RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (1981)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Adventure

Director: Steve Spielberg

Cast: Harrison Ford / Karen Allen / Paul Freeman

Plot

In 1936, the U.S. Army gives archaeologist Indiana Jones the mission of recovering the Ark of the Covenant before a Nazi-sponsored expedition does, kicking off a quest that will take Jones from the mountains of Asia to the deserts of Africa to the high seas aboard a German U-Boat.

What I Liked

I should begin this review by stating that very few films have as much sentimental value for me as “Raiders.”  I spent countless afternoons watching this movie (or “The Last Crusade)” or imagining myself as Indiana Jones as I ran around in the woods or played in a friends backyard.

The thing about sentimental favorites from childhood, however, is that many of them disappoint once you get to be an adult.  Time passes, you see better movies, the standards for effects change, the youthful belief in magic fades, the adult mind criticizes too much.  The great thing about watching “Raiders” is that it was nearly as much fun to watch it this time around as it was back when I was a kid.  That’s because most of the fun of “Raiders of the Lost Ark” is based on quality of craft, which is always timeless.

Let’s start with the performances.  Harrison Ford is perfectly cast as Indy.  In many ways, he reminded me of everything that great about a Humphrey Bogart performance: masculine, ballsy, smart, flawed, and vulnerable.  To this mix, Ford adds a level of self-effacing humor that Bogart’s characters always lacked, making Jones one of the most well-rounded action heroes in cinema.  Jones is cool enough to be envied and relatable enough to fool you into imagining yourself in his shoes.  Despite being a beloved action hero, Jones is no John Rambo or even James Bond; unlike those characters, he doesn’t always get it right and usually pays for his mistakes by taking hellacious beating.

Karen Allen reinvents the action movie girlfriend role as Marion, a tough-talking, hard-drinking spitfire who rescues herself from distress at least as much as our hero does.  Though Marion does wind up in a few classic “tied to the railroad track” type scenarios, in Allen’s hand the character is more heroine than victim.  She is utterly convincing in the role, making Marion in many ways the female version of Indiana.  The screwball comedy style of banter between Indiana and Marion, who is almost always shown to be Indiana’s emotional and mental superior, has a large amount to do with the film’s endearing comedic elements.

Combine those two performances with some of the most thrilling stunts ever caught on camera, exotic locations, a cacophony of gunfire and explosions, plenty of fist-fights, tasteful use of shocks and gore, and some of cinema’s most memorable one-liners and you’ve got arguably the greatest action film every made.

What I Didn’t Like

Indiana Jones is such an terrific movie action hero, it’s a shame that the filmmakers never truly came up with a villain to match him.  In “Raiders” he was usually pitted against his professional rival Rene Belloq, a French egotist who fancies himself the yin to Indy’s yang.  It isn’t that Paul Freeman didn’t play the role right, but just that the part wasn’t written to be very interesting.  Most of the villains in the series, Belloq included, are cribbed directly out of older movies, with nothing about them that makes them the least bit interesting.  In some ways, this allows room for the on screen action to become Indy’s most compelling adversary in the form of one death-defying trap after another.  In other ways, it’s a disappointment that Jones never got the Moriarty, Joker, or Darth Vader.

Most Memorable Scene

The who film is almost one unforgettable scene after another, accompanied by equally memorable dialogue.  Still, when “Raiders” is mentioned, the very first scenes that come to my mind is the opening sequence as Indy and one lone surviving assistant explore an booby-trapped jungle ruin and try to make off with a golden idol.  The whole thing is a fun homage to the old 1930s movie serials, a wonderful series of creepy gags, and a perfect introduction to what is to follow in the next two and a half hours.  I’m pretty sure anyone else who has seen the movie (Is there anyone who hasn’t?) would agree that that opening twenty minutes or so are the most classic in a classic film series.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama / Horror

Director: Jonathan Demme

Cast: Jodie Foster / Anthony Hopkins / Scott Glenn

Plot

FBI trainee Clarice Starling is assigned to interview imprisoned serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter regarding his knowledge of fellow psychopath “Buffalo Bill.”  Can Starling get the information she needs from the clever Lecter before Bill claims another victim.

What I Liked

Back in the 1990s, it seemed like there was always some serial killer-based psychological thriller in the theater.  “Seven,” “Kiss the Girls,” “The Bone Collector,” “Fallen,” “Copycat,” the list goes on.  With its clever script, riveting performances, and genre-transcending production, “The Silence of the Lambs” is the film that kicked off the trend, making it one of the most influential films of the era.

His performance as Hannibal Lecter allowed Anthony Hopkins to go from highly regarded actor to full-fledged acting legend.  He also established the character as one of the great film villains and a classic movie monster on the level of a Dracula, Norman Bates, or Freddy Kreuger.   His Lecter is irresistibly manipulative, darkly amusing, and absolutely creepy in equal measure.  Hopkins (and through him, Lecter) is without a doubt the prime reason this film is regarded as a classic.

However, one cannot ignore the importance of Jodie Foster, who is equally capable in her performance of Starling, even if her character is not as juicy as the chilling, demented Lecter.  Starling is the foil against whom Lecter is allowed to shine, as well as the relatable character can be used by the audience as a conduit into Lecter’s demented perspectives.  Starling’s verbal jousting with Lecter is what separates this film’s unique power and timelessness.  Later thrillers tried to piece together similar confrontations, but is the way that Lecter and Hopkins deliver these scenes that truly set s this one apart.

Incidentally, Ted Levine is also pretty damn frightening as the skin coveting Buffalo Bill.

What I Didn’t Like

The character of Catherine Martin, while admirably resourceful and brave, is not very convincing to me as a person who has been trapped for days in a dungeon pit by a man who is clearly bent on murdering her.

Most Memorable Scene

As mentioned previously, the scenes of verbal sparring between Lecter and Starling are the most iconic moments of this film.  Nonetheless, like any good climax, the most emotionally powerful moment of the film to me is when Clarice unwittingly stumbles upon the killer and is drawn into his home.  When he initially escapes her attempted arrest and leads her on a terrifying pursuit through his dungeon-like basement, that the anxiety really starts.  Even watching this for the I-don’t-know-how-many time, I was still on the edge of my seat, gritting my teeth, my muscles reflexively tightened.  That’s because the terror on Jodie Foster’s face is completely believable and relatable.  Her entire body appears stricken with adrenaline, and understandably so.  It’s Foster’s change to show that she is every bit the actor that Hopkins is and has an equal mastery over her audience, and succeeds at both.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

SUNSET BOULEVARD (1950)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Billy Wilder

Cast: William Holden / Gloria Swanson / Nancy Olson

Plot:

Out of work writer Joe Gillis recounts his final days as the reluctant writing partner and companion of Norma Desmond, who was once one of Hollywood’s great beauties of the silent era.  With her stardom long behind her, Desmond is now a delusional recluse fixated upon the younger writer, whom she clings to as her last hope of recapturing her former glory.

What I Liked

Like any halfway decent noir film, “Sunset Boulevard” is narrated by a dead man.  We know Joe Gillis is dead about one minute in.  That’s not to say that the film is a pure representation of the noir subgenre; it transcends the limitations of categorization.  It has many of the stock characters, gimmicks, and themes of noir: the hard-luck cynic for a protagonist responsible the aforementioned narration, a grim murder, the Los Angeles backdrop, the obsessive use of shadow and sharp angles, and the snuffing out of all things naïve.  However, there are also strong elements of showbiz drama, psychological thriller, and cultural satire.  There is even the faint trace of the horror in the sense of decay and hopelessness that persists throughout its two hour length.  In one of the film’s many famous moments, faded movie star Norma Desmond describes herself as bigger than the movies (“I am big; it’s the pictures that got small.”). In similar fashion, “Sunset Boulevard” refuses the limited confines of simpler film-making.

Though Gillis is technically the film’s main character, it is Desmond who serves as the crux of the film’s intrigue.  In a masterstroke of casting, she is played with magnificence by Gloria Swanson, who, like the character herself, was a largely forgotten star from Hollywood’s silent era.  She lurks about her empty palace of a home with a purposeless grandiloquence that would be downright hilarious if it weren’t absolutely tragic.  Her every gesture and word is a performance for an audience that exists nowhere for her but in her own imagination.  The character is one part Charles Dickens’s Miss Havisham (who is referenced early in the film), one part Orson Welles’s Charles Foster Kane, and one part Swanson herself; she is as compelling to witness as all three put together.  Swanson is exactly as over-the-top as she needs to be while portraying a psychopath who knows of no other way to hide her shattered self-esteem than with pretension and egomania.  When watching her, one wonders where Desmond ends and Swanson begins, and vice versa; that’s what acting is supposed to be.

Incidentally, Swanson isn’t the only major figure of the silent cinema to show up.  Cecil B. DeMille and Buster Keaton actually play themselves while Erich von Stroheim is chilling as Max, Desmond’s former director and ex-husband, who has been reduced to a doting manservant.

What I Didn’t Like

Where the character of Desmond completely destroys and rebuilds the cliché evil dame of noir film, main character Joe Gillis (played by William Holden) is the noir cliché incarnate.  Granted, he does famously start our film as a corpse floating in face-down in a pool and that’s a pretty good jumping off point for any movie, but beyond that the guy is pretty much a bore.  Perhaps he was written so blank so that the audience can easily insert themselves into Gillis in order to properly experience Desmond in all her pathetic glory through his eyes.  Either way, as the dead man told his tale, I found myself impatient for the part where he goes for that final, bullet-riddled swim.

Most Memorable Scene

As the film was drawing to its close, I began thinking of several key moments that had the potential to stick with me the most and be recognized in this part of my entry.  Then came the closing minute, which not only features what is easily the most famous line of the film but also gives us the inevitable completion to Desmond’s psychological collapse.  She looks straight at us – that audience she and only she has been aware of all along – as horrifically mesmerizing as Medusa.  She leers at us, lures us, and scoffs at us in a matter of seconds and we’re reminded of an earlier line in the film, “We didn’t need dialogue.  We had faces!”  Then, stepping even closer until we have nothing to look at but her, she utters those final, unsettling words, “All right, Mr. DeMille, I’m ready for my close-up.”  With that, we know now there is no escape from the madness; not for Desmond and not for ourselves.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

HIS GIRL FRIDAY (1940)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Howard Hawks

Cast: Rosalind Russell / Cary Grant / Ralph Bellamy

Plot

After months abroad, star reporter Hildy Johnson returns to the Morning Post office and editor Walter Burns, who also happens to be her ex-husband, to announce her engagement and intent to live as a suburban housewife.  Walter subsequently uses all of his considerable connections and guile to lure Johnson back into the newspaper game.

What I Liked

“His Girl Friday” is a mainstream screwball comedy with a subversive tinge that adds to its continued appeal.  Typewriter-like rat-a-tat-tat banter between tough-talking urbanites of the opposing sexes is, above all else, the trademark of screwball comedy and there is perhaps more of that here than in any other example of the subgenre that I’ve ever seen.  Reporters Johnson (Rosalind Russell) and Burns (Cary Grant), along with the rest of their hard-boiled ilk, fire off one liners as fast as is humanly possible.  However, if one is able to concentrate hard enough to get beyond the tough talking dialogue, one finds comedy of a different kind: satire. 

The filmmakers did a decent job of constructing a not-so-thinly veiled send-up of the rampant political corruption in local New York politics, with virtually every civic authority presented as a combination of bumbling, pompous, and crooked in varying degrees, depending on the character.  Reference to political figures and problems of the era from the local (ward politicians) to the international (Hitler) are peppered through the dialogue and are strongly present in the sub-plot of a condemned man about to hang in order to serve the aspirations of a political machine as election day draws near.

There is also a much subtler twinge of sexual politics in the film.  “His Girl Friday” has been referred to by some as a feminist film; this exaggerates the case a bit.  Hildy Johnson, despite being a career woman, has clearly never been more than the titular “Girl Friday” to her boss, who also happens to have been her husband until recently.  Though she does spends much of the film operating on her own, in her life overall she seems unable to function without a man guiding her ambitions.  Still, compared to most female film characters of the day, Hildy is certainly a progressive woman.  Temporarily lured by the social pressure to conform to society’s dictation that she must be a married mother serving a dull husband in a safe career, she eventually realizes this is not who she is, nor who she wants to be, and returns to her true passion, being a “newspaper man.”  There are also a few jokes referring to the liberal-minded woman enjoying pre-marital romps with men.  They're uttered so quickly that they pass almost without notice.  But if you pay attention they're there.

What I Didn’t Like

Despite these leanings to social commentary, all in all “His Girl Friday” is a disappointingly typical comedy for its period.  There is nothing original nor dazzlingly entertaining here.  The plot and dialogue trudge out many of the same old comedy-of-the-sexes clichés we’re used to from other films of the era and does very little new with those dynamics.  Many have praised Russell and Grant for their performances but honestly, while a certain comradery did come across, I felt no sexual tension between the pair and really felt like both just phoned in their performances.  They memorized their lines and shouted them out over each other as fast as they could.  Grant makes a few funny faces, Russell rolls her eyes.  That’s about the extent of it.

Most Memorable Scene

The best scene of the film had neither the film’s leading man or leading lady in it at all.  It actually opens with the Sheriff and Mayor plotting their next move with an impending scandal about to hit just before the election.  Veteran character actor Billy Gilbert enters through a door steals the scene while playing a dim-witted runner for the Governor.  The efforts of the Mayor to subsequently corrupt the unwitting Gilbert’s character, Mr. Pettibone, into betraying the Governor and aiding the local political machine are hilariously futile as Pettibone is simply too oblivious to be anything but honest.  The satire is poignant, the absurdity hilarious, and Gilbert gets the more laughs than everyone else in the film combined.

My Rating: 3.5 out 5

THE MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA (1929)

A.K.A.: Chelovek s kino-apparatom

Country: U.S.S.R.

Genre(s): Art Film / Documentary / Propaganda

Director: Dziga Vertov

Cast: Mikhail  Kaufman

Plot

There is no plot to speak of in this film.  It is primarily a collection of candid moments from the lives of everyday people in the Soviet Union of the period.

What I Liked

Having read that this film was mostly an aesthetic and political statement by its makers without a storyline of any kind, I have deliberately avoided watching this film for a while, figuring I would find it dated, pretentious, and boring.  However, while watching it, I was surprised how well this film kept my attention.  Thrilling, it wasn’t.  Yet two elements kept the film at the very least watchable and at times even interesting. 

First, the movie documents the typical minutiae of daily life nearly a century ago, capturing real people in private and everyday moments that would otherwise be ignored by most artists, storytellers, and filmmakers.  Thus it is a compelling and gorgeous historical document of the ways in which people from that time in place lived differently from today, and also the ways in which they were very much the same.  At the movie’s outset, the title cards express the filmmakers’ goal of establishing the cinema as a universal human language.  To do so, they showed the world how beautiful human beings, particularly the working class, were in both their day-to-day activities, their physical forms, and their industrial endeavors.  The filmmakers succeeded surprisingly well in their goal, considering that that beauty remains visible 87 years after it was first put to celluloid.

The second way in which the film remains interesting was through its technical achievements.  This film is as much a tribute to film and filmmakers as it is to mankind in general.  Thus director Dziga Vertov and his wife/editor Elizaveta Svilova assembled pretty much every special effect and technical approach in existence to that point in motion picture history: stop-motion photography, time lapse, double exposure, freeze frame, split screen, and so on.  It must have been pretty astonishing stuff for audiences of the day.  Even today, a first time viewer won’t know what to expect next from one moment to another, even if we are familiar with all of the techniques involved.  Svilova edited the film so that scenes that otherwise seem completely unrelated are juxtaposed against one another in ways that emphasize their hidden similarities.  That the cutting back and forth between these images happens at a frenetic pace helps keep the eye busy, preventing boredom, and really predicting (maybe even influencing?) the more recent filmmaking techniques of men like Guy Ritchie or Darren Aronofsky.

What I Disliked

Even after taking all of the above into consideration, “The Man with a Movie Camera” really was nothing more than a curiosity from a bygone era for me.  Nothing about the movie really moved me emotionally, nor did it provide any significant intellectual revelation.  It certainly didn’t approach anything resembling entertainment, either.  All in all, while I can respect what the filmmakers accomplished, it doesn’t mean I’ll be watching this movie a second time.

Most Memorable Scene

Because this film lacked any conventional scenes or plot structure, it is impossible to describe a scene that sticks out the most.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

GLADIATOR (2000)

Country: U.S.A. / U.K.

Genre(s): Action / Adventure / Epic

Director: Ridley Scott

Cast: Russell Crowe / Joaquin Phoenix / Connie Nielsen

Plot

Maximus, General of Ancient Rome, is betrayed by the newly crowned Emperor Commodus, who murders his family and forces him into hiding.  Living as a slave and then as a gladiator, Maximus returns to Rome to exact vengeance.

What I Liked

The emperors of Ancient Rome liked to keep the masses placated with mindless bloodshed in the various arenas throughout their Empire.  Inevitably, as time passed, the emperors would have to continually top themselves and each other in decorating this bloodshed with increasingly lavish productions, replete with sets, live animals, mock sea battles, and –of course- more and more bloodshed, so as to prevent the audiences from growing desensitized and bored.  In some ways, “Gladiator” can be said to be a worthy product of that tradition as it has continued through the millennia to today’s popular cinema.  It is nothing, if not a two and a half hour visual spectacle with monumental production values.

I chose the word “monumental” because the plentiful set pieces and visual effects continue to be convincing and dazzling, despite the rapid advancements of filmmaking technology which have produced increasingly jaded audiences over these past fifteen years.  From the cinematography of the early scenes documenting Maximus’ escape from Commodus’ forces to his time as a slave in a far off land, along with the magnificent CGI effects that revive the awe of Ancient Rome, remain as gorgeous as they are convincing.

What I Didn’t Like

[Ancient Rome is probably my favorite period of world history and I’ve done my fair share of reading no the subject, but I’m going to resist the temptation to point out all of this movie’s historical flaws, out of respect for creative license and recognizing that it is a work of historic fiction.]

The marvelous display serves as a terrific distraction from what are ultimately generic characters populating a bare-bones story.  Our good guy, wronged in the worst way and fighting his way up form nothing, is the ultimate underdog who, armed with nothing but his manly stoicism and brute force, triumphs (spoiler?) over a suitably whiny and effeminate bad guy.  Actors Russell Crowe and Joaquin Phoenix are at least suitable in their bare-bones roles as good guy and bad guy, respectively.  It could even be argued that an escapist epic like this shouldn’t bother with moral complexities or underlying themes about society, power, or life; yet it is still obvious that the filmmakers didn’t put half the attention to detail into writing their movie that they did into actually producing it.

Ultimately, “Gladiator” failed to pull at my heart-strings or inspire me in even the slightest way.  This was the second time I’ve seen the movie and I admit I was still thoroughly impressed by the majesty of its visuals, but on an emotional level I was completely unmoved.  This film was a mega-hit upon its release, but today I don’t really hear many people talking about this one when the topic of great movies comes up anymore.  I think that’s because, while it’s certainly worth seeing at least once for the sheer visual power, a second viewing is entirely unnecessary because there is very little to enjoy once one gets over the “wow” of the initial spectacle.

Most Memorable Scene

For a lot of people I’m sure that the multiple scenes of gladiatorial combat that takes place in the second half of the movie are the most memorable, which makes sense, considering the title, as well as the fact that these scenes amount to the dramatic climax of the films plot.  Not to mention the sheer scope of what the filmmakers accomplished technically in pulling those scenes off.  They are truly technical masterpieces.

However, when I think of “Gladiator,” the scene that most often comes to mind is the moments preceding the opening battle between the Roman legions, with Maximus at the fore, and the enemy barbarians.  I’ve been thinking about why that is and haven’t yet come up with a satisfactory answer, but it’s the truth.  Those moments with Maximus and his men preparing for battle just stand out and maybe that’s all there is to it.  There’s not another moment in the rest of the two-and-a-half hours that makes use of silence and suspense over pomp and violence.

My Rating: 3 out of 5