to live, oversimplifies a complicated topic.  I honestly believe that the film’s genius is in its simplification, by suggestion that the matter gets right down to the most basic of principles: survival.  Instead of complicating matters by showing every facet of the segregation versus integration issue or analyzing the causes of the civil rights movement or portraying the federal law versus states’ rights question, Kramer’s film strips all the rhetoric and bullshit away and gets down to people and universal truth.  I suppose that kind of simplification is why allegory in general is so effective.  “The Defiant Ones” is an allegory that was made particularly powerful in 1958 not only by its representation of a controversial topic of the day, but by refusing to water down the realism of the conflict between white Joker and black Cullen.  Joker routinely calls Cullen “nigger,” a word which incites Cullen to understandably lose his temper and lash out physically, once coming close to killing Joker.  Ugliness like this represented in a major motion picture in the “Leave It To Beaver” 1950s would certainly have made quite a few people uncomfortable.

The characters are played with fiery energy by Tony Curtis and Sidney Poitier, each of whom received best actor nominations for their performances.  The transformation of their relationship from spiteful resentment to devoted friendship may be predictable from a plot standpoint, but Curtis and Poitier make the development both natural and moving.

What I Didn’t Like

The scenes involving the police search for the escaped convicts amounted to nothing more than an unnecessary sub-plot that added nothing to the film’s overall message.  The two characters vying for control of the group, the local Sheriff and the police Captain, were mildly interesting but possessed nowhere near the combustible tension inherent in the conflict between Joker and Cullen.  Certainly showing the police getting ever closer on the tail of the two heroes was necessary to add drama to what is ultimately a chase movie.  I just felt it could have been handled better.

Most Memorable Scene

Though this movie covers a lot of ground, literally, I still feel its script would work just effectively on a stage as a play.  The relationship and dialogue between its characters are the real highlights of the film.  The best dialogue comes as the two of them wait in hiding for the opportunity to rob a country store, as each man reveals his personal history and motivations.  It is here that we first see the hatred between the two characters break and a mutual respect begin to form.  Joker and Cullen learn that they are not as different as they once believed and find a common ground in their hatred for the rules society insisted they live by.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

MONSTERS (2010)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Adventure / Horror / Sci-Fi

Director: Gareth Edwards

Cast: Scoot McNairy / Whitney Albe

Plot

Six years after gigantic alien beasts have arrived on Earth, an American photographer must transport his boss’s daughter safely out of the “Infected Zone” of Mexico back to the States.

What I Liked

In some ways, “Monsters” evokes some of the best qualities of Steven Spielberg’s movies, only with a much smaller budget.  Much like in Spielberg’s “Jaws” and “Jurassic Park,” the most frightening moments come from the tension of not actually seeing much of the beast.  We see the aftermath of the creatures, evidence of the carnage they create, and here and there might even catch a glimpse of the creatures themselves, but it’s the not knowing where they are at all times and consequently not knowing when they will strike that provides that addictive fear response that keeps a viewer glued in his seat.  Yes, “Jurassic Park” showed a lot of the T-Rex and the raptors, but one could argue that the most entertaining parts came when we knew those beasts we close but couldn’t yet see them.  It’s the same with “Monsters.”

Thus, without the monsters always being on screen, the most satisfying element of “Monsters” becomes not so much the title creatures themselves, but the journey the heroes take.  It is a classic trek of the outsider, travelling through foreign territory on a desperate attempt to return to the safety of home, with the twist that there just happens to be giant aliens running about.  Director Edwards does a great job of making the audience feel as though they are taking the trip alongside the protagonists, meeting likable and suspicious characters; enjoying the beauty of the vast, colorful landscapes;  experiencing triumph and disappointment; and wondering what gruesome fate might lay ahead.  Ultimately, “Monsters” is less of a monster movie than it is a terrific adventure with a little bit of romance and social commentary thrown in.

One of the most interesting aspects of the movie is its premise.  Yeah, I know, aliens on Earth is nothing new at all.  But the background information we are given at the movie’s start informs us that these particular aliens are not invaders at all.  They came here because NASA discovered the possibility of alien life in our solar system and sent a probe to investigate.  These aliens, it is assumed, came back with that probe.  Thus the filmmakers seem to be saying that human beings, by our very nature of never leaving well enough alone, tend to bring our worst problems upon ourselves.

What I Didn’t Like

*spoiler alert!*

If there was ever an anti-climactic ending, this is it.  We finally get the big reveal of the monsters and yes, for several minutes we’re treated to some riveting suspense.  Unfortunately that suspense ends with a yawn.  I don’t care if there’s some special message to be found in the conclusion that I’m missing out on.  In the end, this was supposed to be a thriller and it does hit every necessary mark until its thoroughly disappointing conclusion.

And, you’re telling me that a man and a woman thrown together by circumstance, though initially distrusting one another, ultimately go on a journey that brings them closer together and…what do you know?  They fall in love.  I can’t believe it.  Impossible.  I’ve never seen any love story along those lines before.

Most Memorable Scene

I have a feeling that when I think of this movie in the future I wont think so much about the monsters or the most suspenseful moments.  These were all effective and well done.  It’s just that the scene that most caught my eye was when the protagonists are travelling up a jungle river on a small boat at sunset.  The sights and colors here are enchanting.  For other alien/monster movies I find myself enjoying the ride, but I rarely want to be anywhere in the picture.  For a brief moment in this movie, I wanted to be right there on that river enjoying one of the most gorgeous sunsets I’ve seen in a movie.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

GOLD DIGGERS OF 1933 (1933)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Musical

Director: Mervyn LeRoy

Cast: Joan Blondell / Aline MacMahon / Warren William

Plot

Having fallen for a common showgirl, the son of an old money family finances the stage show she’s involved with, only to have his prudish brother threaten to cut him off.  So the chorus girls work together to seduce the brother and his lawyer before it’s too late.

What I Liked

One thing I do admire about these old school musicals are the production values.  The opulent set design and meticulous choreography are testaments to the power of motion pictures as an escapist medium.  In 1933, when the Great Depression was close to its bleakest, I’m sure this kind of escapism was desperately needed.  Although I’m not sure if the opening number, with a scantily clad Ginger Rogers singing “We’re in the Money,” as silly as it is, was all that enjoyable for the impoverished masses.  I suppose it was, since it is clearly the most enduring of the Busby Berkeley productions featured in the movie.

Overall, “Gold Diggers of 1933” is a cheeky portrait of Depression-era style.  The hair styles, costumes, set-designs, screwball comedy, and torch songs are all trademarks of the era.  In the last year that Prohibition was in force, we even get treated to a speakeasy scene where the heroines compete over the affections of their wealthy prey.

Interestingly, while it initially either glosses over or makes fun of the desperation of the times, the film closes with a “wail.”  The closing performance of “Remember My Forgotten Man,” features a hooker singing about the travails of her boyfriend, a veteran of the Great War who has returned a shell of himself only to be abandoned by the country he fought for, lose his job, and become one of the millions of homeless drifters of the era.  Incorporating musical elements of the blues and ripping its subject matter straight from the headlines, the film ends the movie on a somber, thoughtful note that must have felt timely in the 1930's.

What I Didn’t Like

Virtually everything about the characters, their dialogue, and their troubles are stock 1930's showbiz musical: the screwball antics, the catty showgirls, the rough-talking producer, the backstage dramas.  Not that I expected anything different, it’s just that, without the Depression angle provided by “Remember My Forgotten Man,” I doubt this film would have made the 1001 movies list.

Most Memorable Scene

One of the most eye-popping facets of the escapism provided by “Gold Diggers of 1933” is the surprising amount of bare flesh on the screen for a film of its time.  This is the era when the wild exhibitionism of the Roaring Twenties was giving way to a more repressive and conservative mindset.  Yet almost every scene is bedazzled with women in lingerie, garters, or less.  Thus, while “We’re in the Money” is the film’s most enduring musical sequence and “Remember My Forgotten Man” gives the film a whiff of social commentary, the song placed in between them, a racy number entitled “Pettin’ in the Park” is the song most characteristic of the film as a whole.  We’re treated to shot-after-shot of bared legs, women in white dresses getting rained on, and even a long sequence of the entire chorus line undressing behind a screen, their silhouettes enlarged by a back-lit spotlight.  This certainly wasn’t a sing-song musical for the kiddies.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

THE RED AND THE WHITE (1967)

A.K.A.: Csillagosok, Katonak
Country: Hungary / U.S.S.R.

Genre(s): War

Director: Miklos Jansco

Cast: Jozsef Madaras / Tibor Molnar / Krystyna Mikolajewska

Plot

The Communist Red Army, aided by Hungarian recruits, are at war with the Czarist White Army along the Volga River.  A hospital becomes a point of contention during the fighting.

What I Liked

In so many war films, we know from the start that the hero is going to survive, if not the entire film, then until very late in the film.  In “The Red and the White,” not only are there no traditional examples of heroes, almost every character the camera follows for more than a few minutes eventually bites it in some unnecessary act of violence.  Very often the story follows one character until his or her demise and then follows that person’s executioner until that person too meets a senseless end.  Thus “The Red and the White” defies convention of with its arbitrary deaths.  For exemplifying the absurdity of war, the only film that I’ve seen that can compare is “Catch-22.”

Commissioned by the Soviet Union to portray the glory of Communist victory, director Miklos Jansco instead made a subversive film that uses the red versus white conflict as an example of what can be assumed to be his message, that all war is ultimately wasteful, ignominious, and dehumanizing.  Human beings are casually executed as though they are no more than garbage being dropped down the disposal.  Even those being executed seem bored and indifferent to the killing, as they just stand there, languid and expressionless, waiting for the bullet.  Soldiers march about according to the orders of their commanders, but seem to be moving toward nowhere in particular with no objective.  Sometimes they just wind up back where they started, but at least they’re in formation.  Civilians are herded around, divided, and organized for what seems to be no other purpose than the gratification of the military officers.  Women are treated as objects, stripped, humiliated, and raped by members of both sides in the fighting.

Naturally, the repulsed Soviet government ended up banning the very film they had financed.

What I Didn’t Like

Part of Jansco’s approach to showing the dehumanizing effect of war is to keep close-ups and personal dialogue to a minimum.  Nearly all of the shots are wide of landscapes, with groups of people moving about in various directions.  Thus we get to know the individual characters very little and instead watch it all as objective observers.  While I understood the director’s purpose with this approach, I found it so dehumanizing that I really didn’t care about anyone on the screen.  And if I don’t care about the people, why should it matter to me if they turn into corpses?  “The Red and the White” ultimately comes off like a philosophy treatise, as opposed to a compelling motion picture.

To be honest, I was often lost as to what exactly was going on.  Arbitrariness was again one of the filmmaker’s purposes, but I was so confused that my only care was how much longer the film would last so I could get my entry over with.  Getting through this movie took me three sittings and even then I was counting down the minutes.  Ultimately, while I respected what Jansco did, I didn’t care.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert!*

In perhaps the only scene that has any kind of intimacy with the characters, a nurse and a soldier come very close to making love when they are interrupted by the enemy on horseback.  The resulting terror, humiliation, and brutal death finally make the audience feel for the two lovers, just before we have to say goodbye to one of them.

My Rating: 2 out of 5

DAYS OF HEAVEN (1978)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Terrence Malick

Cast: Richard Gere / Brooke Adams / Sam Shepard

Plot

A love triangle evolves between a couple of drifters pretending to be brother and sister, and the landowner on whose farm they work.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert!*

The title isn’t the only example of biblical imagery in “Days of Heaven.” From the very opening scene, the film takes through various cycles between Heaven and Hell.  That first scene is in a vast, black factory in which the only light is the glow of molten metal and the fire of furnaces.  Workers walk in a circle all day long, taking turns throwing coal into those furnaces in a living Sisyphean nightmare.  Thereafter, the setting quickly changes to the peace of golden fields of grain surrounding a house on top of a hill, which is comparatively a Heaven.  That the narrator’s description of the events in the Book of Revelations accompanies our introduction to this locale seems at first nonsensical.  However, following the introduction of sin into that little house on the hill, when this golden world eventually becomes a locust-infested inferno, suddenly that narration becomes foreshadowing.  Ultimately, we are shown that the Heaven we long for and the Hell we fear are to be experienced right here in this life, in this movie.

The battle between godliness and sin isn’t so much the reason for this film’s importance as is the way that dichotomy is presented visually by director Terrence Malick and cinematographer Nestor Almendros.  A master at capturing both the natural majesty and symmetrical beauty of large landscapes, Malick allows the vastness of nature to dominate both the screen and the story.  Combined with the use of natural light, both from the sun and from fire, the effect is sheer awe at how gorgeous this film looks.

The actors, from the leads to supporting cast, do a fine job.  All are convincingly natural and bring a needed sympathetic quality to each character in a film where there is no true villain, only human flaws.

What I Didn’t Like

There is nothing to outright dislike in this movie.  It may come up short in action, but makes up for the fact by steadily building the tension between its characters until that tension boils over into physical tragedy.  Thus the spare violence is never really noticed.

I suppose the only thing I found the film to be truly lacking in is overall meaningfulness.  Sadly, as beautiful and well-done as it is, “Days of Heaven” never had that shaking-my-head, edge-of-the-seat, this-movie-is-amazing moment the way my absolute favorites do.

Most Memorable Scene
*spoiler alert!*

Okay, so if that breakthrough moment never occurs, what is the standout moment of the film?  Visually, there are any number of shots that are worthy of a fine art galleries.  But the most intense altogether moment comes when Sam Shepard’s character unleashes a fire across his entire farm as his wife and her lover try to escape his wrath.  All of this plays across the screen in a buzzing, swirling chaos of flame, smoke, and shadows that is somehow frightening and elegant all at once.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

A ROOM WITH A VIEW (1986)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Drama / Romance

Director: James Ivory

Cast: Helena Bonham-Carter / Maggie Smith / Julian Sands

Plot

English tourist Lucy falls for a free-spirited Englishman in Florence.  When he follows her back to the English countryside, she is forced to choose between him and her well-to-do fiancé.

What I Liked

Damn near all of the most honored British actors of recent decades make some sort of appearance in “A Room with a View.”  There is of course lead Helena Bonham-Carter (“Fight Club,” “The King’s Speech”), as young as I have ever seen her.  Judi Dench (“Shakespeare in Love,” “Pride & Prejudice”) prattles on through a few scenes as a clueless novelist.  Maggie Smith (the Harry Potter series) is perfectly cast as the prudish and fussy Charlotte Bartlett.  Denholm Elliott (the Indiana Jones series) plays perhaps the movie’s most interesting character, the wonderfully forthright Mr. Emerson.  And last but far from least, Daniel Day-Lewis (“There Will Be Blood,” “Lincoln”) completely embodies the obnoxious snob Cecil Vyse.  I already know he is an amazing actor, yet I am still startled by how well he seems to be able to capture every facet of any kind of role thrown his way, even at this early stage of his career.  Watch him here and you’ll be struggling to believe that this is the same man from “Last of the Mohicans” or “Gangs of New York.”

Even more impressive than the cast is the visual magnificence of the movie, particularly in the early scenes which take place in Florence, Italy.  The digital transfer has been admirably done to the point where it seems this film was originally shot digitally, allowing the Italian architecture to be seen in all its vastness and glory as though one were standing beside Bonham-Carter, marveling with her.  As if in competition with the man made splendors, the Italian and English country-sides also seduce the eye with their lush green and yellow hues.

What I Didn’t Like

A self-possessed young woman from the English country must choose between a passionate suitor and a more proper one.  Are we sure E.M. Forster wrote the novel?  Because I swear this should have been – and probably was – a Jane Austin plot.  It was all very well executed, but I get tired of the same old conflicts and themes in English period pieces, always young women struggling against the moral corset the Victorian era has put them in.  I’ve seen so many movies with their insufferable heroines that I find it hard to believe Victorian repression could have existed at all, for clearly defiant young ladies were an epidemic in England in this period.

Most Memorable Scene

As I mentioned above, this movie captures the magnificence of Florence with breathtaking cinematography and clarity.  Thus the opening half hours is a wonder to behold and should be put on a loop in any travel agency looking to sell trips to Italy.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

INDEPENDENCE DAY (1996)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Sci-Fi

Director: Roland Emmerich

Cast: Bill Pullman / Will Smith / Jeff Goldbloom

Plot

Humanity joins together in a desperate war for survival against alien invaders.

What I Liked

It has been almost two decades since “Independence Day” was released, yet its special effects do more than hold up, they can still match the effects of any film since for technical brilliance and emotional impact.  Certainly plenty of state-of-the-art (for the 90s) CGI and blue screen effects were used here, but the model effects are the real stars of the show.  Incredibly detailed replicas of the White House, the Empire State Building, and other well-known American landmarks look so convincing that I can still remember the shiver that reflexively ran through me as I watched these buildings so swiftly annihilated by the alien invaders.  I hadn’t felt a response in a movie like that since I saw the first on-screen dinosaur in “Jurassic Park,” and I’ve rarely felt it since.  The filmmakers may have taken an easy route by choosing to destroy such patriotic landmarks as a means of shocking its audience, but the model artists certainly didn’t have an easy time making such precision replicas.

A pure popcorn flick if there ever was one, “Independence Day” explodes with fun.  Its combination of special effects warfare and an alien invasion plot made it a mothership of sorts, off of which spun a whole generation of lesser sci-fi extravaganzas, including “War of the Worlds,” the Transformers trilogy, “Battle Los Angeles,” and “Battleship.”  As the first to raise the bar for the alien invasion subgenre to this level, “Independence Day” is something of a landmark in science fiction film history.  More importantly, it can still get the heart pounding viewing after viewing, year after year.

What I Didn’t Like

Let’s face it, this was never meant to be “To Kill a Mockingbird,” and it isn’t.  The characters are about as one-dimensional and stereotypical as any major motion picture this side of “Not Another Teen Movie.”  The personal relationships are given about as much thought and development as those in a porn film.  Indeed, had the effects not been so irresistibly good, this movie might have been confused for parody.  You’ve got virtually every stock character possible here, from the jive-talking black folks, to the argumentative old New York Jew, to the grizzled military officers, to the pretty-boy teen heart-throb, to the sniveling and image-obsessed politicians, to the overly-dramatic gay man whose best friend is his mother, to the cutesy innocent kids, to the alcoholic Nam vet, to the thoughtful warrior president, and the list goes on.  Basically, name a character and he or she is pure stock.  This is obviously done so that we can quickly relate to and root for the familiar archetypes and, sadly, it works more often than not.  I may have been disgusted at the lack of creativity shown by the scriptwriters, but that didn’t keep me from rooting for the heroes every step of the way.  It’s effective, even if it isn’t classy.

Speaking of lazy writing, someone tell me how every character seems to be chosen by fate to wind up in a room with all the others.  The marine’s stripper girlfriend just so happens to come across the first lady’s downed helicopter, while the same marine hangs out with the President himself at Area 51.  Then, the man who figures out the alien’s secret code just happens to be the estranged husband of the President’s political advisor.  Not to mention the crop dusting redneck who will eventually save the world coincidentally driving right up to the aforementioned marine in the middle of a vast desert.  It’s all so damned preposterous that if one takes too long to think about it, one misses the point: it’s just too much fun to bother caring about the planet-sized plot holes.

Most Memorable Scene

For all its amazing visuals, nothing else in this movie beats the punch-to-the-midsection impact of watching entire cities and their most memorable landmarks reduced to rubble in a matter of seconds.  Nothing on this level had ever been brought to the movie screen before.  Later disaster films like “Titanic,” "Armageddon," “The Day After Tomorrow,” “War of the Worlds,” and “2012” may have dulled the sensation somewhat by replicating (let’s face it, ripping off) similar sights and desensitizing the audience.  But in 1996 these moments were as close to unbelievable as movie-making got and they still deliver the goods even to this day.  After twenty years, most effects-based action films look hokey and dated; with “Independence Day,” so far, so good.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

SPRING IN A SMALL TOWN (1948)

A.K.A.: Xiao Cheng Zhi Chun

Country: China

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Mu Fei

Cast: Wei Wei / Wei Li / Yu Shi

Plot

Following the end of World War II, the return of an old flame causes a traditional Chinese wife to consider leaving her loveless marriage.

What I Liked

 “Spring in a Small Town” packs an awful lot of personal turmoil into a 93 minute film involving just five speaking parts.  Contributing to and enhancing the love triangle plot is the sense of isolation of the characters, both from the world and also from each other, which overwhelms each scene.  The drama takes place inside the bombed-out ancestral home of Liyan, the surrounding land of which is devoid of human life outside of these five people, making the picture feel as though it is both post-apocalyptic and fairy tale – if only in atmosphere.  For there is no sci-fi action, nor fairy tale beauty in this most personal of dramas.

What we have instead is a bare-bones depiction of how war decimates physically (the ruined home), mentally (the despondent Liyan), and emotionally (the broken relationships of all involved).  The war itself has taken place off screen, having ended before the story begins.  But its effects more than linger all the way until the movie’s conclusion. The only person who seems to be spiritually untouched by the misery is Meimei, Liyan’s teenage sister, who it is assumed was too young when the war began to remember what has been lost.  Loss, despair, and regret strain the faces of the four adults, however.  This is most obvious in Liyan’s wife, Yuwen, the woman torn between her duty to her stricken husband and her longing for her long-lost sweetheart, Zhang, who is physically and romantically the very opposite of Liyan.  It is Yuwen who narrates the drama with a hushed voice choked by sorrow.

What I Didn’t Like

This movie has the kind of emotional slow burn that just crushes the soul.  However, it is all played out through gestures, glances, conversation, and narration, a study in the power of subtlety.  There is absolutely no action.  As mentioned earlier, the war is over by the time the story starts.  There is not a single fight and barely any arguments.  The closest we get to excitement is the very rare raising of a voice.  While the performances are certainly melodramatic, don’t look for the same, sappy, over-the-top romantic melodrama common in American films of the same period.  You will find no screaming, tear-filled soliloquys, or passionate embraces, just guilt-ridden eyes, and the tortured flirtations of fingertips.  For all the film’s feeling, there is sadly not one refreshing, full-fledged thrill.

Most Memorable Scene

When Yuwen visits Zhang at night in the separate guest house made up for him, the scenes flirt with an unspoken taboo of this traditional Chinese wife visiting her former lover (who happens to be her husband’s best friend) behind closed doors.  When the lights are on, Yuwen is the picture of polite cordiality, hospitable and friendly, always avoiding the eyes of the man she loves in the same way she avoids the turmoil inside her.  However, when the town electricity is shut off and she and Zhang are alone in the dark, she clearly has a harder time controlling her passion.  Forgoing lovemaking for the furtive movements of shadows and tension-filled whispers, these scenes avoid the easy route of scandal for the more touching and fascinatingly balletic battle between longing and restraint.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

THE MAD MASTERS (1955)

A.K.A.: Les Maitres Fous

Country: France

Genre(s): Documentary

Director: Jean Rouch

Plot

Ghanaians act out a possession ritual before a documentary crew’s camera.

What I Liked

This 37-minute look at a bizarre rite performed by an apparently small cult in Africa during British occupation benefits from the objective, scientific perspective of its narrators.  In an era when Tarzan films were still popular and native rituals were exploited as demonic in horror films, director Jean Rouch’s film actually tries to explain the shocking (for Westerners) acts that play out before the camera from a sociological perspective.

As the ritual unfolds, it becomes apparent that British colonization is a major factor in the development of this tradition.  The subjects believe themselves to be possessed by the souls of the English ruling class and mimic their roles and movements, albeit in exaggerated or distorted forms.  Thus we have the privilege of watching Ghanaian people in an unguarded moment, interpreting the white European invaders as filtered through their own traditions.  At the film’s close, we learn that the people who have been imitating governors, generals, and other high-placed officials are in fact themselves ditch-diggers, prostitutes, sewer cleaners, and pickpockets in their everyday lives.  Is their participation then a way of briefly assuming for themselves the power and gaining, for one day, control over the destiny of their people and perhaps even their oppressors?

What I Didn’t Like

“The Mad Masters” is pretty straight forward.  The camera captures the events, the narrator explains what happens, and finally the closing attempts to interpret what has played out before our eyes.  There’s not much to criticize.  Still, it's pretty safe to assume that some will be either offended, disgusted, or even frightened by the events displayed.

Most Memorable Scene

Being that a good eighty percent of this film is one extended scene, that would clearly be the most important scene in the film: the ritual.  Complete with possession, self-mutilation, and an animal sacrifice, this is not for the faint of heart.  Yet it is absolutely fascinating, forcing one to wonder at the mindset of the participants, which, even with Rouch’s explanation, remains perplexing and alien for this viewer.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

THE KING'S SPEECH (2010)

Country: U.K. / Australia

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Tom Hooper

Cast: Colin Firth / Geoffrey Rush / Helena Bonham Carter

Plot

Burdened with an unexpected kingship and the threat of war, King George VI works with an unorthodox speech therapist to cure him of his stuttering and insecurity.

What I Liked

“The King’s Speech” is constructed with undeniable quality.  A gorgeous-looking period piece that benefits from the true drama of history and a vulnerable hero, the film hits all the right marks to entertain and move an audience.

That vulnerable hero is Prince Albert (soon to be King George VI) portrayed in a remarkable performance by Colin Firth.  Firth takes a King who, in real life, was always stiff, serious, and reserved in public appearances and fleshes him out as a caring, likeable chap who is nonetheless burdened with an embarrassing stammer, an overwhelming sense of duty, and an explosive temper.  Thus this man born to privilege, wealth, and status is somehow made an endearing underdog as much by Firth’s performance as by the story itself.  We root for “Bertie” (as he is affectionately called by Geoffrey Rush’s Dr. Logue) not because he is a royal, but because Firth has actually made him relatable as a man trying to find himself.

Amid all of the historic events and personal struggle are moments of tenderness and humor that also help humanize the King.  Most of these occur in the development of his relationship with Dr. Logue, an eccentric but personable speech therapist played by Rush with a soulfulness to match Firth’s.  One can’t help but delight at watching the King of England let loose, bellowing, dancing, and goofing off with the future Queen Mother joining in.

What I Didn’t Like

So far as I can tell, “The King’s Speech” is flawless.  It does and has everything it is supposed to in order to appeal to the widest audience possible, which may actually be its only weakness.  For all its magnificence and ability to put a lump in your throat, the movie is still rather formulaic.  Put simply, this is a moving story of a wonderful friendship set against a beautiful backdrop, which is all most (including this viewer) will want from it.  Yet never once does “The King’s Speech” challenge its audience to think differently about the world, themselves, or life in general.  This is a movie that caters to its audience by treading well-charted territory rather than breaking any new ground in filmmaking.  That said, not every movie needs to be an artistic breakthrough and there is something to be said for filmmakers who forgo their own egos in order to let the story tell itself.  “The King’s Speech” is a terrific movie in which anyone can find something to like, and that’s not easy to do.

Most Memorable Scene

The film opens with Prince Albert having to give a speech to a stadium full of people.  His anxiety gets in the way and he stutters almost from the start.  While the true Albert was able to deliver the speech slightly better than this, in the film the scene is painful to watch.  Everyone around is embarrassed for Albert as he is forced to endure this most public of humiliations.  Thanksfully for the movie-going audience, the scene is eventually cut short, but not before the point is driven home of just how bad Albert has it and how important it is he overcome his stammer.  In this remarkably effective opening we are immediately emotionally invested in the character and are drawn into his struggle.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

CAPTAIN BLOOD (1935)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Adventure

Director: Michael Curtiz

Cast: Errol Flynn / Olivia de Havilland / Lionel Atwill

Plot

Unjustly convicted of treason, Dr. Peter Blood is deported as a slave to the English colony of Port Royal in Jamaica.  There he leads an escape and becomes the courageous captain of a pirate ship.

What I Liked

Making impressive use of large scale sets, detailed miniatures, and explosive effects, director Michael Curtiz lets production values do their job in “Captain Blood.”  Combined with Erich Wolfgang Korngold’s heroic, trumpet-blasting soundtrack, the visuals of this film must have provided terrific escapist pleasures for Depression-ravaged Americans.  I can imagine the boys in the audience being thrilled by the surprising amount of violence, with guns going off, swords clashing, and ships exploding.  One man even gets impaled on a grappling hook!  It’s all very tame stuff to modern eyes; blood and guts are kept at a minimum.  Nevertheless, it must have seemed pretty ferocious stuff at the time.

Matching the production for zest and boldness is lead Errol Flynn in the title role.  A relative upstart at this point in his career, this was the film that established him as a commodity in Hollywood and set him on the path to becoming one of the most iconic action stars in all of movie history.  And it’s no wonder why.  He struts about the sets with all the charisma and puff-chested gallantry one wants from the hero of a 1930s pirate adventure.  In terms of sheer physical presence he is a full head taller than any other man in the picture and had the kind of dashing good looks that made women want him and men want to be him.  Today’s cynicism about heroism and movie-making has understandably cast Flynn as hokey and ridiculous, but his importance to the development of our concept of heroism cannot be underestimated.  In the same manner that John Wayne’s charisma, mannerism, and looks would come to exemplify the cowboy hero in American film a few years later, Errol Flynn became the quintessential adventurer, his look and mannerisms imitated and parodied for generations to come.

What I Didn’t Like

*spoiler alert*

More cannons, less talking, please.  I was surprised at how long it took for the high-sea adventure to get going.  The film’s title, trailer, and posters all promise a dazzling pirate epic and that eventually comes to be, but almost the entire first half of the film is character development, backstory, and superfluous conversation.  The screenwriters sure took their time in explaining the relationships between the many unnecessary characters, their parts in the drama, and their perspectives on everything that happens.  Even as the action finally does get moving, there seems an overuse of pseudo-political drama between British royals and nobles in the plot.  None of this is developed to the point of real relevance to the plot, but just seems to be there to bring in more dastardly characters and period costumes.  Nobody cares, let’s get back to the pirate wenches and sword fighting.

Likewise, the love story between Blood and Miss Bishop (played by Olivia de Havilland in the first of many pairings with Flynn) gets plenty of screen time yet has nothing to offer in originality or interest.  The dainty lady meets the gentlemanly scoundrel and is of course both offended by and attracted to him.  She saves him and then plays hard-to-get until he eventually rejects her.  Then of course they are reunited and their love for one another triumphs even as a full-scale battle erupts around them; very conventional drivel without a second of palpable emotion.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

Perpetual bad guy Basil Rathbone shows up about halfway through the film as a French pirate who allies himself with Blood, only to betray him over the captured Miss Bishop.  The consequential sword fight is good enough, but what really sticks in the mind is the aftermath, as Rathbone lies dead on the rocks with the waves washing over his corpse.  Other scenes are more violent but the consequences of violence are rarely shown, making this the most morbid and haunting moment of an otherwise care-free, light-hearted extravaganza.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5

PIERROT GOES WILD (1965)

A.K.A.: Pierrot Le Fou

Country: France

Genre(s): Adventure / Art Film / Comedy

Director: Jean-Luc Godard

Cast: Jean-Paul Belmondo / Anna Karina / Graziella Galvani

Plot

Reunited lovers Ferdinand and Marianne go on the run from a gang of gun smugglers, travelling through France in search of freedom and romance.

What I Liked

Self-aware to the point of absurdity, “Pierrot Goes Wild” whips together the action, romance, musical, and comedy genres into such a chaotic and colorful mess that one can’t be sure if director Jean-Luc Godard means the film as a tribute to or a criticism of those genres.  Certainly, the intention is at least in part to truthfully represent that life itself is very rarely one genre, but is itself a chaotic and colorful mess.  Still, life never gets as unruly as “Pierrot Goes Wild,” and thus Godard might be parodying life itself.

Shot without a script, the story has enough wild moments and unexpected turns to keep viewer interest, but ironically the slower part of the plot toward the middle is the most thought-provoking.  Believing themselves safe from the gangsters who pursue them, Ferdinand and Marianne settle into an anonymous life of poverty by the sea-side, living off the land, talking poetry, and dancing through the woods.  Totally secluded from the outside world, they become an allegory for the battle of the sexes, a European Adam and Eve in a Mediterranean Eden.  Marianne, Godard’s symbol of womankind, longs for experience, fun, and living in the moment.  Ferdinand, as the man, is a frightened intellectual who lives inside his mind, consumed by needing to understand why things are and what things are to come.  At the film’s start, the pair are wild lovers, uncontrollably attracted to one another and devoted to each other by their united rejection of the world around them.  Left alone, they find themselves unable to understand one another’s perspectives and desires, resulting in distrust and boredom, if not really loss of love.  These scenes may not be form a true depiction of the age-old problems between men and women, but nonetheless raise some intriguing questions.

What I Didn’t Like

Before the couple goes on the run, the domestic subject matter of this film is so mundane that after the first fifteen or twenty minutes or so, I had to take a nap.  Ultimately, that boredom is revealed to be the reason why Ferdinand abandons his wife and children to go on the run with Marianne, at which point the action picks up; but getting to that point is mind-numbing.

As is the case with a lot of art-house flicks, the filmmakers are trying to break down the medium and also present new methods for making motion pictures.  While the quest is admirable and the result not altogether unsuccessful, one gets the feeling that this could have been an altogether better chase movie had the director, cast, and crew take a more straight-forward approach.  That statement would probably make someone like Godard (and his fans) want to puke.  I’m simply saying it’s a good concept (not altogether different from Tarrantino’s plot to “True Romance”); I probably would have enjoyed it more with less of the self-indulgent, artsy stuff.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

As if scoffing at those who try to apply too much meaning to the film, Godard ends everything with a bizarre and stupid suicide by Ferdinand, who changes his mind only too late to stop his own death.  Hilariously absurd, the scene forces the viewer to reevaluate every scene that came before, casting everything in a less serious light.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

HAROLD AND MAUDE (1971)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy / Romance

Director: Hal Ashby

Cast: Bud Cort / Ruth Gordon / Vivian Pickles

Plot

Rejecting the life of wealth and boredom set out for him by his overbearing mother, depressed teenager Harold meets 80-year-old free spirit Maude, who teaches him to value life and love.

What I Liked

I can still remember watching this movie for the first time back in 1997 with my friend Neenie Hendricks.  Neenie introduced me to several terrific cult movies; the first time I saw one of my absolute favorites, “Better Off Dead,” was with her as well.  Until that point, I had never heard of “Harold and Maude” but I absolutely loved it upon watching it.  Strangely, I have never watched it since.  I don’t know why.  However, watching the film a second time just now, I found so much of the movie still very familiar because it is so unlike anything else that even a single viewing is enough to install many of its scenes permanently in one’s memory.

What grabs the audience at first is the bizarre, black humor found in Harold’s many staged suicide attempts for the “benefit” of his self-centered mother.  As can be imagined, these are the most shocking and violent moments in the film and they consequently make the quickest impression.  Getting beyond the morbidity, there is still a great deal about “Harold and Maude” that is poignant, funny, and enjoyable.  The interactions between Harold and his mother, who cannot fathom that she might be responsible for his depression and social awkwardness, are marvelously scripted and acted.  They are the source of a complex and painful humor, where one feels guilty for laughing at how badly they repeatedly hurt one another.  Their lifeless relationship serves as a foil for the beauty of that between Harold and Maude, which is filled with warmth, excitement, acceptance, and intimacy.

Bud Cort and Ruth Gordon both make the fantastically unusual title characters absolutely believable and likable.  Each endows their character with a complex mind and a wounded soul to keep them from becoming the one-dimensional caricatures they might have become if played by less capable actors.  Somehow the filmmakers take two thoroughly unconventional people and make them both relate-able.  A love affair between a very young man and an 80-year-old woman would be repulsive in the hands of most filmmakers.  Yet their story is developed so well that in this case the viewer not only accepts their romance, but envies it.  What could have been a movie made purely for shock value is instead a beautiful love story with thought-provoking lessons on life.

Better even still, it all comes with a wonderful Cat Stevens soundtrack.

What I Didn’t Like

There is absolute nothing to dislike about this movie, as long as you go in with an open mind for quirky but moving cinema.  Those who are easily offended, prepare yourself for self-immolation, jabs at the military, and a granny who poses nude for artists.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

Well, to be honest, the scene I most remembered from my initial viewing all these years later was the opening one, where Harold fakes hanging himself and his mother basically ignores him, setting the off-kilter tone for the rest of the movie.  The viewer is so shocked to see a young man kill himself in the opening moments that it becomes even more shocking when his own mother has no emotional reaction whatsoever.  Once we realize Harold is faking, we’re even more confused.

But, on my second viewing, I think the scene that will stick with me the most is one that is far less ostentatious.  Harold and Maude look at flowers and discuss which flowers they would be, if they were flowers.  Their conversation reveals a great deal about their characters and, even more importantly, leaves us with valuable words from Maude about the value of life and individuality, followed by a powerful graveyard image that drives the point home.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

BEVERLY HILLS COP (1984)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Comedy

Director: Martin Brest

Cast: Eddie Murphy / Judge Reinhold / Lisa Eilbacher

Plot

Detroit Detective Axel Foley travels to Beverly Hills to investigate the murder of an old friend.

What I Liked

I don’t even want to think about how many movies are out there with smart mouth cops who break all the rules and piss off their by-the-book superiors.  The difference with “Beverly Hills Cop” is that Eddie Murphy is much more believable than any other actor who attempted the role before or since.  It’s perfectly clear that much of Murphy’s dialogue was improvised, as the script was apparently originally written with Sylvester Stallone in mind and it is impossible to conceive of Sly being able to pull off most of Axel Foley’s lines, let alone his attitude.  It is that attitude that makes the movie so much fun.  Murphy seems to be having a great time just tearing up the script and being himself for an entire movie.

There’s not much that needs to be said about why “Beverly Hills Cop” is a fantastic movie.  This isn’t a complex movie; its strengths are all right there in front of your face.  It’s simply fun, funny, and entertaining.  The action is eye-dazzling, the casting perfect, the soundtrack catchy, and the storyline simple enough to be accessible for anyone while also allowing for constant mining of the comedy found in its Detroit-meets-L.A. culture clash.

What I Didn’t Like

“Beverly Hills Cop” is very much a product of its time.  This was the heyday of straight-forward action flicks with big name stars (“Die Hard,” “Lethal Weapon,” “Terminator,” “Rambo,” and all of their myriad sequels).  Aesthetics, style and artful innovation took a backseat to bigger stunts and bigger stars.  In that respect, “Beverly Hills Cop” is more of the same, just with a much needed lighter, comedic twist from Murphy.  Complexity and art were never this film’s goals and there is no reason to judge the film by such criteria.  It’s simply excellent entertainment that only the worst of cynics could refuse to enjoy.

As I mentioned multiple times already, it is Murphy who is responsible for most of the fun of the movie.  His exploitation of the street-smart cop versus uptight Beverly Hills dynamic is brilliant and never gets old.  It stays funny through the whole film through multiple viewings, but after this viewing I realized there is not a single moment in this film that produces the kind of uncontrollable, bellyaching, tear-inducing laughter that one gets from the best comedies.

Most Memorable Scene

I love when Foley breaks into the warehouse and, going purely on guts, convinces two security personnel to give him access to the company’s files without ever questioning him.  The whole scene is so preposterous and yet Murphy’s talent, humor, and charisma allow the mind to be convinced that he could really pull something like this off and get away with it.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

THE LAST LAUGH (1924)

A.K.A.: Der letzte Mann

Country: Germany

Genre(s): Drama

Director: F.W. Murnau

Cast: Emil Jannings / Maly Delschaft / Hans Unterkircher

Plot

A proud old man is demoted from the doorman of a luxury hotel to bathroom attendant, losing his sense of identity and self-worth.

What I Liked

When it comes to silent-era filmmakers who established the technical conventions that would govern the rules of motion picture storytelling, the names that most often come up are D.W. Griffith, George Melies, maybe Edwin Porter.  In this regard, Germany’s F.W. Murnau is severely overlooked, and “The Last Laugh” proves it.  In 1924, Murnau (along with accomplished cinematographer Karl Freund) innovates techniques that would become the signatures of later film giants like Hitchcock and Scorsese.  In most silent films, the camera is frozen in a fixed position, the characters and events confined to the inside of the frame.  At best, the occasional pan might follow a character’s linear movements, such as in the adventurous endeavors of Douglas Fairbanks or Buster Keaton.   In “The Last Laugh,” however, the camera is free to move about as though it is a character itself.  It lurks around alley corners, passes through closed doors and windows, ascends and descends staircases, so that the world does not need to pass through the camera.  Rather, it is the camera that subjectively investigates the world.  This technique is so common in modern film that we don’t notice it when it happens, yet the effect is so smooth and flawless in “The Last Laugh” that it still mesmerizes and had me wondering “How did they do that?”  It is clear the camera was not rolled on a track and the movement is too smooth for the camera to have been handheld.

One of Murnau’s goals for making the film was to tell a visual story using the silent motion picture medium, without using title cards.  You know, those black screens with white text in silent movies that explain the events, setting, and dialogue.  Astoundingly, he achieves this without the viewer once getting confused about what is happening on screen.  Murnau was clearly a man who not only wanted to expand the language of filmmaking, but also pushed himself hard to intentionally put his own creativity to the test.

What I Didn’t Like

Of course, if you have no sound and no title cards, you better give yourself a pretty straight-forward storyline without much complexity so that your viewer doesn’t get lost.  Murnau and crew have clearly sacrificed depth of story in favor of technical innovation.  My basic plot description above really does sum up the entire one-hour-plus storyline.  The result is an overall boring story, leaving the film to be saved by its outstanding visuals and its characters.  Thus star Emil Jannings (the biggest name in German film of the time, who played a similarly humiliated and dehumanized older gentleman in “The Blue Angel”) is forced to overact through the whole thing to make sure the story is fully communicated to his audience and they are given something interesting to watch.  

Speaking of the story, the preposterous happy ending just feels entirely out of place, separated from the rest by the film’s only title card, which serves as a disclaimer from the filmmakers basically admitting that the happy ending is unnecessary and stupid.  I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that the studio forced Murnau to patch this on to the end to keep patrons from getting to depressed by the sad story.  Luckily it doesn’t detract too much from the powerful stuff that came before.

Most Memorable Scene

Thankfully, the restored print that I watched (on Netflix) is immaculate, clear, and bright.  There is none of the fading, whitewash, or corrosion that too often diminish the impact of a silent film’s original appearance.  The settings and people are look alive and vibrant, not pallid or decrepit.  This is especially a benefit to the scene where the drunken Jannings falls asleep and dreams that he is a man of great strength admired by his peers.  Shot in a hallucinatory haze, with Klaus’ camera careening through the pulsating crowd of dream people, this is the most visually impressive scene of the film, taking the film’s innovations to a new peak and setting the standard for every dream sequence filmed since.  Very impressive.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5