OUR HOSPITALITY (1923)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: John Blystone / Buster Keaton

Cast: Buster Keaton / Natalie Talmadge / Joe Roberts

Plot

 Sent to New York as a baby to escape a bloody family feud, a young man returns to his family home in the South years later only to find himself a guest in the home of the very family who killed his father.

What I Liked

Buster Keaton makes fun of the hypocritical nature of personal and familial pride and honor in the aptly named “Our Hospitality,” showing that while honor can demand certain politeness it also can lead to senseless violence.  The title comes from a line uttered by Joe Roberts’ character (“He’ll never forget our hospitality!”) when he learns that his daughter will be bringing a suitor to supper.  When he and his sons subsequently learn that this suitor (Keaton) is in fact the last living member of a rival family, that famous Southern hospitality becomes a constant obstacle in the way of murder.  The irony then becomes that the suitor will of course never forget the family’s constant attempts to shoot him dead.

The emptiness of all the manners and pleasantries is of course the source of most of the humor in the film.  The two families involved are named the Canfields and McKays, a play on the infamous Hatfields and McCoys who carried out a bloody multi-generational vendetta in the nineteenth century.  The absurdity of both the violence and the gentility reach a climax when the Canfields try to force Keaton outside of their home so that decorum will no longer prevent them from shooting him dead.  Keaton resorts to every conceivable ploy and trick to delay this fate, resulting in some wonderfully awkward moments.

As you might be able to tell from my comments above, the funniest moments of the film really come from the satire involved and not the great stunts and slapstick for which Keaton is also famous.  There are, however, plenty of physical gags and sight gags to be had.  It’s just that the social satire is really what makes “Our Hospitality” stand out from other silent comedies.

What I Disliked

While there are some truly creative and funny moments here, in general I found this film relatively dull and, for most of its length, unfunny.  Most of the silliness and goofiness on screen just has not aged well and no longer translate to laughs for a modern viewer.  It could be said that this is a fault of the viewer and not the film, and such an assumption would be correct, as it is always best to view a film within the constraints of its time and place.  However, the best movies have a universality that can transcend both time and place.  The truth is that, with a few exceptional scenes, the majority “Our Hospitality” – particularly the first half hour – fails as entertainment for today’s jaded eyes.

Most Memorable Scene

About a quarter of the film’s length concerns the southbound travels of Keaton’s character as a passenger aboard what might be the most unusual train in film history.  About the most rickety form of mass transit you can imagine, the train and its charm are impossible to describe in words.  To be honest, the physical gags that ensue on this train ride just don’t hold up any longer.  Even without many laughs, the sheer creativity, production values, and art of the effects, the stunts, and the camera work are unforgettable.

My Rating: 2.5 out of 5

BRAVEHEART (1995)

Country: U.S.A.

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

Director: Mel Gibson

Cast: Mel Gibson / Angus MacFadyen / Patrick McGoohan

Plot

Scottish commoner William Wallace rallies his people in rebellion against the tyranny of English King Edward I.

What I Liked

One would be hard-pressed to find a movie as inspirational as “Braveheart.”  From its few versus the many plot, unforgettable dialogue, and rousing battle scenes to its stirring romance, visceral violence, and gorgeous cinematography, the film refreshes the passion to be found in the simplicity of a standard good versus evil conflict.

Marvelously acted, every character is portrayed exactly as heroic, mad, soulful, dastardly, or cowardly as he or she needs to be.  In short, the actors, director, and screenwriter have given us characters that we can’t help but root for or against with unselfconscious enthusiasm.

Though its notoriously graphic violence might render it difficult to watch for some, it is nonetheless one of those fantastic films with something for everyone, providing the perfect amount of cheers and tears to satisfy every kind of viewer.

What I Disliked

“Braveheart” does rely on certain conventions and stereotypes as a means of inspiring love, awe, and derision from its audience.  Easily discernible among these is the portrayal of King Edward’s son, who, it is strongly insinuated, is gay.  It is true that the historic Edward II was widely rumored to be homosexual or bisexual.  However, the Edward portrayed in this movie is self-centered and weak, both of which are assumed to be byproducts of his sexuality.  It is a less than creative approach relying on age-old misconceptions.  Just because someone is gay does not of course mean they are automatically weak or selfish.  Of course, it is also true that someone being gay doesn’t preclude them from being those things either.  So there’s no way of telling for sure if the filmmakers are in this case horribly prejudice or just lazy.  Either way, none of this gets in the way of the film’s entertainment value at all.

That screenwriter Randall Wallace and director Mel Gibson took poetic license with the historical facts of the William Wallace story is like saying a Superman comic book takes liberties with scientific facts; which is to say that the factual errors are egregious and often ridiculous.  But, as with the Superman comic, who the hell cares?  If you want just the facts, go to the library and do the research.  The rest of us will be having a great time watching one of film history’s most powerful adventure stories.

Most Memorable Scene
*spoiler alert*

The hard-to-watch depiction of William Wallace’s final moments on Earth are something of an emotional microcosm of the whole film.  There are moments of profound sadness, anger, respect, exultation, and love, all crammed into a few minutes of on-screen torture.  That so much feeling pervades this scene is really a tribute to the overall impact of experiencing this film as a whole.

My Rating: 5 out of 5

TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT (1944)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Howard Hawks

Cast: Humphrey Bogart / Lauren Bacall / Walter Brennan

Plot

A fishing boat captain in Nazi-occupied Martinique becomes a transport-for-hire for the French resistance.

What I Liked

Virtually every review of “To Have and Have Not” has included comparisons to what might be called its better known older sibling, “Casablanca.”  Like that earlier Bogart picture, this one takes place in Nazi-occupied territory and has Bogie reluctantly betraying his very healthy sense of self-preservation for the resistance.  Though it lacks some of the more romantic and flamboyant emotional content of “Casablanca,” the filmmakers found a very unique blend of politics, adventure, sex, and human drama that earns “To Have and Have Not” the right to be viewed and judged on its own significant merits.

For starters, “To Have and Have Not” is responsible for more than one remarkable pairing.  First off, the script was written by the most outstanding American novelists of the era, Ernest Hemingway and William Faulkner.  It is therefore not surprising that this film is a dialogue heavy adaptation (a very loose one) of Hemingway’s novel of the same name.

The team-up of Hemingway and Faulkner, astonishingly enough, is overshadowed by the first meeting of perhaps Hollywood’s most iconic acting couple, Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall.  As a matter of fact, this film marks Bacall’s film debut, and what a debut it is!  She was no older than nineteen when this movie was filmed, yet she takes on her character with the confidence of a screen veteran.  Indeed, she is perhaps the only actor, male or female, to ever out-cool Mr. Cool himself, Bogart.  There are several scenes where her innate sultriness and uniquely feminine bravado outshine Bogart.  Bogie and Bacall met on the set of this film and the mix of mutual respect and sexual tension is a potent brew that simmers and sizzles in each and every scene they have together, like the matches they keep lighting for each other.

I'm not usually one for gratuitous musical numbers in an otherwise serious film, but my enjoyment for this one was accented by some wonderfully laid back musical interludes from one of America's greatest pop song writers, Hoagy Carmichael.

What I Disliked

For those who are familiar with Bogart through "The African Queen," or "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre," this one might be a little slower than they would expect.  There are a few bursts of violence here and there, but as a whole this film is mostly dialogue, a deliberately paced drama disguised as an international adventure.

There are a couple of characters in this movie that just bugged me.  Walter Brennan was by this point a veteran of playing goofy old coots and naïve sidekicks.  His character Eddie in “To Have and Have Not” is both, as well as a far-from-functioning alcoholic.  In typical old movie style, the drunk is portrayed as a loveable fool whose addiction, memory loss, crooked walk, and slurred speech are portrayed as endearing.  Maybe I’m being overly cynical here, but anyone who has ever known a real alcoholic knows they are neither loveable nor endearing.

The film’s greatest weakness is its lack of an interesting villain.  The head bad guy in this film is a plump foreigner with a beret played by Dan Seymour, who plays the character with all the menace of Dom DeLuise.  Consequently, what should have been some of the most tense moments of the film seem to fall flat and would have been downright pointless without the chemistry between Bogart and Bacall to liven them up.

Most Memorable Scene

For enjoyable flirtation and innuendo in a classic Hollywood film, you can’t get much better than the moments when Bogie and Bacall are alone together in their hotel rooms.  Of these, the one where the future real-life married couple share their first kiss on screen can’t help but bring a smile to the face.  Nearly the entire scene is coy banter and sexual tension, foreplay for the pair of kisses that follow.  Following the second kiss, Bacall’s sultry sexuality reached full maturity and she’s now in control of the moment, closing it out with sexiest exiting-a-room dialogue ever uttered.  The film’s in black and white and you can still see Bogie blush.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

THE ASPHALT JUNGLE (1950)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime / Drama

Director: John Huston

Cast: Sterling Hayden / Sam Jaffe / Louis Calhern

Plot

A group of professional criminals plot a massive jewel heist.

What I Liked

*spoiler alert*

“The Asphalt Jungle” takes on its subject with a matter-of-fact straightforwardness that was quite edgy for its time.  There is not one iota of the hokey “ripped from the headlines” moralizing to be found in earlier films like “Scarface” yet neither is crime glorified or idealized in any way whatsoever.  Every prominent character in this heist film is a crook and not the stylish, suave George Clooney of “Ocean’s Eleven.”  These are gutter low-lifes, compromised policemen, and white collar hypocrites with no more than a handful of redeeming qualities between all of them.  The filmmakers make no attempt to create a sympathetic backstory for one of them or try to show them as adhering to some imaginary thieves’ code of honor.  What we are given is a bunch of scoundrels as quick to betray each other as anyone else.  It’s a hard-boiled approach that produces a stronger sense of authenticity than most of the crime movies that preceded it.

They may not be heroic characters, but they are well developed ones.  In fact, the ability for this film to produce such strongly unique characters and balance them all effectively within just a two hour span was quite impressive.  I was intrigued by the fact that each of these characters carries with him his own baggage into the film, his own set of insecurities, ticks, and secret desires that motivates him to embark upon this greedy, risky endeavor.  Those weaknesses inform virtually all of their actions throughout the film and, like a great tragedy, eventually lead to their individual defeats.  Of course, “Asphalt Jungle” is no tragedy.  Tragedy implies the ruin of potential, a squandered beauty.  There is no potential or beauty in these men and their various ends are less a matter of tragedy than justice.

The moral, psychological, and plot complexity of “The Asphalt Jungle” make it a very modern movie.  As such, its influence can be seen in elements of a great many films, with “The Godfather,” “Goodfellas,” “The Usual Suspects,” “Pulp Fiction,” and “Jackie Brown” coming most immediately to mind.

What I Disliked

Sterling Hayden just isn’t a good actor.  I felt the same way about his performance as Captain McClusky in “The Godfather.”  In face and body, he looks the part; I’ll give him that.  But when he speaks his lines, his delivery is as though he still has the script in his hand and is reading them for the first time.  His physical performance is equally as clumsy, each movie or gesture seeming memorized more than natural.  In one scene where he is injured and desperately trying to walk, the poignant moment is made almost comic by his silly clumsiness.  It should be noted, however, that most of the rest of the cast bring remarkable believability and complexity to their roles.

Most Memorable Scene

*spoiler alert*

In contrast to Hayden, Louis Calhern is remarkably natural and believable in virtually any role I’ve ever seen him in.  He’s one of those character actors that can really steal a film from its star.  His performance artfully hints at the rampant insecurities beneath the outward charm of slimy lawyer Mr. Emmerick, which helps to make the scene of Mr. Emmerick’s destruction as compelling as it is inevitable.  Of course, it doesn’t hurt that a young and shimmering Marilyn Monroe is given amble screen time in this scene, providing a different kind of cinematic intrigue altogether.

My Rating: 4.5 out of 5

PARADISE NOW (2005)

Country: Occupied Palestinian Territory

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Haby Abu-Assad

Cast: Kais Nashef / Ali Suliman / Lubna Azabal

Plot

Two best friends, Said and Khaled, from the West Bank are chosen for a suicide bombing mission in Tel Aviv.

What I Liked

For someone separated by thousands of miles from – and only marginally familiar with – the conflicts and history of what has been happening in the areas of the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, and Israel, “Paradise Now” puts a very human face to the area, its people, and its troubles.  The television news reports, newspaper articles, and history books covering the region usually fall into one of two categories: biased or, completely the opposite, detached.  Obviously neither approach works toward communicating or resolving the complex issues at work.  The makers of “Paradise Now” take a completely different route by focusing on the human origins, passions, perspectives, actions, and tragedies that really lie at the heart of not just the Israeli-Palestinian conflict but all group armed conflict.  Most importantly, they do so without passing judgment as to whether one side is more right than the other.  Instead, the film points out the loss experienced by all.  “Paradise Now” is absolutely and incontrovertibly a call for peace, but not one that seeks to preach or vilify.

That human cost is nowhere more evident than on the faces of each and every one of the fine actors involved in the film.  Kais Nashef brings fascinating pathos to Said and Ali Suliman endows Khaled with the heroic passion and fidelity.  The supporting cast members are all just as convincing in their own roles, each of whom illustrates the heartbreak of it all in a unique and important way.

Outside of the characters and the acting, the films other strength is in illustrating the physical separation between the West Bank and Israel.  Shot on location, military road blocks and towering fences are constants throughout the story and are the most obvious illustration of the barriers.  However, there is also the obvious cultural and economic differences, poignant because of their striking dissimilarity, despite such close geographical proximity.  Though it is never overtly stated, there is the real sense that all these barriers do more to heighten rather than lessen the danger of the region. 

What I Disliked

While this is a film I think everyone would benefit from seeing, I can’t guarantee that this is a film everyone will enjoy.  In case you haven’t picked up on it yet, “Paradise Now” is a tale of cyclic violence and tragedy.  As a result, nearly every moment of the film carries a palpable sense of unavoidable despair that is not only appropriate but necessary, considering the subject matter.  Don’t wait for any let up in the turmoil, because it only gets more intense as the film moves along.

Most Memorable Scene

The film’s final minute or so is accompanied by silence and yet is absolutely the most emotionally chaotic moment of the film.  Dread, anticipation, disbelief, fear, hope, anguish, respect, disgust, disappointment, and acceptance all explode into the viewer’s mind in a matter of seconds.  The effect is dizzying but also riveting.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

THE WAR GAME (1965)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Documentary / Science Fiction / War

Director: Peter Watkins

Cast: Michael Aspel / Peter Graham

Plot

Following a Soviet nuclear attack, England deals with death, devastation, chaos, and disease.

What I Liked

A hard to categorize film chronicling the results of an imagined nuclear war based on scientific facts and conjecture, “The War Game” does not follow standard dramatic structure but instead presents itself as something between either a school documentary or a television report.  There’s not much to enjoy about this movie, but of course that’s not the point.  Made at the height of the cold war, this is both a warning of the destructive power mankind has unleashed upon itself and an expose of just how poorly prepared the British were for such an event, should it happen.

There is running commentary throughout the film’s length, part of it giving true facts about international politics, the dangers of nuclear war, and the British disaster plan in place for possible nuclear war.  The other part concerns description of the fictional events acted out before the camera, a supposition of exactly how the horrors would unfold.  There are also interviews with the English public, some apparently real and others staged.  The obvious intention of acting out all the trauma of a potential nuclear attack is to bring the threat to life for the British people, have them witness the piles of bodies, the break-down of government, the onset of disease, and the destructive firestorms in their own cities.  Many of the sights remain teeth-grittingly disturbing today, particularly those portraying the deformed, maimed, or psychologically traumatized survivors.

What I Disliked

While the scenes chronicling the post-attack events are indeed chilling, from what I’ve read on the bombs that went off in Hiroshima, they still do not account for the true gore and annihilation of nuclear attack with sufficient visual accuracy.  Still, these are better done than the rather hokey depiction of what happens during the blast itself.  While the commentating accurately describes what would happen, the scenes on screen are obviously staged and the special effects unconvincing.  They make the blast seem more like a very bright flash followed by a mediocre earth quake.  One scene has a family hiding under a small table in their kitchen while the house shakes and a tea cup falls to the floor and shatters.  It doesn’t exactly drive the truth home with the same level of intensity as the later scenes concerning the aftermath.

Most Memorable Scene

Toward the close of the film, we see homeless survivors huddled together in a mass, many of them with scarred and burned faces, still others with mangled or disfigured limbs.  All appear without hope, love, or faith.  They are clearly starving, thirsty, sick, and in some cases on death’s doorstep.  They look into the camera accusingly, staring back through the TV screen at the viewers who have the opportunity to avoid such a catastrophe.  This is the most moving part of the film, the human cost.  For, as the film points out earlier, quoting Nikita Khruschev without giving him credit, “The survivors would envy the dead.”

My Rating: 3 out of 5

SUPERFLY (1972)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Crime

Director: Gordon Parks, Jr.

Cast: Ron O’Neal / Carl Lee / Sheila Frazier

Plot

Drug dealer Youngblood Priest finds it’s time for him to get out of the game while he’s still alive and looks to pull off the million dollar deal that will help him get a fresh start.

What I Liked

Before I get into the details of the filmmaking, I have to hit on what ultimately is the strongest element of its film, the soundtrack.  Composed and performed by Curtis Mayfield, the “Superfly” soundtrack is one of the stand-out soul/funk classics of the 1970s and really one of the most iconic film soundtracks of the last half century.  Songs like the title track, “Freddie’s Dead” and “Pusherman” play virtually non-stop through the film, the smooth bass lines, wah-wah guitar, and Mayfield’s immaculate falsetto providing the perfect backdrop to the stylish and sexy action on screen.

Soundtrack aside, “Superfly” has other strong points.  It may not have been the first of the “Blaxploitation” films to hit theaters in the early seventies, but in many ways it could be viewed as the most mature.  The exterior scenes in particular, shot on location in the slums of New York, give the film an almost documentary-like authenticity.  The hookers, pimps, junkies, gangsters, dealers, and vagrants we see meandering the sidewalks as Ron O’Neal’s Eldorado cruises down the street are clearly not Hollywood artifices but the real deal.

Speaking of that wonderfully resplendent Eldorado, it’s just one example of another interesting facet of the film.  When anti-hero Priest isn’t making his way through the dangers and betrayals of the hood, he is always quick to separate and insulate himself from the streets.  His car, his apartment, and the apartments of his lovely and loyal concubines, all seem of a different world entirely.  Stylish, clean, and decorated with the trappings of ghetto success, they have nothing in common with the dirty, viscous world just outside the door.  The film does a good job of presenting these two opposite environments as corresponding to the duality in the nature of Priest himself, who is cold-blooded and selfish as anyone else in the movie but has ambitions beyond the limitations to which others thoughtlessly adhere.

What I Disliked

For all of its protagonist’s ambitions, the film never really breaks out of the limitations one would expect from low-budget Blaxploitation fare.  Though there is a funky sense of style to much of the directing and filmmaking, the editing borders on butchery, at times causing some characters to mysteriously appear and reappear in the same scene. Most of the characters outside of Priest aren’t developed beyond the point of scene decoration anyway, so I suppose having them vanish without explanation isn’t too big of a loss.

What really disappoints is the pathetically fake and mild climactic fight scene.  Not only is this one of those scenes where people are there one second and not there the next, the punches miss their targets by a mile, the choreography is dull, and the violence cartoonish in a bad way.  Certainly a let-down of expectations from a film that had thus far been focused primarily on grit and style.

Most Memorable Scene

Really, any of the scenes where Priest navigates the streets of New York, wheeling and dealing with Curtis Mayfield’s infectious sounds in cool pursuit are what absolutely make this movie.  They’re shot without audible dialogue, just focusing on style and groove, and it works perfectly.

My Rating: 3 out of 5

HOOP DREAMS (1994)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Documentary

Director: Steve James

Cast: William Gates / Arthur Agee / Sheila Agee

Plot

Two talented inner city high school basketball players chase their ambitions to one day play in the National Basketball Association.

What I Liked

A powerful coming-of-age documentary but more than just that alone, “Hoop Dreams” also tackles everything from American racial and economic equality, celebrity worship, and education, among other social issues.  Perhaps most importantly, all of these themes are merely a backdrop to what amounts to an intimate and emotionally involving look at two young men and their families.  Part of what makes the movie so memorable are the real life characters involved and that some of their relationships and experiences are very relatable, no matter where or how you live.  You don’t need to be a basketball fan to find the movie interesting; your political leanings shouldn’t affect your ability to enjoy this movie; if you aren’t a documentary fan, you’ll find this one might change your mind; and living in a different country, or coming from a different background shouldn’t keep you from being moved by the sometimes painful, always honest depiction of family, ambition, and growing up.

Little about the scenes feel staged in this honest depiction of urban American life in the late twentieth century.  “Hoop Dreams” might be an excellent choice for a time capsule inclusion for those future anthropologists who might want an honest depiction of urban American life in the late twentieth century that is free of commercial or political propaganda.

What I Disliked

“Hoop Dreams” clocks in at 171 minutes.  At first glance, that length might be intimidating for some.  I know it was for me.  However, once I got about 40 or so minutes in and realized this wasn’t going to be just another “feel good” sports movie with a trite “follow your dreams” moral, I became supremely interested in how things would turn out for the film’s two likable protagonists.

Most Memorable Scene

Maybe half way through the picture, one of the young men in question, Arthur Agee watches silently as his father purchases drugs from some dealers on the basketball court.  Prior to this, there was little if any reference to the man using drugs.  He seemed a caring, sincere man.  To see him now as a junkie who openly buys drugs in front of his child is as shocking as it is disappointing. The presence of Arthur, who clearly feels pained and yet can only watch helplessly, only makes the moment that much more heart-wrenching.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

SCARFACE (1932)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Action / Crime

Director: Howard Hawks

Cast: Paul Muni / Ann Dvorak / George Raft

Plot

The bloody rise and fall of ruthless gangster Tony “Scarface” Camonte unfolds against the backdrop of prohibition era Chicago.

What I Liked

Legend has it that “Scarface” screenwriter Ben Hecht was visited late one night by some unsavory looking characters who wanted to know exactly what the script he was writing was all about.  They had heard about the title and virtually everyone in American then knew that there was a real life gangster out there who went by that nickname, none other than Chicago boss Al Capone.  As the opening text of the film suggests, much of Hecht’s script was based on real life events (such as the assassination of Capone’s predecessor, the war with Irish gangsters for control of the city’s bootlegging, and a definitive depiction of the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre).  Capone’s men needed to make sure that the life on screen didn’t match the life of their boss too closely.  Hecht apparently assured them it wouldn’t and the result is the most spastic and violent of the spate of high profile gangster films made in the 1930s.

Paul Muni is flamboyantly rambunctious and unhinged as the title character.  Some may say he’s overplaying it, but I think his intention was to portray the character as childlike in his unpredictability and his love of violence.  The supporting cast is more than adequate.  Ann Dvorak plays Camonte’s sister, as wild and passionate as her brother but with more sultry dance moves.  Boris Karloff has a few choice scenes as Gaffney, bootlegging king of Chicago’s North Side.  Camonte’s sidekick is played by George Raft, who grew up on the streets of New York in the same neighborhood as world famous gangsters Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel and knew both well.  He based his performance on the real life characters who were his boyhood chums.

Acting aside, it is the overall rapid-fire energy of the movie that really leaves the most lasting impression.  Just like its main character, the film seems to be unhinged with excitement, from the rowdy arguments, to the raucous jazz music, to the roar of machine gun fire.  Claiming to be a condemnation of gangsterism, it is instead a tour de force of exploitation, embracing the fascinating lunacy of its villain and his “The World is Yours” lifestyle.

What I Disliked

As can be insinuated from the above, “Scarface” makes no attempts at subtlty, not in the script, the directing, the action, or the acting.  Some have made attempts to compare it to mythology and Shakespeare, but in truth it is merely 93 fast-paced minutes of pure entertainment value with very little substance underneath.  Not that there’s anything wrong with well-executed entertainment, but those looking for art, soul, and philosophy should look elsewhere.

Most Memorable Scene

Vince Barnett may play a horrible Italian American stereotype as the language-challenged Angelo, Camonte’s inept secretary, but he is nonetheless hilarious as the film's comic relief.   The scenes where Camonte tries to teach him how to answer the phone properly and Angelo does his absolute best to a fault are terrific comedy, stereotypes aside.  They bring some light-heartedness to an otherwise intensely cynical crime movie.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

DINER (1982)

Country: U.S.A.

Genre(s): Comedy

Director: Barry Levinson

Cast: Mickey Rourke / Steve Guttenberg / Daniel Stern

Plot

As the 1950s come to a close, a group of twenty-something young men must come to grips with the onset of adulthood.

What I Liked

With a story in the nostalgic-baby-boomers mold of “American Graffiti” and “The Big Chill,” “Diner” seems a little less of an idealized fairy tale than “American Graffiti” but remains more light-hearted than the “Big Chill.”  It has plenty of sentimentality for bygone youth, yet never resorts to the kind of aww shucks innocence that would make the audience disbelieve the characters or events.  The characters here have real problems ranging from sexual insecurity, alcoholism, and unexpected pregnancy, problems that the script deals with honestly, never simplifying or sugar-coating.  These conflicts are brought to life by remarkable performances from all of the male and female leads.  What we have here is a lament for bygone youth and freedom that still manages to recognize the need for moving on, for adult responsibility, and for accepting the future.  It’s no Norman Rockwell painting in bobby socks, but rather its own unique brand of neurotic Americana.

What I Disliked

Contradicting to what I described above, I would have to say that the closing scenes definitely flirted with a little too much sappy sentimentality.  This film shouldn't have ended with everyone smiling and a young couple going on a romantic horseback ride.  It’s a little too much hokum for what had until that point been a refreshingly honest 1950s period piece.

Most Memorable Scene

For me, the part where Daniel Stern’s character raves to his wife about the necessity to keep his music collection meticulously organized and about how important these vinyl friends are to him was frighteningly relatable.  It is also a stand-out example of the overall theme of the movie, a grown man’s obsessive preservation of the material representation of his youth and how his wife has come to represent adulthood's invasion of that youth.

My Rating: 4 out of 5

BLACK NARCISSUS (1946)

Country: U.K.

Genre(s): Drama

Director: Michael Powell / Emeric Pressburger

Cast: Deborah Kerr / David Farrar / Kathleen Byron

Plot

Catholic nuns travel to the Himalayas to convert the local villagers, but find that instead it is their faiths that are put to the test.

What I Liked

As “Black Narcissus” progresses, the most admirable thing about the film becomes the filmmakers’ extraordinary use of light and color to accent the emotions of the movie.  Indeed nearly every shot has the appearance of a painted masterpiece.  Of course, much of the natural backdrops are in fact paintings.  However, those are not the masterpieces to which I refer.  The most astonishing visuals are those that happen in and around the palace which the nuns have converted into a convent.  The sun and moon light coming through the ornate windows, the flickering candle light on the walls, and the colorful, erotic murals on those walls all suggest a taboo elegance and sensuousness, functioning as the lifeblood of the film.

Deborah Kerr and Kathleen Byron both give mature, fleshed-out performances as two nuns at odds with each other, each secretly struggling with her own passions and desires.  Kerr’s austere Sister Clodagh cannot hide the gentleness and soulfulness that shines from her radiant eyes.  While Byron portrays an emotionally fragile, romantically obsessed Sister Ruth, her face constantly contorted in the agonies of confusion, jealousy, and lust.  Though the cast features several other stars of the day, including an exquisitely feral Jean Simmons, it is the character development embodied in Kerr and Byron that is the source of the films drama.

What I Didn’t Like

Maybe I just wasn’t as in the mood for a movie as I initially thought myself to be, but it took me some time to get involved in this film.  It took me a long time to get emotionally invested in the characters and their mission.  However, once I began to take notice of the beautiful cinematography and the changes in sisters Clodagh and Ruth, I did become more engaged, particularly as the plot moved toward it’s highly suspenseful climax.

Most Memorable Scene

That climax plays out like the closing to an excellent horror film, as Sister Ruth stalks Sister Clodagh through the palace.  Sister Clodagh knows she is in great danger but refuses to abandon her duties to God, the village, and her fellow nuns, a potential martyr.  Byron is particularly devastating here as Sister Ruth, darting and jumping through the shadows and shafts of light like a cat, her eyes pulsating with madness.

My Rating: 3.5 out of 5